Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow, April 3; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, the Senate adopt the motion to proceed to H.R. 3221, and after reporting of the bill, Senator Dodd or his designee be recognized to offer a substitute amendment to the bill; and that following opening statements by Senators Dodd and Shelby, Senator Durbin be recognized to offer an amendment relating to bankruptcy.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. President, following my remarks and those of the Republican leader, if he chooses to make remarks, there will be a period of morning business until 12:30 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each. The Senate will recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. for our normal weekly caucus luncheons. Following the recess, the Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to H.R. 3221, which is the housing bill. At approximately 2:30 p.m., the Senate will proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to this legislation. The last 15 minutes is set aside for the two leaders, and if we choose to use that time, that is equally divided. The vote will occur, as I have indicated, at 2:30 this afternoon.

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

Mr. President, the smoke is housing crisis foreclosures. The fire is the general economy because the housing crisis has caused the economy to be in a state of distress.

The chairman of the Banking Committee, Senator Dodd, made such an outstanding presentation this morning where he talked about almost 8,000 homes every day--today, tomorrow, and the foreseeable future-- will be foreclosed upon, not the beginning process of foreclosure, but the termination of foreclosure. Someone by the name of Jones, Smith-- whatever their name might be--will lose their home, a family home.

What does that do to the neighborhood? Every time there is a home foreclosed upon, it immediately causes the rest of the neighborhood to be worth less money. What does it do to the government entity where that home is located? The government entity loses the ability to get tax money. No one benefits from foreclosures.

This is a step in the right direction. In Nevada, for example, 1 out of every 165 homes was in foreclosure in February. Can you imagine that, 1 out of every 165 homes. That is the highest rate in Nevada. We are fortunate we have a lot of construction that is not housing related that is going to pull us through this situation. It is important that we move forward on this legislation.

The underlying bill is a so-called Democratic bill. This bill, if we are able to accomplish something, will be a Senate bill. Democrats and Republicans can go home and take credit for doing something to help the problem.

Are we going to be able to resolve all the problems in housing? Of course not. But we can make a tremendous step forward, and that is what we intend to do.

I have worked with Senator Shelby from the time we were in the House together. We shared office space. His office in the Longworth Building was next to mine. I have the highest regard for him. I spoke with him this morning. I believe he and the chairman of the committee, Senator Dodd, are going to be able to come up with something that I hope I can support, but it is going to be bipartisan. They are going to agree on this and offer it as the first amendment when we get to this legislation. If something goes wrong, if someone is being mischievous about that legislation, Senator McConnell and I will meet again.

The goal is to do something about housing. We are not going to solve the problems of Iraq on this bill. We are not going to solve the tax policy of this country on this bill. We are not going to solve global warming on this housing bill. But we need to do something the American people recognize is bipartisan as it relates to housing, and we are going to do everything we can.

I believe the time has come for us to start legislating and stop talking about the need to legislate.

Mr. President, a vote has been called for 2:30. If there is someone else who wishes to speak, they certainly have the opportunity for the next few minutes.

Will my friend yield?

One of the points I did not talk about with the distinguished leader is that I think it would be appropriate that we, after the vote is completed, go into a period for morning business until 12 o'clock noon tomorrow to see, if, in fact, we can get the two distinguished Senators to come up with a substitute. We need some deadline. That is as good as any, unless my friend has a better time tomorrow.

During this afternoon and in the morning, people can talk about housing or anything else they want. We will be in a period for morning business.

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

Mr. President, following my remarks and those of the Republican leader, if he chooses to make some, there will be a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each. As previously announced, there will be no rollcall votes today. Senators should be prepared to vote tomorrow at about 2:15 p.m. or thereabouts on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 3221, the legislative vehicle for the housing bill.

Mr. President, 76 years ago, Franklin Roosevelt, who was then the Governor of New York, was engaged in a fierce Presidential campaign. The country was reeling from the stock market crash of 1929. Consumer confidence in banks had plummeted. The Great Depression was in full force at that time, and the American people had lost confidence that President Herbert Hoover had what it took to lead the country out of economic darkness.

In April 1932, Governor Roosevelt, seeking the Democratic nomination for President, took to the radio waves and said this:

I do not want to limit myself to politics. I do not want to

feel that I am addressing an audience of Democrats or that I

speak merely as a Democrat myself. The present condition of

our national affairs is too serious to be viewed through

partisan eyes for partisan purposes.

He went on to say that troubled times call for us to:

put [our] faith once more in the forgotten man at the bottom

of the economic pyramid. . . . The two billion dollar fund

which President Hoover and Congress have put at the disposal

of big banks, the railroads and the corporations is not for

[the average person].

