Floor Statements

Mr. President, I have the rare opportunity today to introduce and say a few words about the guest Chaplain. Reverend Chaney has just delivered, as usual, an eloquent invocation.

Reverend Chaney is originally from South Carolina, but for the last 2 years he has led the flock of the Second Baptist Church in Las Vegas, one of the oldest, extremely well-established, and largest churches in Las Vegas, NV. He is a man who is involved in the community very deeply. He serves on the board of the Urban League and the NAACP.

In addition to his service in the spiritual realm, he has also served as a patriot in our Nation's armed services. He served in the Navy for 4 years, as has our Chaplain, Dr. Barry Black. They were both naval officers. Reverend Chaney recently retired as chaplain of the U.S. Air Force Reserve at Nellis Air Force Base.

I have met with Reverend Chaney under very unique circumstances on a number of occasions. He is a wonderful human being. He is one of those rare people who have such a pleasant demeanor. The minute a person meets him, they know he is a man of great substance and spiritual quality. So I am very happy to welcome Reverend Chaney and his wife Avis to Washington.

I thank the pastor for the inspiring invocation, which I hope will guide the Senate's action today.

Mr. President, following leader remarks, the Senate will resume consideration of S. 1619, the China currency legislation. The deadline for second-degree amendments to that legislation is at 10 a.m. this morning. At 10:30, there will be a rollcall vote on the motion to invoke cloture on S. 1619.

Mr. President, I am told that S. 1660 is at the desk and due for a second reading.

Mr. President, I object to any further proceedings with respect to this legislation.

I note the absence of a quorum.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, this morning the Senate will hold a vote to advance legislation to end the underhanded practice of currency manipulation by the Chinese Government. This practice gives Chinese exports a tremendously unfair advantage over all the global markets but especially the one with our relations with China. It hurts American manufacturers and cheats American workers out of jobs. This practice has helped balloon America's trade deficit with China from $10 billion to $273 billion in the last 20 years, costing upwards of 3 million jobs. Too many of those lost jobs came from the manufacturing sector alone, which can't compete as long as the Chinese Government gives its exports special advantages.

This legislation is a chance to even a tilted playing field, to pump $300 billion into our economy in 2 years, and support 1.6 million American jobs. That is why it has the support of labor unions and business groups. That is why it advanced with an overwhelming bipartisan vote on Monday. I believe there were 31 Republican votes on Monday.

I would remind my Republican colleagues that since the Senate began debate of this bill, China has made no move to correct the value of its currency. It is clear that merely considering congressional action will not solve this problem, so it is difficult for me to comprehend how people could be switching their votes from Monday to Thursday. We have offered to work with Republicans on an agreement to consider several germane amendments. I stand by that offer. We talked about that yesterday and, in fact, late last night. I repeat, more than 31 Republicans voted to advance this legislation earlier this week. So I am hopeful my colleagues on the other side will continue to work with us in a bipartisan fashion to advance this important job-creating legislation today.

I have indicated to the Republican leader that I have a meeting with three of my Senators at the White House at 5:30 this afternoon, so we either finish this bill if, in fact, cloture is invoked and we work out something on the amendments before 5:30 or we can come back tonight after the meeting at the White House or we can come back tomorrow, but we are going to complete work on this legislation before we leave, one way or the other. If cloture is not invoked, of course, that ends it, which I think would be a sad day for relations between China and the United States, to think we capitulated on something as important as this. But we are going to finish this legislation today. I would like to do it before 5:30. We have the Jewish holiday that starts tomorrow at 5:30--it is actually an hour or so after that, so 20 until 7, sundown. But, anyway, we are going to continue working on this legislation until we complete it one way or the other.

American Jobs Act

Early next week, the Senate will begin debate on the American Jobs Act, which will create jobs while asking every American to contribute his or her fair share. This legislation will put construction crews back to work building the things that make our country stronger: modern bridges, roads, dams, sewers, water systems, and up-to-date schools where our children can get the best education possible.

