Floor Statements

Mr. President, we have 25 nominations the Republicans have held up. They are important. I was visited by Secretary Salazar regarding Hilary Tompkins, who is somebody he needs. She would be a lawyer for the Interior Department. She has a great education and background. That was cleared yesterday, and then the Republicans said no.

We have numerous people. For the Sentencing Commission, there is William Sessions of Vermont. We hear that is being held up because Senator Leahy is from Vermont and they don't like the way Chairman Leahy is handling the Judiciary Committee. That is what we have been told. We also have Harold Koh. I heard on Monday, day before yesterday, from Secretary Clinton that this is somebody she needs very badly. Mr. Koh is going to be the lawyer for the State Department. We have a number of people under the auspices of the judiciary, and we can go through these. We have somebody who is going to help run the Department of Homeland Security, Rand Beers, who is well-qualified and a good person. The topper of them all is LTG Stanley McChrystal to be the man who runs Afghanistan.

I hope people will search their consciences and try to get these done. I cannot file cloture on every one of these. So that people watching this will understand our Senate procedure, it takes days for us to do that. With 25 nominations held up, it would take all summer-- until we finish the July recess and beyond that--for us to get this done, filing cloture on every one of these. I hope it doesn't come to that.

Mr. President, in a single word, the health debate is about ``choices.'' Will our country choose to tell parents they cannot take their child to the doctor because insurance is not in existence or is prohibitively expensive? Will we choose to tell small

businesses they have to lay off employees because they cannot afford skyrocketing health care premiums? As was outlined by Senator Durbin yesterday, a small businessman he talked about was dealing with the travails of trying to maintain health insurance for his employees. Will we choose real, meaningful health care reform that assures everybody the quality care they deserve?

There is another way this debate is about choice. Democrats are committed to ensuring all Americans can choose their doctors, hospitals, and health plans. No matter what the Republicans claim, this government has no intention of choosing any of these things for you or meddling in any of these relationships. We have said that time and again. If you like the coverage you have, you can choose to keep it or you can change if you desire.

Like most Americans, we believe there should be more choice and more competition to lift the heavy weight of crushing health care costs. Today, 18 cents of every dollar spent in America is on health care. If we don't do something about this legislatively, by 2020 it will be more than 35 percent of every dollar spent in America. If we leave it up to private insurance companies, which are more interested in keeping their profits than keeping us healthy, that won't happen. One of the best ways to do that--that is, to give people choice and competition--is to pass the health care legislation.

Third, the Republicans have a choice in this debate. They can choose to work with us or against the interests of the American people. From the start, we have reached out to Republicans in this debate. Senator Baucus has done everything he can to get a bipartisan bill. He still believes he can do that. I hope that is the case. Senator Dodd, filling in for Senator Kennedy, has done the same. He has reached out to Ranking Member Enzi and others on the committee to try to come up with a bipartisan bill. That bill was given to us yesterday.

Again, from the start, we have reached out to Republicans. We have let them know we would rather write this bill with them. That is what we want to do. Republicans, so far, have made it quite clear what they are against. We remain interested to learn what they are for. Democrats continue to save for our Republican colleagues a seat, or seats, at the table, and we sincerely hope they will take those seats.

Last year, the American people made their choice clear. In no uncertain terms, they rejected the Republican status quo. Those with coverage know their health care bills are higher because of tens of millions of Americans who are uninsured. They know they should not have to go bankrupt or lose their home just to afford to stay healthy or care for a loved one.

I am sure we will disagree in the debate at times, and that is fine. We welcome an open and honest debate on the issue. We welcome a dialog.

One choice we do not have is to wait. We don't have a choice to wait. Health care is not a luxury. It should not be a luxury. We cannot afford another year in which about 50 million of us have to choose between basic necessities and lining the pockets of big insurance companies just to stay healthy.

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

Mr. President, I wanted to say this to the occupant of the Chair personally, but I will take the opportunity to say it now. The presentation the Senator made on the floor regarding health care was stupendous, terribly impressive. I am going to take much of what the Presiding Officer said today and use it in the information I give people in Nevada and the presentations I am making on the floor. It was very good.