Here should be an objective of government itself--to

provide at least as much assistance to the little fellow as

it is now giving to the large banks and corporations. This is

[an] example of building from the bottom up.

Mr. President, the more things change, the more they seem to stay the same. Recently, the Federal Reserve provided taxpayers' money to prevent the collapse of Bear Stearns. The Fed took the additional unprecedented step of opening its discount lending window to securities firms, even though--unlike banks--those firms aren't regulated by the Fed.

I understand the need to take some bold steps. I believe the Federal Reserve is doing what they think is best in the face of a deep and growing economic crisis. While on principle the spirit of capitalism would call for Wall Street firms to shoulder the burden of loss along with the spoils of profit, it is incumbent upon our Government to look for the greater good. But we must not neglect the lessons of history. If we agree that it is a responsibility of Government to provide liquidity and security to the titans of Wall Street--and we do--then how can we think it is any less our responsibility to do the same for Main Street?

The American people are suffering. We are paying more than ever for gasoline, groceries, and heat for our homes. Home values are falling-- in January

alone, almost 13 percent. Millions face foreclosure, and communities are suffering because of the housing meltdown. This crisis is real, it is immediate, and it calls for Congress to take action. Every day that Congress and the President do nothing is another day closer to another American family losing their home. This is not the time for politics or partisanship. It is, as President Roosevelt said, time to give some ``assistance to the little fellow''--those were his words--it is time to do the right thing, the responsible thing, for the American people--the little fellow.

Last work period, Democrats introduced a housing bill. The President and his Republican Senators filibustered and blocked this much needed legislation. This legislation is not a catch-all or a silver bullet, but financial experts agree it is a good start. If passed, it would have an immediate positive impact on struggling homeowners and hard-hit neighborhoods.

Mr. President, I have talked in length about this legislation to Chairman Bernanke. I have spoken to Secretary Paulson. I think they have done good work. But I think if they were asked point blank--and I am not going to, certainly, state here publicly any of the things they said to me, but someone can ask them themselves--I think they would say our legislation is a step in the right direction. If this law passed today, it would have an immediate positive impact on struggling homeowners and hard-hit neighborhoods.

These are the five points of our plan:

First, we help families keep their homes by increasing funds for preforeclosure counseling. It is imperative we do that.

Second, we expand refinancing opportunities for homeowners stuck in bad loans. Mortgage revenue bonds--the President said he liked that in his State of the Union Message.

Third, we provide funds to help the highest need communities purchase and rehabilitate foreclosed properties, as well as tax relief to struggling businesses affected by the housing downturn.

Fourth, we help families avoid foreclosure in the future by improving loan disclosures and transparency during the original loan and refinancing process.

Fifth, we amend the Bankruptcy Code to allow home loans on primary residences to be modified in certain circumstances, with very strict guidelines. We have a tax provision which is extremely important to the homebuilding industry: loss carryback. We have a program that allows the bankruptcy courts to step in on primary residences and, if necessary, help adjust those loans.

It is time we pass this bill.

Last work period, Republicans blocked a vote on this, as I have said before. One Republican Senator said that all Republicans wanted was the opportunity to propose amendments. Mr. President, I have said on this floor, I have said privately, I have said at press conferences--the record will clearly show--Democrats are happy to allow amendments. Democrats want to offer amendments. Republicans want to offer amendments. We would like nothing more than an open debate on this bill and how we might be able to make it better. I have told my distinguished counterpart, Senator McConnell, if Republicans object to parts of our bill, they are welcome to seek enough votes to amend it, to change it. That is how the legislative process is supposed to work.

It would be a fool's errand to put our proposal up and the Republican proposal up and move to invoke cloture on each one of those. It would take 60 votes. That is not what we need to do. It would be failure for sure.

Why don't we move forward on our bill? There will be a vote at 2:15 tomorrow. If my colleagues want to have a limited number of amendments, fine, let's have a limited number of amendments dealing with this problem. Experts say we are in a crisis and have to do something now.

I respect Secretary Paulson very much. I like Secretary Paulson. The proposals he made at 10 o'clock today are certainly worth considering, but they are not going to do one simple thing to help the people who are now in foreclosure--nothing. It is for the future. That deals with the future. We need to deal with the present. But so far my Republican friends have not allowed this bill to proceed to the point at which amendments can be offered. In short, they have stalled this necessary help to working Americans.