Free Trade

I have spent a lot of time with the Republican leader, knowing how strongly he and some other Members of the Senate feel about the Colombia trade bill, the Korea trade agreement, and Panama. In spite of my not feeling so strongly about these--I am not a big fan of these matters--I am doing my best to advance this so we can have a vote, hopefully as early as Wednesday of next week.

I move to reconsider and lay this matter on the table.

I note the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, if we could have the attention of the Senate, we are now 30 hours postcloture. What the Republican leader and I would like to do--there is, of course, with what has happened procedurally, no opportunity to offer amendments unless we agree to offer amendments, except for the issue dealing with suspending the rules. What we would like to do is have Senators work to come up with some amendments they feel should be offered.

Senator McConnell and all of us are happy to see whether we can work our way through this. I would hope Senators would check with floor staff and see how we can get this done. It would be to my liking to not have to spill over into tomorrow. The highest holy day of the Jewish faith is tomorrow starting at sundown. There are a number of people who wish to leave to be able to be home with their families on that day, but we have to finish this legislation this week. I would like to do it today if we can.

People should have an opportunity to offer amendments, give a little speech or a big speech--whatever they feel is appropriate--and we can vote. I am happy to do that. I have called off the quorum, people can talk, and in the meantime the floor staff will be waiting to hear from you as to what we can do regarding amendments.

Mr. President, there are a number of things we can do. We can do the motions to suspend. We are happy on this side to, with consent, just do amendments. That is fine over here.

I don't want to get into a long debate, but I have been in a situation during the entire pendency of this legislation to have amendments allowed. I said that yesterday. I have no problem with that. The problem we had is that the Republican leader offered the President's jobs bill in a form that is not the President's jobs bill. I told him this morning: If you want to vote on that, fine. We will do that. We will have a vote on that today. It can either be a motion to suspend the rules or it can be a regular amendment. I feel that way about all the motions to suspend that have been filed.

There are times when I accept the blame of not allowing amendments. There are times that certainly I am willing to take that burden of being criticized but not on this one. Not on this one. I have said publicly and I have said privately to the different Senators, Democrats and Republicans, that amendments could be offered. I don't want to get into a long debate about that.

Mr. President, we have tried to set up a system here that is fair. Fair is in the mind of the person who says ``fair,'' and I understand that. We have had an open amendment process here, and that has led, because of the intransigence of the Republicans, to getting nothing done. Offer an amendment, and there is no way to get rid of it. So the system we have on this bill may not be the best in the world, but with what has been going on in the Senate, sometimes we do the best we can with the tools we have. There was no way of managing this legislation other than how I just described it. People can imagine what this place would have been like had we had a simple ``anybody can offer anything they want''--get the troops out of Afghanistan and on and on with all the many things people would have done in this legislation.

So without ``he said, she said,'' or I guess in this instance ``he said, he said,'' I think what we should do is try to finish this legislation today. The motion to suspend has been filed. That is fine with us. Let's try to work through as many of those as we can and see if we can finish this today; otherwise, we will finish it tomorrow.

The Republican leader and I came here about the same time. I remember the good old days too. But everyone who follows government at all knows that during the last Congress and part of this one, the No. 1 goal of Republicans has been to stop legislation from moving through here--look at what has happened this year--and they have been fairly successful doing that, I have to acknowledge.

I have said publicly, and I say here today, I admire my friend, the Republican leader, because he was very candid with what his goal is in this Congress: to make sure President Obama is not reelected. That has been their goal. As a result of that, legislation has been very slow moving, and we have not been able to legislate as we did in the good old days.

So let's now try, with the situation in which we find ourselves, to work through this on a bipartisan basis. This is a good piece of legislation. Let's see if we can get through these amendments. I am confident we can. We have two outstanding floor managers for both Senator McConnell and for me in Gary Myrick and Dave Schiappa. They do great work. They are going to try to sift through all of this stuff and put us on a pathway they can show Senator McConnell and I will work and, if folks agree, we will get out of here today; otherwise, we will do it tomorrow.