As the health care debate has heated up this week, Republicans have once again rolled out one of their standard, stale talking points: They question the efficiency of our government. When all else fails, all they do is berate the government.

But if Republicans want to have an honest debate about how our government operates, I think one of the first things I would suggest is that they should start looking in the mirror at themselves.

Today, Republicans are wasting more taxpayer time and more dollars for no good reason. The tobacco bill on the floor right now is both responsible and overdue. After making us wait out all the 30 hours of procedural time before even moving to the bill--Mr. President, the 30 hours isn't all of it. To get to that point, you have to file cloture, which takes 2 days, and then we have the 30 hours--a total waste of time. Republicans are now making us wait another 30 hours before we can vote on this bill. So it is 30 hours just to move to it, and then 30 hours once we are on it.

Let me reiterate how important the bill we are wasting time on not doing is to the American people. Every day, 3,500 Americans try a cigarette for the first time, and the vast majority of them are children. Nationwide, 3\1/2\ million high schoolers smoke; 3\1/2\ million boys and girls in high school smoke. That is more kids than participate in athletics in our schools who are smoking. Tobacco companies make money hand over fist by marketing and selling their poisonous products to our kids.

The bill before the Senate takes smart steps to keep our children and families healthier and keep the tobacco companies honest. It will make it harder for those companies to sell tobacco to children; help those who smoke overcome their addictions; it will make tobacco products less toxic for those who cannot or do not want to stop.

We have tried in good faith since last week to reach agreement with Republicans on amendments to this bill. Our floor staff has given the Republican floor staff a finite list of both Democratic and Republican amendments that we wanted to vote on as we consider the bill. With rare exception, the amendments were germane. If not germane, they were arguably germane. But no. These amendments included three from Senator Hagan, and one each from Senators Coburn, Enzi, Bunning, and Lieberman.

Unfortunately, despite repeated efforts to move forward, our Republican colleagues have said no every time.

Republicans are also slowing down our government in another way. In the few short months since President Obama took office, Republicans held up many of his nominees for crucial positions. There are 25 being held up right now, as we speak. Let me give you a few of them. We have had to have cloture votes this year on the Secretary of Labor; the Deputy Attorney General, the No. 2 person for a massive Justice Department; the Deputy Secretary of the Department of the Interior, which is like the Chief of Staff for the Department of the Interior; two members of the Council of Economic Advisers; and, incredibly, America's Ambassador to Iraq, Chris Hill. They held him up for a long time. Every time I spoke to Secretary Gates, he wanted to know where his Ambassador was, somebody to run that country--at least American interests in that country.

Today, they are holding up 25 or more qualified and noncontroversial nominees, including Rand Beers, nominated to be Under Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, a pretty important position; Cass Sunstein, nominated to head the Office of Management and Budget's Information and Regulatory Affairs division. You could go to any law school in America today and ask them to name the top 10 academics in law schools, and Cass Sunstein's name will be one of the 10 on everybody's list. But he is not good enough for the Republicans to get him cleared; Hilary Chandler Tompkins, nominated to be the Solicitor for the Department of the Interior. That is the lawyer there. They have 70,000 employees. Secretary Salazar thinks it is a good idea that he has a lawyer there. They are not going to allow that; William Sessions, nominated to be Chair of the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Listen to this one. We have been told the reason he is not going to be approved is because he is from Vermont, and Senator Leahy is chairman of the Judiciary Committee. They want to embarrass a friend, the chairman of that committee, Chairman Pat Leahy; Harold Koh, nominated to be the State Department's legal advisor. Just like the Interior Department, the State Department, Secretary Clinton wants a lawyer there, in that huge, most important office. But no. Robert Grove, nominated to be Director of the Census--no.

