Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time until 5:30 be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees.

Mr. President, our economic troubles can be tallied in statistics but numbers alone cannot tell their toll. Every American knows this. The people in Nevada know this especially well. They have felt the full force of this recession as intensely as anyone in America.

I received a letter this month from Bobby Mockbee. Bobby, his wife Julia, and their two children live in North Las Vegas, NV. Bobby is a stay-at-home dad, and a little over a year ago Julia was laid off from her job. Finding themselves near the end of tens of thousands of dollars they had saved and put away, Bobby and Julia recently tried to get a loan. Similar to many families who are hurting now, the Mockbees played by the rules. They had never been late on any bill at any time. They had excellent credit. Their credit score was terrific. They were no strangers to the ins and outs of the housing market--the job Mrs. Mockbee lost was as vice president of a large title and escrow company. But they were turned down for that loan. Now that the Mockbees are so stretched, they fear that before long they will be the latest in a long line of Nevada families to have lost their homes.

Unemployment in Nevada is now in the double digits--the highest it has been in a quarter of a century. To a worker such as Julia Mockbee, who can no longer collect a paycheck, job loss is more than an economic indicator. Families in my State lose their homes at the worst rate in the Nation. But to someone who has lost a share of the American dream, foreclosure is more than a cause and effect of the Wall Street collapse.

I am confident the steps we have taken this year to address this crisis will ultimately anchor our recovery, but it has not done so yet. As I visited with Nevadans over the past couple weeks, one message became very clear: We as legislators must keep going. We must do more. The hole we have inherited from George Bush is deep, and our long climb back has just begun.

We have seen promising progress and are beginning to see a return on the investments we made in our economic recovery plan, but we are still far closer to the starting line than the finish line. In that legislation, we indicated we would create or save at least 3\1/2\ million jobs. In States such as Texas, Florida, and Ohio, thousands of new construction jobs are already on their way. Students are getting better schools and a better education in Illinois and Tennessee. Veterans, children, and low-income families in New Mexico and Maryland are getting better health care. In Nevada, investment in green technology is leading us not only to economic recovery but energy independence.

This Congress faced monumental challenges when we convened a few short months ago. Our response has been swift and strong. We cut taxes for the middle class so they can keep more of their paychecks at a time when they need it most. We made sure more children get the health care they need to stay healthy with the Children's Health Insurance Program--4 million more. We outlawed pay discrimination, to be sure women will be treated as equals in the workplace and ensure that hard work is rewarded fairly no matter who you are. That is the Ledbetter legislation. We passed a responsible budget that, when put into action, will make investments in health care, clean energy, and education to help us not only recover but to prosper. We passed one of the most important conservation bills in a quarter of a century. That legislation will protect our environment and natural resources for generations to come, and it created more than 2 million acres of wilderness. We also passed national service legislation--legislation that will allow 750,000 Americans to become involved in public service and, in the process, better their education.

I wish I could say we did these things with broad support from Republicans, our colleagues in the Senate. It would have been good for the country if we had. Unfortunately, we only had the help of a few courageous Republican Senators and basically no help in the House. Nevertheless, our progress so far is a healthy downpayment.

There is much more to do to address this crisis. That is why, in the coming weeks, we will keep going. We will attempt to give bankruptcy judges the chance to modify existing mortgages so responsible families who played by the rules can make their payments and stay in their homes.

It is so unusual that the law in our great country says that if someone has a home on the beach, in addition to their primary residence, or near a ski area in the mountains, and they have financial problems, they can go to bankruptcy court and readjust those loans on their second homes but they can't do that on their primary residence. If a person has lost their job, such as Julia Mockbee, or may lose their job, they can't go to bankruptcy court and get a readjustment of their loan. We have to change that.

We also wish to fight financial fraud in the mortgage business--there is a lot of that going on now--and hold accountable those who game the system on the backs of those who make an honest living. We will fix the criminal code to punish leaders who betray the public trust, take advantage of American families, and further endanger our economy. We will finish work on the budget we passed earlier this month so we can begin to correct the mistakes of the past and invest in our future. We will ensure our troops will have the resources they need to fight effectively the extremists in the Middle East and make Americans safer.