Mr. President, I am not going to argue with my friend. The record speaks for itself. We know what has happened. I repeat, we are where we are today, and that is what we have to do to move forward on this most important legislation. I will do my best to cooperate and allow the Senators to have votes on issues they believe are important.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 6:45 tonight, the Senate proceed to votes in relation to motions to suspend rule XXII with respect to the following amendments: McConnell No. 735, dealing with the jobs act; Coburn No. 670, dealing with foreign aid; Paul No. 678, Federal funding audit; Barrasso No. 672, cement; Hatch No. 680, currency alternative; Cornyn No. 677, fighter planes to Taiwan; and DeMint No. 689, right to work; that upon disposition of the motions to suspend, the pending amendments be withdrawn; that there be no other amendments, points of order or motions in order other than budget points of order and the applicable motions to waive; that the bill be read a third time and the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill; finally, that the time until 6:45 be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees.

Mr. President, if I could respond to that. On the list we have, there were other amendments for Vitter, Brown, and Johanns. It is my understanding we have accepted a vote on all those, except those three. So that is a pretty good batting average.

It included Coburn No. 670 on foreign aid, yes.

Yes, it did.

The minority leader is correct.

That is true. So I will go over this once again, Mr. President.

Yes.

Yes; that is right.

678.

Yes. Mr. President, as I have said, the list we were given on the motions to waive that have been filed, we did not include on our list Vitter, Brown or Johanns.

Mr. President, I can't. We have tried, and I can't get consent from my side on that. So I can't do it.

But I have offered seven. The one Paul is taken off, and I am glad to hear that, but we will be glad to do his. We have offered seven, but it is not the seven the minority leader wants.

Mr. President, two things: First of all, the Hatch amendment, that has always been offerable. We would have voted on that, and everyone within the sound of my voice should know that.

We agreed to that--that he should be able to offer that amendment. We also talked about other amendments that could have been offered. We did not stop the amendments from being offered. My friend the Republican leader filled up the slot that was available, and he didn't want to take it down. We were willing, even though they were up there, to move other amendments. He didn't want to do that, for reasons I don't understand, but that is the way it was.

We have agreed to seven nongermane, nonrelevant amendments, and I think that is fair. I have worked a good share of this afternoon trying to clear some of these other amendments. We have gotten permission from the Democratic Senators to have votes on these matters I have listed. I cannot get consent on the Johanns amendment. I cannot get consent on the Brown amendment. I cannot get consent on the Vitter amendment. I can't do that. I have tried. I can't get it done. So these are the ones I can get.

On the Paul amendment, in my last conversation with the Republican leader he told me that Paul wasn't offered, and I appreciate that. But that is where we are. We could have six votes. We could complete this very quickly. I don't like this process, but I am going to go along with it. But that is my consent agreement. I can't do any more.

There is a unanimous consent pending.

Mr. President, is there an objection to my consent?

Mr. President, on Tuesday, 79 Senators moved to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to this bill, the China currency manipulation legislation. After the Senate decided it wanted to consider this bill, I spoke with the Republican leader about how the Senate could agree to consider a reasonable number of relevant amendments. The Republican leader responded with a patently nongermane amendment. That action pretty much froze the amendment process.

Notwithstanding that impasse, earlier today 62 Senators moved to invoke cloture on this bill. Manifestly, this is a measure that a supermajority of Senators wish to pass.

Now, since the Senate amended rule XXII in 1979, cloture has been a process to bring Senate consideration to a close. The fundamental nature of cloture is to make consideration of the pending measure finite.

The terms of rule XXII provide that the question is this, and I quote:

It is the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be

brought to a close.

Indeed, late this morning, the Republican leader stated, and I also quote what my friend the Republican leader said:

If 60 Senators are in favor of bringing a matter to a

conclusion, it will be brought to conclusion. That's just

what happened a few minutes ago.

So I repeat, that is what the Republican leader said.

Now, notwithstanding the clear nature of the cloture rule to provide for finite consideration of a measure, a practice has begun in this Congress that has undermined the cloture rule. The practice has risen of Senators filing multiple motions to suspend the rules for the consideration of further amendments.

So on this measure, the Republican Senators have filed nine motions to suspend the rules to consider further amendments. But the same logic that allows for nine such motions could lead to the consideration of 99 such amendments. The logical extension of allowing for the consideration of further amendments, notwithstanding cloture, leads to a consideration of a potentially unending series of amendments. The logical extension of this practice is to lead to a potentially endless vote-arama at the end of cloture.