I have only mentioned five. There are 20 others. The Republicans recklessly refuse to confirm our new Ambassador to Iraq. Listen to what they are doing now. They are holding up LTG Stanley McChrystal, an eminently qualified soldier, whom President Obama and Secretary Gates chose to be our new commander in Afghanistan. I met him in my office the other day. This is a man with the military in his blood. His father was a great general. His father won five Silver Stars fighting for our country around the world. Stanley McChrystal is an expert in counterinsurgency, which we need so badly in Afghanistan. But, no, we are not going to get him approved--at least for now.

Republicans are so opposed to everything, they even oppose putting people in some of the most important positions in our government. We believe--the majority, Democrats--that those who have been chosen to serve our country must be able to get to work without delay.

Republicans across the country agree with that, also. But we have 40 Members of this body--Republicans--who don't represent Republicans across this country. Republicans, if given a chance, wouldn't they approve LTG McChrystal? Of course they would. And the other people I mentioned. We believe those who have been chosen to serve our country must be able to get to work without delay. President Obama was elected. Shouldn't he have the people he wants to work with him? Perhaps those listening think this is how the Senate always operates. The occupant of the chair is a new Senator. This isn't how it used to operate.

Let me put these delays into context. In the first 4 months of the Bush administration--the second Bush administration--I am sure it was the same in the first Bush administration--when the Senate was controlled by the President's party, and we were in the minority, there wasn't a single filibuster of a Bush nominee--not one. But in the first 4 months of the Obama administration, Republicans have filibustered eight of his nominees. Those are the ones we had to file cloture on. I have indicated that there are many others. With the constraints we have in the rules of the Senate, I cannot file cloture on every one of these. Those filibusters in the first 4 months of Senator Obama's administration are twice as many as President Bush faced in his first 4 months.

I hope people who are listening or watching understand this: We are not berating Republicans in Oregon or in Nevada or across the country. What I am saying is the Republicans here in the Senate--40 of them--are not being fair to our President and our country.

Last year, after Republicans held up the work of the Congress more than any other time in history--remember, we had 100 filibusters last year--the American people rejected the Republican status quo. They said no to Republicans' just-say-no strategy. I would hope they would learn that the American people don't like this--Independents, Democrats, and Republicans don't like it. We want to work together.

Take health care. They have seats at the negotiating table. We want to work with them. Energy, the same thing. There is no question the American people are taking notice, and they are fed up with petty partisan games. There is no question that these reckless tactics have consequences.

Republicans delay and delay and delay to their own peril. The truth is that all Americans suffer. It is time that the Republicans let us get to work and allow President Obama to have his nominees, and let's get this bill off the floor. Every day we wait, 3,500 more people are subject to being addicted to tobacco.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, in my office a few minutes ago, I received a call from Admiral Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I wrote down what he asked and what he said. He said: Senator, there is a sense of urgency that General McChrystal be able to go to Afghanistan tonight.

There is no commander in Afghanistan.

Admiral Mullen said--and I wrote it down: Admiral McChrystal is literally waiting by an airplane. It is 2 o'clock in the morning Thursday in Afghanistan. Dawn will soon be breaking and our troops will not have a commander there.

Is this what the minority wants? Why can't they come and approve this man to go defend us in Afghanistan? I am without words to try to explain my consternation at the fact that General McChrystal, one of our most eminent, prominent, outstanding, qualified soldiers, a man whose father won five Silver Stars, a man whose record is one of being the leading person in our military to do counterinsurgency--that is what he is an expert in doing.

Let's get the man approved tonight so he can leave in an airplane and get over there and take care of his men and women.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, following the remarks of the leaders, the Senate will be in a period of morning business for 1 hour, with Senators allowed to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each. The majority will control the first 30 minutes, and the Republicans will control the second 30 minutes.

Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 1256, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. Last night, cloture was invoked on that matter, and we also agreed last night that we would have a vote in relation to the Burr substitute amendment at 4:30 p.m. I hope we will be able to reach an agreement to consider other amendments prior to the vote in relation to the Burr amendment.

Senators will be notified if any other votes are scheduled. Staff is working now trying to come up with a list of amendments we can vote on.

The Senate will recess from 12:30 to 2:15 for the weekly caucus luncheons.

