Floor Statements

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to a period of morning business for debate only until 7 p.m. tonight, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each; further, that the majority leader be recognized at 7 p.m.

Mr. President, I say to my friend the distinguished Senator from South Carolina, I am aware of the 12 ports that need help. But out of the 12, there is none more needed--and we as a country would get such a bang for our buck--to do what is necessary than the port of Charleston. I first compliment the Senator from South Carolina for his proposed solution to a challenge facing the State. He is dogged in representing the State of South Carolina. This is an issue that is important to the people of his State. His solution would not in any way violate any of the rules we have in the Senate. It is something that would not be part of congressionally directed spending in the true sense of the word that has been not approved by people in recent years. I have been part of the Appropriations Committee since I first came to the Senate.

I love that committee. I know the good things it can do for our country and has done for our country. This merit-based competitive port fund that has been suggested would not be limited to South Carolina, even though I think it is the most needy of the 12. This would not guarantee that the port study in Charleston would go forward but would provide the Corps the opportunity to move forward should they choose.

Mr. President, I not only have been a member of the Appropriations Committee, but for a long, long time--a long time--the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, and I--that was our subcommittee, Energy and Water, and that is where this money comes from.

This is so necessary to be done. I understand the Corps' obligations. This is something we have to do. And even though my friend acknowledged this vote we just took care of the funding until the end of this year-- but that is the end of this fiscal year. There are going to be other pieces of legislation to come to this floor. We could, at any time--any time--move forward on this. I thought we had a solution because of the anomaly we found ourselves in to work this out with the House of Representatives.

It is not often that I am a cheerleader for pieces of legislation that are suggested and moved forward by Republicans, but I was on this one. This is something that is merit-based and is fair. I am going to continue to do everything I can for my friend from South Carolina to see if before the end of this fiscal year we can get something done. It is important to him. It is important to our country because of the value that port has to our country.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 11 a.m., Tuesday, May 3, the Senate resume consideration of S. 493, the small business jobs bill; that no amendments, points of order, or motions be in order during the pendency of this agreement other than the amendments listed in this agreement and budget points of order and applicable motions to waive; that the pending amendments be set aside and Senator Landrieu or her designee be recognized to call up the following amendments: DeMint No. 300 to Paul No. 299; Carper No. 289, with a modification, which is at the desk; Pryor No. 278; Merkley No. 272; and Landrieu No. 234; that the DeMint second-degree amendment No. 300 be agreed to; that the time until 2:15 p.m. be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; that at 2:15 p.m., the Senate proceed to votes in relation to the following amendments in the order listed below: Cornyn No. 186; Paul No. 199, as amended; Hutchison No. 197; Cardin No. 240; Snowe No. 253; Carper No. 289, as modified; Pryor No. 278; Merkley No. 272; and Landrieu No. 234; that there be no amendments in order to the amendments prior to the votes other than the DeMint second-degree amendment to the Paul amendment; that each amendment be subject to a 60-vote threshold; and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; further, that the Vitter amendment No. 178 and the Pryor amendment No. 229 be withdrawn.

Mr. President, I object to my friend's request with the following explanation: We have worked very hard to get this bill done. This is a committee of which the Senator from Maine was chairman. She is now the ranking member. This legislation--underline this--is extremely important. It has done in the past wonderful things for our country. This innovation that this bill allows to go forward has created things such as the electric toothbrush and many other things. It is a good piece of legislation.

The legislation of my friend from Maine is not relevant or germane to this legislation. What is going to happen--if she objects to the request I have offered, this bill will not go forward. And that is too bad. We have worked all week long--in fact, some into last week--trying to get these amendments cleared and agreed to.

The sad part about her amendment is that we cannot get agreement not only from our side but on her side. Without going into detail who they are, people do not want to do this amendment because it has no direct relevance to this legislation.

In addition to that, Mr. President, her legislation has not had a hearing. It is something that is a big bill not only in content but in pages, and it should have a hearing. Senators should know what they are voting on in more detail. The other amendments we have gone through have been perused very closely and people understand what is in them and people can vote intelligently on those.

Now, my first inclination is to say: Well, let's go ahead and do it and try to defeat it, but that is not the way we should do legislation.

So I am terribly disappointed that the Senator from Maine, the former chairman of this committee, recognizing the importance of this legislation, is going to cause this legislation to fail, and we very likely will not have time to bring it up again. Now, if that is what my friend wants on her legislative conscience, that is fine. But I think it really should not be there. For someone who understands this legislation as well as she does, it is wrong to stand in the way of our completing it.