This potential for filibuster by amendment is exactly the circumstance that the Senate sought to end by its 1979 amendments. Plainly, Mr. President, this practice has gotten out of hand.

I see on the Senate floor the junior Senator from the State of Oregon. He and a number of other Senators worked very hard at the beginning of this Congress to kind of change what was going on around here, to make things move more quickly, to make things move more fairly. There was a lot of talk about we are going to try to move things along, we are not going to hold up motions to proceed, and all that. But that hasn't worked too well.

I say to my friend through the Chair, the Senator from Oregon, this is another example of how the rules have been abused this Congress. This didn't happen--it happened rarely last Congress, but this is standard procedure now, again, in an effort to avoid the rules.

This practice has gotten way out of hand. So notwithstanding this abuse, this morning I once again offered to work together with the Republican leader to come to a reasonable number of motions to suspend. The Republican leader and I discussed--we had a list of nine or ten motions to suspend on which he sought votes. I note that

would be more amendments than the motions already filed by Senators, but in good faith I counteroffered that I would be willing to schedule votes on seven of these Republican motions to suspend.

That was reasonable, I thought. The Republican leader rejected that offer. That is what has led us to where we are now. Unless the Senate votes to change its precedents today, we will be faced with a potentially endless series of motions to suspend the rules after the Senate has voted overwhelmingly to bring consideration to a close, and that is a result that a functioning democracy cannot tolerate.

I, Mr. President, withdraw my amendment No. 695.

I call up the motion to suspend rule XXII, including germaneness requirements, filed yesterday by Senator Coburn for the purpose of proposing and considering amendment No. 670.

Mr. President, I make a point of order that the motion to suspend is a dilatory motion under rule XXII.

I appeal the ruling of the Chair and request the yeas and nays.

Is there a sufficient second?

Mr. President, I know there are some hurt feelings here, perhaps on both sides, because this hasn't been easy for me, either, but let's not dwell on that. But I want the record to reflect that the fact that we have to do things sometimes that are difficult doesn't mean Senator McConnell and I have any problems with each other. I want to make sure the record is clear in that regard.

We will discuss later how we are going to move forward on other things. But here is my suggestion, unless someone has some objection. The time for cloture running out on this is sometime tomorrow afternoon. I don't know the exact time. I think it would be to everyone's interest that we would vote on this on Tuesday when we come back. We have a judge we could vote on who is already settled. We could vote on final passage on this, and then we will vote on the jobs bill that is up.

Then what we are going to do is that night we will work to have an agreement that is arranged, because we don't have the time worked out on this, as to how much time. Under the rule, there is 60 hours. We are not going to use 60 hours on these three trade agreements. But everyone should understand we are going to finish the trade agreements on Wednesday. If that means people want to spend 20 hours debating one of them, they may have to spend all night Tuesday doing that, because we have some things here that we have made commitments to do.

Yes.

That is what I said.

So unless someone has some objection, we will leave here for the evening and the staff will work out a proper unanimous consent agreement that I will announce at some subsequent time after conferring with the Republican leader.

What I said is that--my friend from Mississippi is right. Unless someone has an objection, we will set things up to vote Tuesday evening; otherwise, we would have to vote tomorrow afternoon.

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

Yes.

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

Mr. President, thank you very much.

As I understand the rules, each Senator is entitled to 1 hour to speak postcloture if they care to. It is my understanding that Senators Corker, Wicker, and Vitter wish to speak postcloture. It would be better for everyone here--and if they want to speak for an hour, that is fine; I have no place to go--but if we could all have an idea as to how long Senator Corker, Senator Wicker, and Senator Vitter wish to speak, it may help us better manage what is going on here.

So if I could direct this question through the Chair to my friend, the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Corker.

Mr. President, through the Chair to my friend from Tennessee and others who wish to listen, we moved to this legislation, the China currency, with a heavy vote. We had 79 Senators who wished to proceed to that. Once we were on the bill, I partially filled the tree.