Mr. President, it is my understanding that H.R. 31 is at the desk and it is due for a second reading.

Mr. President, I object to any further proceedings at this time.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, let me say a few words regarding the excellent work of the Judiciary Committee, the work that has been done by Chairman Leahy. He has informed me that Senator Sessions has been most cooperative during the entire time Senator Sessions has had this new assignment.

Senator McConnell asked me one day last week to delay a floor vote on Judge Sotomayor until after the August recess, and he sent me a letter, which I was happy to receive, making his case for this delay. I indicated to him this morning--he, Senator McConnell--that I had a telephone call scheduled with the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the President to go over the content of Senator McConnell's well- written letter.

We had quite a long conversation with the President. Time? I don't know, 15 minutes, 10 minutes. But it was certainly enough to learn very quickly that the President was well versed on this nomination.

After having spoken with the President and the chairman of the committee this morning, I had an obligation to convey to Senator McConnell my conclusion based on my conversation with the President.

What I wish to do now, Mr. President, is read into the Record a letter I had delivered this morning to Leader McConnell:

Dear Mitch:

Thank you for your letter regarding the process for

considering the nomination of Judge Sotomayor to the United

States Supreme Court. I have taken your concerns

into consideration and have discussed the confirmation

process with the President and the Chairman of the Judiciary

Committee.

Judge Sotomayor's judicial record is largely public and has

been undergoing extensive review by all interested parties at

least since the President announced her nomination on May 26.

In addition, she has returned her questionnaire, including

available records of her speeches and writings, in record

time. Her record for review is now essentially complete.

In contrast, both Judge Roberts and Judge Alito had spent

significant time in the executive branch and much of their

record was not public or available for review following their

nominations. Numerous executive branch documents were not

included with their questionnaires, and much staff

preparation time was devoted to extensive negotiations over

document production with both nominations.

In 2005, Senator Leahy agreed to a September 6 hearing date

for the Roberts nomination before Judge Roberts had submitted

his questionnaire, and before more than 75,000 pages of

documents, primarily from the Reagan Library and the National

Archives, came in throughout August and before the hearing

began in September. Indeed, on the eve of the planned start

of the hearing, on August 30, the Archives notified the

Judiciary Committee they had found a new set of documents

consisting of about 15,000 pages. These were delivered

September 2, further complicating the hearing preparations.

The hearings went ahead on September 12.

Furthermore, Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans and Chief

Justice Rehnquist passed away while Judge Roberts' nomination

to be an Associate Justice, leading to a week-long delay in

his hearing after he was then nominated to be the new Chief

Justice.

Despite these obstacles, Judge Roberts was confirmed 72

days after President Bush named him as a nominee to the

Supreme Court. If Judge Sotomayor is confirmed before the

Senate recess in August, she will have been confirmed on a

virtually identical timetable. If, however, she is not

confirmed until the beginning of the Court's term in October,

consideration of her nomination will have lasted nearly twice

as long as that of Judge Roberts.

Confirming Judge Sotomayor before the August recess would

give her time to prepare adequately for the Court's fall

term, including the review of hundreds of petitions for

certiorari for the Court's first conference and preparation

for merits arguments. It would also allow her time to move

and hire law clerks. I do not believe it is fair to delay

Judge Sotomayor's confirmation if it is not absolutely

necessary.

I appreciate that Senate Republicans are committed to a

fair and respectful confirmation process for Judge Sotomayor.

I believe it is important that Senators be permitted the

opportunity to thoroughly review Judge Sotomayor's record and

to fulfill our constitutional duty to provide advice and

consent. I believe our proposed schedule for hearings and a

floor vote on her confirmation will do so.

I signed that letter Harry Reid.

The hearing date is just 48 days after Judge Sotomayor was selected and is consistent with the 51-day average time between announcement of a Presidential selection and the start of their hearings. It has been that way for the past nine Court nominees who were confirmed.