Tomorrow, we will have another opportunity to work on this piece of legislation. We cannot sit on our hands. We cannot take a wait-and-see approach. And we cannot embrace the status quo as the economy continues to deteriorate. Let's legislate. Let's work to help beleaguered Americans. Democrats have no agenda but to get this bill passed quickly and fairly so the American people can reap the benefits. If we are able to pass this legislation, it will be one where credit can go to everybody. This is something we need to do. We cannot do it alone. We have 51 Senators. They have 49. We have to do this together or it will not be done at all. In America's darkest economic hour, that was the leadership Franklin Roosevelt showed--and that is what we must do as we face our own crisis today.

Mr. President, in this work period, we will, once again, because of the supplemental, turn to the raging civil war in Iraq.

To say that the Bush-Cheney spin machine lacks credibility is an understatement as it relates to the war in Iraq.

Last week, the President marked the beginning of the sixth year of this war by delivering more of the same disconnected rhetoric. But at the same time he was giving this talk of progress, the facts on the ground betrayed this happy-talk. As Republican Senator Chuck Hagel said, the President's words--compared with the real facts on the ground--are like ``Alice in Wonderland.'' That is what Senator Hagel said. The situation on the ground in Iraq is fluid and rapidly changing.

Mr. President, I was stunned this morning when I got up and listened to the radio. Sadr has said: OK, lay down your arms on a couple conditions--release all the prisoners, don't do any more arrests, and leave us alone.

Mr. President, within a couple of months after this war started, the commanders on the ground in Iraq came and told us that this man was a criminal and he would be in jail within a matter of a couple weeks. Now, whether that is true or not, that is up for others to decide, but that is what we were told. And here is this man now, 5 years later, who in effect is telling the elected leader of Iraq what to do and what not to do.

It is clear that the Iraqi civil war persists. Within the past few days, nearly 1,000 Iraqis have been killed in Basra alone. This war is a war of Shiite versus Shiite, al-Maliki versus al-Sadr, Iraqi versus Iraqi, Sunni versus Shia, Shia versus Sunni. Who is in the middle of all of this? The American troops.

The President's spokesperson said: This is it. We are now in a situation where the Iraqis are going to take care of their own. But, of course, the police, when confronted, turned over their arms to al-Sadr and walked away. They gave them their guns--I assume their badges--and walked away. The American troops were called in; air power and ground troops were called in. The Iraqis could not handle the situation.

As one Iraq teacher said in the New York Times this weekend, in the closing paragraphs of a very long article:

``Unfortunately we were expecting one thing but we saw

something else,'' said Ali Hussam, 48, a teacher, who said

that after Saddam Hussein the people of Basra hoped for

peace. ``But unfortunately with the presence of this new

government and this democracy that was brought to us by the

invader it made us kill each other.''

``And the war is now between us,'' he said. But,

unfortunately, with the presence of this new government

and this democracy that was brought to us by the invader,

it made us kill each other.

And the war is now between us.

That is what he said:

And the war is now between us.

When the Vice President of the United States goes to Iraq, it is secret. No one knows he is going there. It is not on his schedule. He is under very high security. When the President of Iran goes to Iraq, he announces 2 weeks in advance he is coming--not in the dead of the night, 2 weeks in advance.

I support our troops. Whenever I say something like that, I think of the Presiding Officer and others in this Chamber who know what it means to support our troops, as someone who has carried weapons in support of his country and as someone who has been injured as a result of wearing the uniform of this country. So I say this with a lot of humility, but I, along with everyone in this Senate, support our troops. Every one of us is honored by their sacrifice and grateful beyond expression for their outstanding work.

When it comes to judging the Iraq war, only one question matters: Are we safer? The answer is undeniably no, and no amount of spin from the White House can change that.

Because of Iraq, our military is stretched thin and its ability to address new threats is compromised. Many of our troops are now on their third, fourth, and some are on their fifth tours of duty in Iraq.

Are we safer with bin Laden free and al-Qaida strengthening? Of course not.

Because of Iraq, our National Guard--the brave men and women charged with protecting us from disastrous threats here at home--don't have the manpower or the equipment to do their job effectively at home. Are we safer with a weakened National Guard to protect us at home? Of course not.

Because of Iraq and the Bush administration's shoot first, talk later style of cowboy diplomacy, our moral authority in the world is shattered, and to talk about this being cowboy diplomacy is an insult to cowboys. Our former allies are unwilling to stand by our side. Our ability to solve conflicts through diplomacy are diminished.

Are we safer as a weakened moral force in the world? Of course not. The American people know this by overwhelming numbers. They continue to oppose this war, and with good reason: We are objectively less safe because of Iraq.