Why did I do that? I have found over the last Congress and 9 months that when I try to have an open amendment process, it is a road to nowhere. It just has not worked. We have not been able to effectuate a single bill being passed that way. Regardless of whether that is right or wrong, that is what I did.

Senator McConnell wanted to offer an amendment on the President's jobs bill. That, in effect, tied us down because he was unwilling to let us move to any other amendments. I was willing to move to other amendments. Specifically, everyone who was involved in this process thought that Senator Hatch was entitled to an amendment because his was clearly germane and relevant. But without going into ``he said, he said,'' the fact is no amendments were offered, even though I was happy to have some amendments offered.

Now, what has happened over the last 9 months is that--and even this went on last year, where we learned about this--when cloture was invoked, Senators--it was led by Senator DeMint, and then Senator Coburn picked up on this quickly--as soon as cloture was invoked, motions to suspend the rules were filed.

Now, as I have said today, that was done in this instance. I know my Republican friends say: The reason we did that is because we could not offer amendments on the underlying bill. I disagree with that. I think people could have offered amendments. But we were at the point where we were. We had 9 or 10 motions to suspend the rules. I worked all day, much of the time later this afternoon with Senator McConnell, trying to come up with a list of those motions to suspend. I had to get the approval of my caucus to move to all those amendments. I could not do it. I could not. I, in effect, made a number of my Senators very unhappy by moving to amendments that are extremely difficult.

The only amendment I am aware of that is germane to what we are working on is Senator Hatch's amendment. The rest of them are not germane. They may be good amendments, great message amendments, causing a lot of pain over here, but I agreed to do seven of the nine. Senator McConnell said he needed at least one more. I could not get one more.

So what procedurally took place is this: I believe, as I indicated in my opening statement, that rule XXII dealing with cloture says that when cloture is invoked, it is finite--it is finite; it ends debate on that issue unless there are amendments that have been filed that can be dealt with during the 30 hours. There were not any in this instance.

So I have been here quite a while, and one of the most unpleasant things I have had to deal with over the years has been the vote-arama when we do the budget thing. We have had 60, 70, 80, 120 amendments filed. Under this procedure that has recently been adopted, by the minority in this instance, there is no limit to how many amendments could be filed. Today there were 9 or 10.

This has to come to an end. This is not a way to legislate. That is why the motion to overrule the ruling of the Chair--that is why I made that. I think this is something that was discussed in great detail at the beginning of this Congress. I have a number of Senators on my side who believe very strongly, as my friend from Tennessee has just described, that the Senate has become a place where it is very difficult to debate anything. So Senator Merkley and Senator Udall, joined by others, wanted to change the rules.

At that time, we believed, and the Parliamentarian and all the law that we were familiar with said, a simple majority could change the rules dramatically as to how it relates to filibuster and all other things. I felt that certain changes were important and maybe we should ease into this. That is why we are not reading the amendments now, as we used to be forced to do on occasion, and we had a gentleman's agreement motions to proceed would be not opposed generally, and I would not fill the tree all the time.

As a result of that, Senators Merkley and Udall, much to their consternation because I did not join with a majority of my caucus, opposed what they did because I was hopeful that we could get back to doing some legislating that we had done in the past.

Now, I feel very comfortable that what we are doing and what we did today is the right thing to do. My staff, this morning, when I talked about doing this--the first thing they said to me: Well, what if you are in the minority?

Let me tell everybody within the sound of my voice, if I were in the minority, I would not do this. I think it is dilatory and wrong, just as I have said when we were in the now famous debate dealing with the judges issue that we had, the nuclear option. I said if I were in a position to exert what I felt was the nuclear option on judges, I would not do it. And I would not. I think we have to do a better job of legislating under the rules.

So even though perhaps Senator Merkley and Senator Udall were disappointed in my advocacy to not massively change these rules, I went along hoping things would work out better. What just took place is an effort to try to expedite what goes on around here. Am I 100 percent sure that I am right? No. But I feel pretty comfortable with what we have done. There has to be some end to these dilatory tactics to stop things. Cloture means end; it is over with.

I yield to my friend, the Republican leader, to respond to any questions that the Senator from Tennessee may have.