These are not small ambitions, but they are not luxuries. They are priorities we must pass because American families are still suffering. They are still worried about losing their jobs and losing their homes. No effort to recover can succeed unless Democrats and Republicans work together. I had hoped this year for change would have inaugurated a new era of common purpose. Instead, Democrats have met an all-too-familiar wall that reflects Republican opposition. I still hold the hope that we will see the bipartisan cooperation necessary to fulfill the rest of our obligations to the American people. I still believe we can put aside our political differences and move forward.

The last time America looked up from an economic hole so deep, it resoundingly elected a new leader--Franklin Roosevelt--not with a mandate for reticence or for repeating the mistakes of the past but with an urgent instruction--in 1932--to lift our Nation, reject fear, and recover from financial turmoil. Just weeks before the election-- again, in 1932--Americans would soon swarm to the polls, but they would also pack theaters to see a Marx Brothers blockbuster called ``Horse Feathers.'' The film starts with a song that could just as easily have been written by today's Republican Senators. Groucho Marx sang the following in that movie:

I don't know what they have to say. It makes no difference

anyway. Whatever it is, I'm against it.

That was Groucho Marx. The lyrics were a hit in Hollywood, and that is where the song should stay. As a legislative strategy, it is nothing short of reckless. The American people expect more from their leaders, and their serious problems deserve better than a vaudeville act, but that is what the Americans have gotten from the Republicans in the Senate: Whatever you want, we are against it.

Nearly eight decades after this song sung by Groucho Marx and this movie with the Marx Brothers, in the face of familiar troubles, we cannot afford to say no because it is easier than doing the hard work to make life better for struggling families. We cannot afford to work against each other because it is more politically convenient than working together. We cannot afford to bet against America's resilience and recovery, as the Republicans are doing. The American people did not send anyone here to simply be against everything. They still want to hear what Republicans support, not just what they oppose.

One of the Republican leaders in the House said: We are going to be like a thousand mosquitoes. That is the effort

of the Republican leadership in the House--a thousand mosquitoes--just biting, not accomplishing anything.

Families are too busy trying to make this week's paycheck last until the next to keep track of who is scoring political points. They worry about paying the electric bill, the mortgage bill or the tuition bill-- not about games and gimmicks. In the history of American Government, partisan bickering has never saved a single job or kept one family from losing their home.

I hope Republicans will join us to confront the crises in our communities and around the world, and I hope they will start this afternoon when we vote on moving forward with the nomination of Christopher Hill.

To this point--this few short weeks we have been in session--we have had to file cloture on five of the President's nominees. The Secretary of Labor, a very important job--Hilda Solis--was held up. We had to invoke cloture. The Deputy Attorney General, a man by the name of Ogden, we had to invoke cloture on the Republicans' filibuster of him. In his job, second in command, he is in charge of all the criminal prosecutions in this country. He is also the chief administrator of the attorney general's office. We had to invoke cloture on that.

Two members of the Council of Economic Advisers--we had to invoke cloture. Who are these people? They are the primary economists on whom the President depends. We had to waste valuable time invoking cloture on two filibusters there.

Incredibly, now, tonight, we are going to invoke cloture on the Ambassador to Iraq. I talked to Secretary Gates just a couple of days ago about a number of issues. One of the things he brought up was-- Gates said that every time he talks to General Odierno, he asks: When can I get my civilian commander, my civilian counterpart in Iraq? That is what this is all about. We did everything we could prior to the 2- week recess to let us have a vote. No; cloture. We have to file cloture on the Ambassador to Iraq. What a shame.

Christopher Hill is a strong and skilled negotiator who has tackled some of the most complex diplomatic challenges in the world. After he graduated from Bowdoin College, he joined the Peace Corps and served in Africa. He joined the Foreign Service immediately after that and served tours in half a dozen countries. He has been an ambassador in any number of countries and served so well. He earned a graduate degree from the Naval War College.

The man we will send to Iraq is no stranger to dealing with difficult governments. He has worked hard on ethnic civil wars. He successfully coordinated multilateral negotiations on North Korea's nuclear program and was a key player in the peace talks that ended the conflicts in both Kosovo and Bosnia.

General Petraeus has always said that the cure of Iraq's troubles will be prescribed politically, not militarily. General Odierno has called for civilian help to secure what his brave troops have accomplished. Experts from the left and the right alike have warned against taking our eye off the ball in Iraq. Yet our top diplomat in that country where more than 4,000 Americans have given their lives-- and each day, 143,000 more risk their own--sits and waits. When is this man going to be able to come and go to work? It is a shame we have to go through this process on the Ambassador to Iraq.