The cost of the war to our country has been enormous, not only in the loss of lives--now more than 4,000--but also tens of thousands wounded, a third of them gravely. We are now spending $5,000 every second in Iraq--every second--$12 billion a month. No weekends off. No holidays off. We are spending $5,000 a second of borrowed taxpayers' money. The President told us the war would cost no more than $60 billion. Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz said it is going to cost us $3 trillion.

In Iraq, we--the American taxpayers--are building hospitals, roads, bridges, dams, water systems, sewer systems, barracks for the Iraqis, when we should be helping millions of Americans avoid losing their homes to foreclosure. We are policing the streets in Baghdad when we should be investing in health care and a better education system. We are protecting oilfields in Basra when we should be funding renewable energy production to help stem the tide of global warming.

When all is finally said and done, experts say the war is going to cost as much as $3 trillion or more, as I have said. Where does this come from? It is all borrowed for future generations to pay back. The legacy of our generation could be to leave our children and grandchildren with a safer, cleaner, and more prosperous country. Instead, the war in Iraq will ensure that we leave future generations with trillions of dollars in debt.

Instead of making our country safer, we are greasing the pocketbooks of corrupt Iraqi politicians and buying their temporary cooperation. Let's not forget this: Iraq is a rich country. It is not a poor country--far from it. Its oil resources make it one of the world's wealthiest countries. With the price of oil skyrocketing as it has, think of the money that is going into their coffers. Record-high oil prices have supplied Iraq with literally more money than they know what to do with, but we keep spending $5,000 a second in Iraq. As we borrow and spend billions of dollars to provide the security that the Iraqi Government has failed to create for themselves, Iraq is bringing in billions of oil money faster than they can open bank accounts to store it all.

If a parent gives a teenager the choice of either getting a job or receiving an allowance for doing nothing, the teenager will often choose to do nothing. As long as we guarantee to the Iraqi Government that our troops and our money will support them, they will never have an incentive to do the job themselves. The security welfare state we have created will go on and on forever.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the first indication we have to move forward and have a productive work period is to see if we can do something to help the beleaguered people who are losing their homes as we speak. We have the opportunity to do that tomorrow.

For those within the sound of my voice, before we can move to a piece of legislation, the Republicans have to sign off on that. They can do it by approving what we call a motion to proceed. That motion to proceed failed before because the Republicans voted no on our ability to proceed. We need 60 votes to do that. I hope they will join with us to move to this housing package and work to help us come up with a good piece of legislation to show there must be some merit to our legislation.

I have seen Senator Bond's legislation. It has most of our stuff in it. It is a pretty good piece of legislation. It also has some other things in it. It seems to me we are at a good starting point if we have one of the main Republican proponents of housing legislation who includes in his legislation much of what we want to go forward on. So I think that is a good start. So I hope we can do that tomorrow. If we move forward on the piece of legislation we have, we will finish this. We can do it this week and send it to the House and I think they can work much more quickly than we do. That would be a good indication we are going to work together.

Let me say this about a couple of other things. As to the confirmation of judges, Josh Bolten, the President's Chief of Staff, and I spent a lot of time the week before we went on the Easter recess. We were able to accomplish a lot of good things. I don't know the exact number, but we were able to work through scores of Republican nominations the President sent forward. I think the Democrats got 5 or 6 and the Republicans got 50 or 60. We don't have the opportunity to send as many names to the President as he sends to us. The President's Chief of Staff wrote a nice letter, which I received last week, saying we have established a working facility. He is assigning one of his people at the White House, and I have assigned my Chief of Staff. If there are things we cannot work out, Mr. Bolten and I will work on it face to face. Part of that is judges. We are going to do our best to work out something on judges. That is part of the entire package.

Now, even Mr. Bolten would recognize the number of judges being sent to us has been pretty slow. But that is no excuse. We will be happy to move forward on nominations, generally. The White House needs a lot of these people, and we understand that. There has to be a give and take on this, as the White House showed the week before the recess, which Mr. Bolten and I worked on.

So I am convinced there are a lot of things we can do. The farm bill is something where we also need the cooperation of the White House. The managers of this bill have worked very hard--the Senator from Georgia and the Senator from Iowa--along with the two managers of the bill, as it relates to finance, who have worked with their counterparts in the House. We need to get a little better work from the White House. We have basically worked out the numbers. We cut back the President's numbers. We are working on the offsets now. That should be something we can do. We need to have the White House engaged in this, but more so than they have been.