Mr. President, the Senate should function like the Senate. I acknowledge that. But we have major pieces of legislation that have been brought down as a result of not being able to have finality of that legislation, unending amendments that are not germane or relevant. The small business innovation bill that had passed in past years easily, we had the Economic Development Administration bill that passed easily in the past, job-creating bills on which we had an open amendment process--they were simply stopped.

There are rules of germaneness in the Senate. There are rules of germaneness in the Senate. Let's think about these amendments that I agreed to. There are others I did not agree to, but there are amendments that I agreed we should have a vote on, not that I wanted to have a vote on them because they had nothing to do with the underlying bill--nothing. There are rules of germaneness that that should be the case. DeMint amendment, right to work; Cornyn amendment, fighter planes to Taiwan--we already had a vote on that, but we agreed to have another one; Hatch amendment--that one is relevant and it is germane; Barrasso amendment, cement--not so; Paul, Federal funding; Coburn, foreign aid; McConnell, jobs act.

Part of cloture is enforcing germaneness. That is what it is all about. We are happy to do germane amendments. But the fact is, the Republican leader himself decided not to have amendments on this bill. I agreed to amendments on the bill prior to cloture. Everybody probably does not know that; they should because that is the way it is.

So we have to make the Senate a better place, and I think a better place is to do what was done tonight, to get rid of these dilatory amendments. I mean, we would be happy if poor Senator Bingaman could get some bills out of the Energy Committee. We could do something on cement. If we could get some bills out of the Foreign Relations Committee, we could maybe look at foreign aid.

These things are dilatory and only unnecessary, in an effort to divert from what we are really trying to do here; that is, legislate.

So the issue is this: I believe what we did at the beginning of this Congress was the right thing to do, but as the weeks and months have rolled on, wasting months of our time on a CR that was done--on a series of CRs--1 week, 2 weeks, 3 weeks--to fund the government until October, a few days ago--what a waste of time. We have

spent months--months--on raising the debt ceiling, making it nearly if not impossible to legislate on other matters. And when we get a chance to legislate, we should not be held up by these dilatory matters.

I am willing to legislate. I have taken a lot of hard votes in my career, and I would have been willing to vote on these. But there has to be an end to this.

I would be happy to yield to my friend.

I am going to respond to this. I don't know the exact number now, but almost 30 judges are waiting to be approved, people who are waiting to change their lives, doing their patriotic duty, public service. I can't file cloture on all of those. There are 29 of them.

We have been stymied here in this Congress in getting things done-- holding up nominations for judges, holding up nominations--some people have been on the Executive Calendar for a long, long time. It is unfair. That is what is going on around here.

So we can do all of the make-believe that my friend the Republican leader is talking about, about what great things should happen around here. Well, I will tell you a few things that should happen: We should be able to move matters through here that have been happening since the beginning of this country--nominations, for example. We can't do that because my friend the Republican leader, as candid as he was, said his No. 1 goal is to defeat President Obama. That is what has been going on for 9 months here, and this issue relating to these dilatory tactics on these motions to suspend the rules is just part of that game that is being played. Let's get back--I agree. I agree. Let's get back to legislating as we did before the mantra around here was ``Defeat Obama.''

I would be happy to yield.

The Senator from Vermont has been here longer than I have, but he is absolutely right.

I would also add this: that the Republican leader said--and I think this says it all--today, as an extemporaneous remark from his position here where he is now standing, and I quote:

If 60 Senators are in favor of bringing a matter to

conclusion, it will be brought to a conclusion.

That is what happened a few minutes ago, and that is what cloture is all about. That is what cloture is all about.

I believe in cloture. As I have indicated several times earlier, I was not in favor of changing the rules relating to cloture as some of my colleagues did. But I think this is a step forward. It will make this process work a lot better.

I want to yield for a question to my friend from Mississippi.

Mr. President, first of all, amendments could have been offered precloture. My friend said he thought we were going to be able to offer some amendments postcloture with their motions to suspend the rules. That is what I said would happen, and I agreed to that--seven amendments. People are saying, you choose the amendments. I didn't choose the amendments. They came up with these amendments. These are the ones they gave me. I was supposed to select which ones, and that is what I did. I could not get agreement on some of these amendments. I have explained that previously.