Each of our three Ambassadors to Iraq since the beginning of the war has called on us to urgently fill this gaping hole in our diplomatic lineup and to fill it with Ambassador Hill. He has spent his entire career in the Foreign Service, and he is ready to answer his country's call once again. It is simply wrong that we have to wait for this man to get over there.

I didn't bring the subject up with Secretary Gates; he brought it up.

I hope Republicans will not make us use all of the 30 hours of procedural time. What do I mean by this? For those who are watching, after we invoke cloture there is 30 hours of time. I say to everyone, we are going to vote on this when the 30 hours expires. If it is midnight tomorrow night or 1 a.m. Wednesday morning, we are going to vote. We are not going to hold this up 1 minute. It is absolutely wrong that we have to do this. We cannot wait any longer for civilian leadership in Iraq. Those who stand in the way should stand down so Ambassador Hill can get to work making America more secure and so the Senate can move to the important work of getting our economy back on track. Democrats and Republicans alike have an interest in stabilizing the Middle East. Democrats and Republicans alike have an interest in stabilizing our economy. But neither security abroad nor prosperity at home can happen unless both Democrats and Republicans work together toward those common goals.

As we begin our common work here after a 2-week recess, I hope my colleagues keep in mind what they saw and heard across the country in the last few weeks. It was what I heard, that hard-working people in their communities are struggling against conditions they did not create, that the earliest signs of recovery are beginning to bloom in the spring, and with much more to be done, they hope their leaders will be up to the task.

I urge my Republican friends to think twice before they return to the refrain: Whatever Democrats are for, we are against. I remind them what we are for is the success and security of the American people. If we are going to turn the tide, if we are going to change the tone, it is time to sing a different tune and not a song sung by Groucho Marx.

I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Begich), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller), and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, following leader remarks, the Senate will resume consideration of the budget resolution. Of the statutory time allotted to the budget resolution, 1\1/2\ hours remains. Upon the use or yielding back of that time, the Senate will proceed to a series of votes in relation to the pending amendments and any other amendments offered to the budget resolution. We expect those votes will occur around 11:30 a.m., give or take a few minutes.

Under an agreement reached last night, there will be 2 minutes for debate equally divided prior to each vote. Each vote after the first vote will be 10 minutes in duration. Senators should expect rollcall votes throughout the day and maybe even into the evening. Once we start, we have to finish this budget resolution. I encourage Senators to stay here. The first vote will be 15 minutes. After that, there will be 10-minute votes, and we are going to enforce that time. If Members are not here, they will not be counted. The clerks are going to be instructed to turn the votes in very quickly.

Mr. President, let me take a minute to say something because of my friend, John McCain. Every day I come and open the Senate, we give the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. We do that because of the country and what that flag stands for. But I was struck today having John McCain in the Chamber. Really, he is representative of what that flag is all about--someone who not only comes from a lineage of people who have served our country, but this good man has served our country in so many different ways.

We came to Washington together in 1982. We came to the Senate together in 1986. I can remember while I was still in the House of Representatives I attended a prayer breakfast, and Senator McCain was the presenter. I cannot do justice and I will not even try to describe the presentation he made about a Christmas celebration they had when he was a prisoner of war. He spent so much time in solitary confinement. He could have left the prison much earlier. He would not do that because his comrades were still there.

We take a lot of things for granted. Even though John McCain and I have disagreed on occasion on things political, one thing that will always be in my mind and my heart is people such as John McCain who represent what our country is all about.

Madam President, I announced this morning, though only Senator McConnell and I were on the floor, that today we are going to enforce the rule. This vote was turned in at 20 minutes. The 10-minute votes are going to be enforced. You have a 5-minute leeway. If you are not here exactly on time, the vote will be turned in. The clerks have been instructed of that fact.

Senator McConnell and I believe we have to move this show along today. There is no reason to leave the Chamber. There is something to drink in the cloakroom and a sandwich if someone wants one, but let's cooperate and get this done today.