Mr. President, I would finally say that this legislation, under any circumstances, is not relevant or germane to the underlying bill. That is very clear. This legislation that now has to be considered by the Senate has not had a hearing. Sure, we have had hearings on regulatory reform. We have had hearings on the environment also. But when you bring up a piece of legislation that is new, we deserve to know what it is about.

These other amendments, we know what they are about. Hers is too detailed and complicated. It is not germane or relevant. It has had no hearings. I am stunned by the new standard suggested by my friend from Maine: Democrats have more amendments than Republicans; therefore, we should consider an amendment that is not germane, irrelevant, and has never had a hearing.

So I am disappointed my friend from Maine is killing this legislation. We have spent enough time on this legislation, and it is really too bad. The chairman of the committee doesn't support it. The chairman of the Small Business Committee does not support this legislation.

Mr. President, the longer the Senator from Maine talks, the more reason there is not to bring that up in the status that it is in now.

She is absolutely right. The issue she talks about in the Wall Street reform bill was brought in at a time when there hadn't been hearings, and it has created a furor around the country. Now there are people on all sides of the issue trying to change that. That is why we need to hold hearings. She is absolutely right. The more she talks, the more reason there is not to do this amendment.

For her to suggest that regulatory reform is something she is all- knowing about--and she hasn't said that, but that is the implicit statement she is making--I understand regulation reform. It is a burden, and we have to change it.

We have been through a number of procedures here. We can remember during the Clinton administration when Al Gore was in charge of reducing regulations, and we did a lot of that. It was good, but we didn't do enough. I worked with a Republican Senator by the name of Nichols from Oklahoma. We changed the law drastically, and it has been used in this Congress and the last Congress on several occasions to get rid of bad regulations that an administration promulgates. We now have the ability to do that.

Is there more we can do? Yes. But to march into this, as suggested by my friend from Maine, would cause people to make a decision on legislation that has not been adequately reviewed. That is why, I repeat, the more she talks about what needs to be done around here, the more reason there is not to do her legislation.

As far as an agreement, I had no agreement with anybody. This consent agreement was drafted just a short time ago. I have never suggested to the Senator from Maine--we have never had a conversation about this until during the last votes.

I moved to proceed to this bill more than a month ago--more than a month ago. There comes a time when we have to move the bill or move to something else.

During our next work period, we have some big, important things to do. We are going to have to deal with the PATRIOT Act. We have other things that are extremely important. We cannot spend more time on this legislation. It is unfair to our country, and it is unfair to the small business community that badly wants this legislation to go forward so they can do things, as I repeat, such as invent more electric toothbrush-type items.

There comes a time when we have to make a decision as to whether people are just stalling this legislation or trying to send some political message saying: Look, I was able to offer an amendment; I want to do regulation reform, when there is no chance in the world that the Senators have adequate information upon which to vote.

So I am very disappointed that very likely this legislation will be killed as a result of my friend, the former chairman of this committee, and certainly--I hope she understands how important this underlying legislation is and how her legislation has nothing to do with what is in keeping with the germaneness or relevancy to this legislation.

I note the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, today, after more than 20 years of service to the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives, Rebecca Eyster will retire. Rebecca is one of the official reporters of the debates and proceedings in this Chamber. She is one of the many dedicated employees who are essential to the daily operations of the Senate.

For more than 12 years, Rebecca has been part of the team that produces a verbatim transcript of all of the Senate floor proceedings. Before that, Rebecca spent 8 years in the House of Representatives in a similar capacity. These jobs can be very demanding. When speeches and votes go late into the night, our dedicated reporters like Rebecca are always here. They produce a historical record about some of the most important legislative debates in our Nation's history.

I am proud to have worked with Rebecca and appreciate her important contributions to the Senate. I know I speak for the Senate family as we wish you the best in your future endeavors.

Mr. President, I rise today to show my appreciation for the actions of seven young Americans who make up this year's School Safety Patrol Lifesaving Award recipients as chosen by the American Automobile Association. In 1920, the American Automobile Association, AAA, began the School Safety Patrol Program in hopes of promoting traffic safety amongst school children. The AAA School Safety Patrol Program has been awarding its highest honor, the Lifesaving Award, to those patrollers who have acted to save the life of another since 1949. This year, seven heroic school safety patrollers are receiving this award, and it is my honor to recognize their courageous actions.