The proposed alternative, that the hearings be held after the August recess, or the first Tuesday after Labor Day, Tuesday, September 8, would subject Judge Sotomayor to the longest delay between selection and her confirmation hearing of any Supreme Court nominee in history, so far as we can tell. We stopped checking, frankly, when we got back to 1960. The GOP plan would delay her hearing until the 107th day after her selection. Robert Bork, the current record holder, waited 76 days. Thomas and Alito waited 64 and 67 days, respectively.

We are doing our utmost to have this nominee have a fair hearing. We want to make sure the Republicans have all the time they need, but history doesn't lie, and history suggests we are being overly generous with this good woman. She will be a wonderful addition to the Court, and I would hope we can move forward and have this matter resolved quietly, respectfully, and fairly.

Will my friend yield for a moment?

It is also true, is it not, the announcement was made that during the 5 weeks we are in session during July we are going to be working Mondays through Fridays, and you have informed the members of the Judiciary Committee--Democrats and Republicans--that would be the case? That is why--it is my understanding from the distinguished chair--you had announced the hearing was going to start on a Monday?

Mr. President, this resolution concerns a request for testimony and representation in actions in Federal District Court in the Southern District of Iowa. In these actions, protesters have been charged with impeding or disrupting the performance of official duties by Government employees for occupying Senator Tom Harkin's Des Moines, IA office on February 25, 2009, and for refusing requests by the Federal Protective Service and the local police to leave the building. The prosecution has sought testimony from a former member of the Senator's staff who witnessed the relevant events. Senator Harkin would like to cooperate by providing testimony from that person. This resolution would authorize that person to testify in connection with these actions, with representation by the Senate Legal Counsel of her and any other employee from whom evidence may be sought.

Mr. President, following leader remarks, the Senate will be in a period of morning business, with Senators allowed to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each. Following that, the Senate will resume consideration of the tobacco legislation. We will immediately proceed to a cloture vote on the Dodd substitute amendment.

The first vote will occur at 5:30 p.m. The filing deadline for first- degree amendments is 3 p.m. today. The filing deadline for second- degree amendments is 4:30 p.m. today.

Order of Procedure

I ask unanimous consent that the time from 5 until 5:30 be equally divided and controlled between Senators Dodd and Enzi or their designees.

At 5:30, we are going to have an extremely important vote on whether this body will invoke cloture on the tobacco legislation.

Sunday--yesterday--3,500 children who had never smoked before tried their first cigarette. Today, another 3,500 will do the same and Tuesday it will be the same and Wednesday it will be the same. For some, it will also be their last cigarette but certainly not all.

We all have had our experiences of when we tried our first cigarette. In a little book I wrote about myself, I talk about that experience, and I will relay it here briefly.

My Brother Don is 12 years older than I am. He came home from the Marine Corps smoking Kool cigarettes. He smoked a lot of them. He agreed to take his little brother hunting. There isn't much to hunt in Searchlight, but it was a time to get together with his brother. We had a little .22 rifle, and we were hoping we would see a rabbit or something. Mostly, it was a chance for my big brother to be with his little brother. He was smoking, and he smoked a lot. We were driving down a dirt road, what we called the railroad grade. I kept saying: Don, give me a puff. I kept asking, as a little boy would do; I was maybe 10 or 11 at the time. Finally, he said: OK. Here is what you do. Take it like I do and suck in as hard as you can. I did anything my brother asked me to do, so I did that. I can still feel it. That was the last cigarette I ever smoked or ever wanted to smoke. Even though my entire family smoked, not me; it hurt too bad.

For others not having had the experience that I had, smoking would become part of their daily lives, as happened with the kids I grew up with in the little town of Searchlight. They all smoked as little kids. If you think 3,500 is a scary number, how about 3.5 million. That is a pretty scary number. That is how many American high school kids smoke-- 3.5 million. Nearly all of them aren't old enough to buy cigarettes. That means there are at least a half million more students who smoke than there are men, women, and children living in Nevada. It means we have as many boys and girls smoking as are participating in athletics in high schools. We have as many as are playing football, basketball, track and field, and baseball combined. When

there are that many students endangering their health as there are staying healthy by playing the four most popular sports in the country--remember, I didn't mention soccer, but it is popular now, so we can include that and still outmatch that by far.