Mr. President, the reason this vote took a little longer is because people, even though it is a 10-minute vote, waited until the last minute to come and vote or to change their vote. It is making it extremely difficult for the people at the desk to do this. There was a mistake made because people were switching votes, so it took a lot longer.

If everyone would stay as close as they can to get the votes out of the way and not wait until the last minute--the Republican cloakroom, we have sent pages back to try to find Members, and to the Democratic cloakroom as well.

Mr. President, I join the Republican leader in congratulating Chuck Grassley, our friend, on casting his 10,000th vote. Chuck was born in the city of New Hartford--but not Connecticut-- Iowa, where he and his wife Barbara raised their five children. They reside there today. After graduating Iowa State Teachers College, he earned a doctorate from the University of Iowa.

I have referred to Senator Grassley on a number of occasions as Chuck, Senator, Hey You, but now Dr. Grassley. Everyone should understand that.

Chuck, in addition to his education excellence, worked as an assembly line laborer before he was elected to the Iowa House of Representatives and later to the United States Congress. He has been in the Senate since 1980. Chuck quickly became known as a friend to taxpayers and a foe to government waste.

As former chairman of the Senate Aging Committee, on which I served under him, Senator Grassley worked to expose the neglectful practices of many of America's nursing homes, and certainly Senator Grassley was a catalyst for change. To ensure that government workers feel free to shine a light on corruption and misappropriation of public funds, Chuck Grassley coauthored the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989.

As former chairman and now ranking member of the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley has worked with Members of both sides of the aisle to find bipartisan solutions to put taxpayers first.

He is a man of his word, and once he tells you what he has agreed to do, he goes to the wall. I have found that on a number of different issues working with him.

Senator Grassley is a leader on health care issues. Senator Grassley reached across the aisle to coauthor legislation with Senator Kennedy 12 years ago that provides middle-class families with the opportunity to buy into Medicare for children with special needs.

I particularly appreciate Senator Grassley's longstanding commitment to developing clean, homegrown renewable energy.

In addition to his leadership on a broad spectrum of national issues, Iowans depend on Chuck Grassley for his responsiveness to constituent services. He has accomplished the remarkable feat of visiting each one of Iowa's 99 counties--that is so hard for me to comprehend. The State of Nevada, as big as it is, only has 17 counties. Iowa has 99 counties, and he has visited those counties every year at least once since he was first elected to the Senate.

Chuck and Barbara, as Senator McConnell has mentioned, are the parents of five children: Lee, Wendy, Robin, Michele, and Jay.

An accomplishment for sure--10,000 votes cast in the U.S. Senate. It is a remarkable accomplishment. But as I look at his record, I think one of his greatest accomplishments is the fact that the Senator from Iowa will achieve, this year, his 55th wedding anniversary with Barbara.

Congratulations, Chuck.

(Applause, Senators rising.)

Will my friend yield?

I am sorry. That was something that was prepared for me. You always reminded me of having a Ph.D.

Anyway, here is the story. Somebody like you or me is going to go give a speech--and they give us these speeches, and we walk out and give them--and he is about halfway through his speech, and he comes to a page that is blank, and he says: You are on your own, you SOB. So that is kind of like this. I will check with my staff to make sure they do not make a mistake like that again.

(Laughter.)

Mr. President, prior to the Tax Reform Act of 1986, individuals

were entitled to deduct State and local sales taxes. When the deduction was repealed, it put taxpayers in States without an income tax, such as Nevada, Washington, and others, at a disadvantage. It took us 22 years before fairness was restored when the deduction was reinstated in 2004. The problem is that deduction is not a permanent part of the law.

The amendment I have filed with Senators Ensign, Cantwell, Murray, Nelson, Hutchison, and others fixes that by establishing a reserve fund for legislation making the deduction permanent. Based on all the information we have, this would affect lots of people--almost half a million in Nevada. At a time when families are struggling to make ends meet, every penny counts.

I would accept a voice vote on this amendment, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I have conferred with the Republican leader. I have conferred with the two managers of the bill.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess until 6 o'clock this evening.

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I will use my leader time. This chart says it all. In February, 651,000 Americans lost their jobs. Five million Americans have lost their jobs this past year--5 million. Our unemployment rate currently stands at 8.1 percent. Nevada's unemployment is 10 percent, but Nevada is not the highest. We have some States that are far more than 10 percent unemployed. Three million more children will likely be living in poverty by the end of this year. The net worth of American households dropped by a combined total of $11 trillion last year--$11 trillion.