On February 2, 2011, Paul Hardin, a fifth grader at Canterbury Woods Elementary School in Annadale, VA, averted a possible tragedy by preventing an adult female pedestrian from stepping out into oncoming traffic. When the pedestrian approached the crosswalk, Paul verbally warned her to stop. She ignored Paul's warning and continued walking into the crosswalk at which time Paul stepped off the sidewalk and grasped the woman's arm to prevent her from crossing. An approaching car was within 5 feet of the crosswalk. Paul put the safety of a parent before his own in his heroic effort to prevent a dangerous situation.

Marisha Little and Sierra Walters, safety patrollers at Ranson Elementary School in Ranson, WV, worked together to save the life of a kindergarten student who wandered away from the school heading toward a major road crossing. This life saving incident that occurred on January 18, 2011, was the first of two that Marisha Little took part in at Ranson Elementary. The patrollers remembered seeing the student walking alone away from the school and became worried when they no longer had him in sight. After alerting her safety patrol advisor, Sierra left her post to find him. Sierra found him and brought him back to the post where she instructed him to stand behind Marisha. Shortly after, he darted into the street in the path of an oncoming car when he saw his aunt approaching the school area. Marisha jumped into action, grabbed him and pulled him back to the sidewalk. Their keen awareness and quick thinking brought him back to school and prevented him from being hit by the car.

Marisha Little and Talyn Underwood were credited with the second life saving incident at Ranson Elementary School in the same month. On January 31, 2011, they prevented a second grade student from being struck by a moving vehicle. The student was horsing around, talking to his friends while running backwards into oncoming traffic. Marisha and Talyn noticed that the vehicle driver closest to the student was looking in the other direction. Marisha and Talyn screamed loudly to alert the student at the same time working their way toward him. Talyn reached him first and pulled him by his jacket from the direct path of the moving car. Both students were very quick to respond and didn't think about their own safety in their effort to save their fellow student.

Kamryn Mendell is a safety patroller at the Fox Chapel Elementary School in Germantown, MD. On September 28, 2010, during morning patrol duties, Kamryn immediately reacted when she realized that a first grade student was beginning to walk into the pathway of a school bus that was turning into the school's bus loop. Kamryn and her partner were holding back students from crossing when Kamryn's partner had to step away to remove a cone to allow the bus to enter the loop. Kamryn kept the children from crossing with one hand and reached out to grab the first grader who was now 4 to 5 feet in front of the bus. The bus driver didn't see him and continued driving into the loop. Kamryn's fast thinking and immediate actions averted a certain life threatening injury.

Evan Siegel, a safety patroller at Salmon Creek Elementary School in Vancouver, WA, saved a 7-year-old girl from being hit by an oncoming car. On a December morning in 2010, Evan noticed a car approaching the intersection. It was driven by a teenager who was texting and totally unaware that the little girl had entered the crosswalk without permission. Evan reacted quickly by putting his crosswalk stick in front of her and pulling her to safety. At the time the car was 10 feet away from her and the driver was not slowing down. Evan's courage and quick actions are to thank for keeping this young girl safe.

Jake Vowell, a fifth grader at George B. Carpenter Elementary School in Park Ridge, IL, is credited with saving the life of a 6-year-old student on February 2, 2010. He was on morning patrol duty, when two cars failed to stop at the stop sign when Jake noticed a young girl attempting to cross the street. He bravely went out into the street and pulled her back to safety. His dedication and awareness put him in a position to save this young girl from harm.

These seven heroic young leaders demonstrate courage, awareness, and a commitment to safety. Moreover, these traits are what the AAA School Safety Patrol Program embodies as an institution. Patrollers exemplify the kind of services that are needed so that young people safely navigate traffic hazards to and from school. I applaud their commitment to improving our community.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: Calendar Nos. 59, 60, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 85, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 96, 98, 99, 100, 101, 104, 105, and all the nominations on the Secretary's desk in the Marine Corps, Army, Navy, and Air Force; that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to any of the nominations; that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the Record; that President Obama be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Monday, May 2, 2011, at 4:30 p.m., the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: Calendar Nos. 74 and 76; that there be 1 hour of debate equally divided in the usual form; that upon the use or yielding back of time, Calendar No. 74 be confirmed and the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on Calendar No. 76; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to any of the nominations; that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to H. Con. Res. 43.

I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to this measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of H.R. 1308.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read three times and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, there be no intervening action or debate, and that any statements related to this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 21, S. 216.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 33, S. Res. 109.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendments at the desk be agreed to, the resolution, as amended, be agreed to, the preamble, as amended, be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 127, and the Senate proceed to the matter.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution 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 Calendar No. 35, S. Res. 128.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 138 and 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 the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements be printed in the Record.