Should we be surprised? Every year, the tobacco industry pours hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars into marketing and designing to get more people, including children--because they know what the market is--to start smoking. Nine out of ten regular smokers in America started when they were kids--some of them as young as 8 or 9 years old. The tobacco marketers are very good at their jobs, there is no question. But it is time we do our job.

The bipartisan bill Senator Kennedy and the HELP Committee delivered does a lot of good. It helps keep American children and their families healthy. It keeps tobacco companies honest about the dangers of using their poisonous products by strengthening the existing warning labels. It will make it harder for them to sell cigarettes, and even smokeless tobacco, to children. It will make it harder for tobacco companies to lure our children in the first place.

When this bill becomes law--and it will; it is only a question of time--it will also help those who smoke overcome their addictions and make tobacco products less toxic for those who cannot or don't want to stop.

I wish to be clear about one thing. Nobody is trying to ban the use of tobacco products. But we are giving the proper authority--the Food and Drug Administration--the tools it needs to help those who smoke and protect those around them.

We will talk a lot in the coming weeks and months about different ways to lift the heavy weight of health insurance costs. Think of tobacco. These crushing costs keep Americans from getting the care they need to stay healthy or help a loved one stay the same. The overall cost of health care--think about tobacco. Health care costs have driven countless families into bankruptcy, foreclosure, disease, and even death. We will debate and, at times, we will disagree. But think of tobacco. One of the most surefire solutions is to prevent health emergencies before they begin.

There is no doubt the effects of smoking qualify for such an emergency. Tobacco-related health care costs in America are unbelievably high--more than $100 billion every year. If you think government is spending too much of your money, consider this: Your State and Federal Government spend about $60 billion every year on Medicare and Medicaid payments for health problems related to tobacco. For Medicare and Medicaid, it is $60 billion a year related to tobacco diseases and conditions. So it is not just a health crisis, it is an economic crisis--one we cannot afford.

We cannot afford to spend $60 billion in Medicare and Medicaid money on tobacco-related problems. Still, if that weren't bad enough, about 500,000 people die every year as a result of their smoking or someone else's smoking. These deaths are from lung cancer, emphysema, and many other conditions related to tobacco, including heart disease, because we all know that is made much worse by tobacco. You can name any disease, and it is rare that tobacco doesn't make it worse. It is preventable. This bill will ease the pain and prevent others from going through it.

The dangers of smoking are hardly breaking news. We have known about it for decades. We know about it, and we have known about it for a long time. I have to say, though, that my parents didn't know about it. They didn't know about it. They started smoking as kids, and everybody smoked. When you went into the military, they gave you free cigarettes as part of the deal. We didn't know about it when my brother offered me the cigarette. But we know volumes about it today. We must do more than just know about it.

This vote is simple. It is between endangering our children's health and enriching the multibillion-dollar tobacco industry that poisons and preys upon them. It is between accepting the responsibility we have to our future and rejecting the irresponsibility of the pervasive and perverse tobacco companies. It is time we have that vote because tomorrow 3,500 more of our sons and daughters will light up their first cigarette.

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

Madam President, there has been some misunderstanding. I announced this on Thursday, and Senator Dodd followed me and also said the same thing. Right now, there is a question with the minority on whether there would be a vote on Burr on the substitute. We said Thursday, and we say today, we are happy to allow Senator Burr to have a vote on that amendment. We have never said anything to the contrary. We still believe that should be the way it is. It is important to him, it is important to Senator Hagan, and we are going to allow a vote on that unless there is some objection from the minority. Over here, even though cloture is invoked and technically it may not be in order, we would be happy to arrange a vote on that. We have said it for the last many hours we have been on this legislation. My point is, anybody who is not going to vote for cloture because of that is misguided and doesn't understand the facts.

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

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 38, S. 256.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, that there be no intervening action or debate, and any statements relating to this matter be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of H. Con. Res. 109.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 142.

Madam 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.