These statistics tell a story--a very clear story--but what is even clearer is the suffering every American sees and feels every day.

Families whose incomes have fallen are now concerned that they won't be able to make their next mortgage payment. Students at this time of the year should be overjoyed with receiving acceptance to go to college, but because of what is happening at home--their dad or mom has lost a job--they can't go to college. Workers who have given decades of loyal service at the office or factory realize now they can't retire because their pensions are gone and their retirement savings have disappeared. Senior citizens on a fixed income used to have to make a decision as to whether it would be medicine or food. Now many seniors don't have the choice for either.

We know what caused this crisis: 8 years of fiscal policies under the previous administration and its allies in Congress who gave away the store at the expense of the rest of America.

President Obama inherited a crisis that no President should have to inherit or fix. Instead of focusing full time on the future, he and we in Congress must first clean up the devastating mistakes of the past. We can only turn the page from the recession to recovery if we watch every single taxpayer dollar the way families watch every dollar in their budget. Every dollar counts.

That is why it is so stunning, so outrageous, that some would choose this hour of national crisis to push an amendment to slash the estate tax for the superwealthy. This isn't for the wealthy; this is for the superwealthy. Yet that is what we see here today.

The proposal now before us would take $100 billion of American taxpayer money--actually, it is more than that--more than $100 billion of taxpayer money over the next few years and spend it on slashing taxes on the estates of the wealthiest two-tenths of 1 percent of Americans. So 99.8 percent of Americans would derive no benefit--none. In fact, 99.8 percent of Americans would actually see their tax dollars redirected to the estates of those who are at the very top of the economic food chain.

Here is what one newspaper said today:

The proverbial millionaires next door--the plumbers,

contractors, and accountants who amass substantial wealth

through hard work and modest living--are not the intended

beneficiaries of the proposed cut. The Obama budget already

takes care of them. That means 99.8 percent of estates will

never, ever pay a penny of estate tax.

Here is what another newspaper said today, entitled ``More Tax Cuts for the Rich":

The hypocrisy here is breathtaking. More fundamentally, it

is hard to stomach those who argue for more tax cuts--and

then bemoan the failure to stanch rising deficits. A vote for

this amendment, at this time of so much red ink and so much

suffering, would reflect the most skewed of priorities.

This is only a couple of the Americans all over America today trying to understand what is going on in Washington.

In recent years, Congress has already reduced tax rates on the ultrawealthy estates. In fact, the Tax Policy Center calculates that a $20 million estate

right now--now--will pay an effective tax rate of 23 percent. Nurses pay more than that, schoolteachers pay more than that, and secretaries pay a higher tax rate than that, but we say for an estate of $20 million, 23 percent is OK. That is what the Tax Policy Center calculates.

But for the proponents of the amendment now before us, that is not good enough. So they propose that we spend $100 billion on a tax cut for the top two-tenths of 1 percent. Proponents of this legislation say they will find offsets for this $100 billion giveaway that will make it deficit neutral. Think about that. Deficit neutral. That means you have to get offsets.

Where are we going to get offsets? They have to come from somewhere. They are not coming from the sky. Are we going to take them from Medicare? From Senator Inouye's defense budget? From the Peace Corps? From education?

Even in the best of times, there is no question that we could find a better use for an extra $100 billion. We could put new textbooks in classrooms. We could build better renewable energy transmission lines. We could provide health care to more working families. If it got out of hand, we could do what we did in the last years of the Clinton administration: Reduce the debt.

I can think of no way to describe this amendment other than stunning hypocrisy.

Many of the very same Republicans who held hands with President Bush as he squandered a record budget surplus and turned it into a record deficit suddenly claim to be ``deficit hawks.'' They tell us we cannot invest in the middle class--the very people their disastrous policies have harmed.

These same Republicans tried to stop us from providing health insurance to millions of children of low-income families, so that these kids could go to a doctor when they are sick or hurt. They fought against President Obama's economic recovery plan, because it had the audacity to invest in creating jobs for victims of the recession Bush created.

Now they are fighting against a budget that cuts taxes for the middle class, puts us on a path toward cutting the Republican deficit in half, and invests in middle-class priorities, such as health care, education, and clean, renewable energy. That is what Chairman Conrad has done.