Also, everyone should recognize that motions to suspend the rules are still available; they are just not available postcloture. Rule XXII provides:

Is it the sense of the Senate that debate shall be brought

to a close?

That is what it says. That rule has been in existence for a long time. I am sorry my friend is disappointed, but I think the playbook he is reading from is not accurate.

Mr. President, I yield to my friend from Tennessee.

Can the Senator start over? I was preoccupied.

Mr. President, I will try to respond to my friend. People around here are talking as if this is something that never has happened before. This has happened--I don't remember all the times since I have been in the Senate that the Chair--as brilliant as our Parliamentarian is, and the Chair does its best to distinguish what the Parliamentarian wants, but he is not always sustained. I have been involved in a number of those examples. So it isn't as if this never happened before.

We did it with the understanding that what is going on here is dilatory, and that is what the majority felt.

Yes.

That is right.

Mr. President, I say this to my friend and others listening. I want everybody to understand a little bit of the frustration I have. We all went through the battle on the FEMA bill. Everyone remembers that. People in the dark bowels of this building someplace typed that bill up. They made a mistake and had a comma in the wrong place--a comma. I asked consent, because that was a technical correction, to get that corrected. There were press releases out already from my Republican friends: We are not going to agree to any consents on anything. You talk about frustration--there is plenty of it to go around.

I want to try to end this on a high note. I love this institution. I have devoted most of my life here in this building--not only as a long- time Member of the House and Senate, but I lived here while going to law school. I worked in this building. I was a cop here. I love this building and this institution. I don't want to do anything to denigrate the institution. Maybe there is blame to go around, and I think there probably is. But frustration builds upon frustration and, as a result of that, we have situations such as this.

So here is my suggestion. I think just as we had a cooling off period, as we indicated that we would on that FEMA CR--we had a cooling off period, and the Republican leader and I agreed that would be the right thing to do, and we then came back and worked something out. We did it very quickly. It wasn't to everybody's satisfaction. I had people upset and he had people upset, but we did that. So it would be my suggestion to do as I originally suggested. I think we should go ahead and do final passage on this matter on Tuesday night. Do the judge first, then vote on the jobs bill. Then we will deal with the trade stuff.

I am happy to not only sit down with the Republican leader, but I am sure we can all cinch up our belts and, as they say in the Old and New Testament, gird up our loins and try to do a better job of how we try to get along. I have talked to the Republican leader only briefly about this, but I had a discussion with my leadership today, and one of the things I was going to announce--and so here it is--one of the things I want to do is have a joint caucus. I want to have one with Democratic Senators and Republican Senators. At that time we can all talk about some of the frustrations we all have.

I wanted to do that the first week we got back after the last recess. All my people don't know about this, and certainly I haven't finalized this with the Republican leader, but I think that would be a good step forward; that Senator McConnell and I could be there in front of everybody together, questions could be asked, statements could be made, and we could see if that would let a little air out of the tires.

I will be happy--next time we get cloture on an event sometime in the future--to sit down and find out what, if anything, we should do postcloture on matters relating to people who are frustrated.

So that is my statement, Mr. President. I am not asking consent on anything, but I would hope we could all leave, and Senator McConnell and I would direct the staff to come up with something, an arrangement comparable to what I just suggested.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, we will have no more votes, and I have confirmed that with the Republican leader.

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

Mr. President, today I rise to congratulate Gary Bermeosolo who is retiring from his position as Administrator at the Nevada State Veterans Home in Boulder City. Gary dedicated more than 40 years of his life to serving our Nation's veterans and he touched many lives in the process. Nevada has been very fortunate to have a man like Gary working for our veterans, and I am privileged to recognize his accomplishments today.

After returning from service in the U.S. Navy, Gary began his career in Idaho. For more than 20 years, Gary worked as the director of Veterans Services in that State. The Idaho Statesman awarded Gary with the Distinguished Citizen's award. He was also invited as the Honor Marshall for the Fourth of July Parade in Boise.