After 8 years of creating a record deficit so that they could slash taxes on the ultrawealthy, now they oppose our efforts to help the middle class.

These newly hatched deficit hawks say no to any proposal that invests in the people their policies harmed. But when it comes to giving away another $100 billion plus of taxpayer money to the top two-tenths of 1 percent--money that could pay down the deficit they claim to care so much about--these same Senators line up in support.

Again, this is stunning hypocrisy. Not only that; it is outrageous hypocrisy.

When the estate tax issue was debated back in 2005, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the then-chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley, said this--remember, at that time there was a defined group of people who were suffering in the gulf, but now it is the whole country. Today, it was announced on the radio that, for the first time since the Great Depression, all 50 States, without exception, have a downturn in their economy. Here is what Senator Grassley said then, after Hurricane Katrina:

It's a little unseemly to be talking about doing away with

or enhancing the estate tax at a time when people are

suffering.

If Katrina, which was a disaster for this country, was a reason not to do the estate tax, why now when all 300 million Americans are suffering? People are suffering now in every city, State, and town in America.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. It amounts to nothing but a giveaway to the wealthiest two-tenths of 1 percent of Americans, at the expense of the other 99.8 percent of Americans.

Especially in this time of economic crisis, this is the wrong priority for our country. I ask everybody to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I wish to say a brief word so we know what we are going to do when we get back on Monday, 2 weeks from Monday.

First of all, I express my appreciation to the whole Senate for the outstanding work done by the managers of this bill, Chairman Conrad, Ranking Member Gregg. They did wonderful work. All the Senate speaks with one voice in recognizing the tremendous difficulty of this resolution. The work was done with civility. We had difficult amendments. This is a day the Senate should be proud.

I applaud and commend, I repeat, on behalf of the entire Senate, the brilliant work done by these two fine gentlemen.

When we come back, I was hoping we would not have to have this vote on Monday, but it appears we are going to have to. We have two wars going on. One, as we know, Afghanistan, and one we cannot put out of our mind in Iraq. One of the great career senior foreign service officers whom we have had in recent years, Christopher R. Hill of Rhode Island, has been nominated by the President to be Ambassador to Iraq.

It is hard to comprehend, but I am going to have to file cloture on that tonight before we leave. I would hope everyone who is trying to hold up this man would give this some thought. How does this look? It does not look very good. But we are going to go ahead, and we are going to have this cloture vote on Monday. We have a lot of other things we could work on. We have a lot to do. We have a 5-week work period when we get back. I have already informed the Republican leader as to what days we are not going to have votes; there are three of them.

I hope everyone has a good 2 weeks. We have a lot of time we need to spend at home. We have not been home. These have been very long periods, two long work periods we have had since we have become a new Congress.

Of course, I have to say for all of us, it is very exiting to all of us to see the Presiding Officer.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider, en bloc, Calendar Nos. 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 58, 59, 60, and all nominations on the Secretary's desk; that the Agriculture Committee be discharged, and the Senate proceed, en bloc, to PN206, PN213 and PN221; that the nominations be confirmed, en bloc, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, en bloc, and that no further motions be in order.

The nominations considered and confirmed en bloc are as follows:

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Calendar No. 57, the nomination of Jane Holl Lute.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate resume legislative session.

Mr. President, as if in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that on Monday, April 20, at 5:30 p.m., the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations, and that once reported, the Senate proceed to vote as follows:

Calendar No. 34, the nomination of Tony West; Calendar No. 35, the nomination of Lanny Breuer; Calendar No. 36, the nomination of Christine Anne Varney.

I further ask that prior to each vote, there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled in the usual form; and after the first vote in this sequence, the succeeding votes be limited to 10 minutes each; that upon confirmation of the nominations, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, en bloc; that no further motions be in order; that any statements relating to the nominations be printed in the Record, as if read, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate resume legislative session.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 43, the nomination of Christopher R. Hill, to be Ambassador to Iraq.

Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that upon disposition of the nominations specified in a previous order for Monday, April 20, there be 20 minutes of debate, equally divided and controlled between the leaders or their designees prior to the cloture vote on the Hill nomination, and that the mandatory quorum be waived.

Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume legislative session.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 735 and the Senate proceed to its consideration.

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