Before my friend Chuck Fulkerson decided to retire from the Nevada Office of Veterans Services, he recruited Gary to come to Nevada. Gary took a position as the administrator of the Nevada State Veterans Home. This wasn't an easy task, and the new facility was facing many significant challenges. Gary worked diligently to address the concerns of the Veterans Affairs Administration and ensure that Nevada's facility complied with Federal regulations. Since Gary's arrival, the Nevada Veterans Home has provided first-class healthcare to Nevada's veterans and their family members. After a troubled start, the Nevada State Veterans home was recognized as one of the top 100 nursing homes in the Nation. That accomplishment would never have occurred without Gary's leadership and his dedicated staff.

Gary's commitment to service is evident in nearly all of Gary's pursuits. Not only did Nevada's veterans benefit from Gary's creative problem solving, but he also spearheaded improvements in Veteran care through his work with the National Association of State Veterans Homes. As a legislative officer, a regional director, and as the president of the organization, Gary used the lessons he learned in Nevada to help veterans throughout the Nation. Just last year, Gary testified before a House of Representatives Subcommittee in support of increased flexibility in Federal payments for State veterans homes. The lives of many veterans have been directly impacted by Gary's tireless legislative advocacy for improved care.

The mission of the Nevada State Veterans Home is Caring for America's Heroes. No one has embodied that spirit

of service better than Gary Bermeosolo. Over the past decade, I have had the opportunity to work with Gary on many occasions. He has been a pleasure to work with. I have always been impressed by Gary's ability to innovate and find solutions for our Nevada veterans.

Even in retirement, I am confident that Gary will continue to be a tireless advocate for those who have worn the uniform. On behalf of all Nevadans and all Americans, I am proud to thank Gary for his service to this Nation's veterans.

Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the provisions of rule XXII, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 187, S. 1660.

I have a cloture motion at the desk.

I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived; further that following the vote on passage of S. 1619 on Tuesday, October 11, there be up to 5 minutes equally divided between the two leaders or their designees prior to a vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 1660.

I now withdraw my motion to proceed.

I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding not having received the following bills from the House: H.R. 3080, H.R. 3079, H.R. 3078, the Senate proceed to their consideration en bloc at a time to be determined by the majority leader after consultation with the Republican leader; that there be up to 12 hours of debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; that upon the use or yielding back of that time and the receipt of the papers from the House, the Senate proceed to votes on passage of the bills in the order listed above; finally, that there be no amendments, points of order, or motions in order to any of the bills other than budget points of order and the applicable motions to waive.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this agreement be modified to ensure that Senator Baucus has 20 minutes, that Senator Brown of Ohio has 1 hour, and that Senator Sanders has 1 hour.

If the Republicans wish additional time, they can request that.

Mr. President, so that everyone understands, there was some discussion in my caucus on Tuesday, and I have spoken with the House. I have been given a guarantee from the Speaker that the trade adjustment assistance bill will pass there next week.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday, October 11, 2011, at 5:30 p.m., the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 250; that there be 2 minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form; that upon the use or yielding back of that time, the Senate proceed to a vote, with no intervening action or debate, on Calendar No. 250; that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that any related statements be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; and that the consent agreement entered into on September 26, 2011, remain in effect and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of H.R. 2944, which was received from the House and is at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a Coburn amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read the third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1639.

I ask unanimous consent 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 Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of and the Senate proceed to S. Res. 201.

I ask unanimous consent that the Brown of Massachusetts amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to; the resolution, as amended, be agreed to; the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration en bloc of the following resolutions, which were submitted earlier today: S. Res. 288, S. Res. 289, and S. Res. 290.

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 related statements be printed in the Record.

I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 12:00 p.m. on Friday, October 7, 2011, for a pro forma session only, with no business conducted, and that following the pro forma session, the Senate adjourn until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, October 11, 2011; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks, the Senate be in a period of morning business until 5:30 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each; that following morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session under the previous order; further, following the vote on confirmation of the Triche- Milazzo nomination, the Senate resume legislative session and consideration of S. 1619, and the Senate immediately vote on passage of the bill.