The farm bill is important. I tell my distinguished counterpart that I heard about this farm bill during the break. I had calls from many of my Senators asking what can be done about this. We are trying. As Senator McConnell notes, Senator Chambliss, the ranking member on the Agriculture Committee, has worked with Senator Harkin. We are doing our best to work through this. I hope we can get something done so we don't have to extend it again. The bill expires again on April 18. We cannot go on without renewing this bill and/or passing a new bill. If we do not renew this legislation, the price of milk will basically go back to 1949 levels. Based on that, a half gallon of milk would be about $5. So we have a lot of work to do.

I appreciate the constructive attitude of the Senator from Kentucky. I don't agree with a lot of his illustrations, but I think it was a positive statement. I hope we can work something out on these and other issues.

Mr. President, I rise today in appreciation of the life and lasting legacy of civil rights activist and labor leader, Cesar Chavez.

Cesar Chavez came from humble beginnings, born on March 31, 1927, in a small farm outside of Yuma, AZ. Through his experiences as a laborer and migrant worker in the fields of the southwest United States, he recognized a need for change; change that would bring social and economic equality to those who tilled America's soil and harvested America's crops. The exploitation and discrimination experienced and observed by Mr. Chavez energized his courageous fight for fair and equal treatment for his hardworking colleagues of all backgrounds.

As a member of the U.S. Navy he served in the western Pacific during the end of World War II to protect the freedoms that he often did not enjoy. He demonstrated his dedication to two great values--community and compassion--by building a powerful coalition of grass roots organizations and inspiring individuals of all backgrounds to join a campaign for social equality.

Cesar Chavez is not only an icon for Mexican-American communities across this great country, but also an American icon for all those who have felt the pain of injustice and for those who recognize the continuing need to allow equal access to the resources of our great Nation. His tireless efforts to help bring our country closer to its ideals of freedom and equality of opportunity shall be recognized today as they were when he posthumously received the Presidential Medal of Freedom. His legacy inspires hope, action, and prosperity for those who are often burdened by marginalization and discrimination. Our society owes gratitude to the indelible mark that Mr. Chavez has left on our Nation.

I appreciate the Clark County Commission for commemorating the legacy of a giant in our Nation's labor movement by declaring March 31, 2008, as Cesar Chavez Day. I join the Commission, and many throughout Nevada, in honoring Mr. Chavez's visionary leadership. We must continue to recognize the value in Cesar Chavez's legacy, which has become a symbol of dignity and perseverance for all workers, whether in the fields, in the factories, or behind the counter.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I had the good fortune to serve in the Senate with one of the real characters of this Senate, Howard Metzenbaum. A smile has to cross my lips when we talk about Howard Metzenbaum because he was someone who really was a Senator. He had read the bills. He wanted to make sure people were treated fairly. If they weren't, he knew how to slow things up. But in the end, he was willing to come around. I have such respect and gratitude for the service to our country of Howard Metzenbaum.

He served 18 years as a Senator from Ohio, from 1976 to 1995. He was really a self-starter, for lack of a better description. He held his first job at age 10 delivering groceries, worked his way through Ohio State University with all kinds of jobs--sold flowers, played trombone in the band at the university, sold magazines, razor blades, rented bicycles. But he graduated Ohio State with all those odd jobs, Ohio State law school.

His first big business break came when he and a partner created a 24- hour staff parking lot at Cleveland's Hopkins Airport. No one had ever heard of a 24-hour parking lot. He did.

Howard Metzenbaum came to the Senate as a very wealthy man. He was a self-made man. He was a man who had made a name for himself. He was a labor lawyer, a union lobbyist. When he came to the Senate, he never forgot the people those unions represented, the working men and women of Ohio. After he left the Senate, he became the head of the Consumer Federation of America, a perfect place for him.

His partner in all this was his wife Shirley, whom we all came to adore. They have four daughters.

I want the Record to be spread with my appreciation and admiration for this good man from Ohio.

Mr. President, as we all know, this is the time for the vote-arama or whatever we want to call it. It is usually an exciting day, but it is a difficult day. I have conferred with the two Republican leaders, and what we are going to do--and I ask unanimous consent that this be the case--the first vote we are going to have will occur sometime around 11 o'clock. The first vote will be 15 minutes plus 5, like we do. After that, they will be 10 minutes straight, no wiggle time at all. Senator Conrad and Senator Gregg have been through this many times. We tried 5 minutes; it doesn't work. But 10 minutes we are going to do. This is going to apply to my side of the aisle and the other side of the aisle, the 10 minutes. We are going to cut things off, if people miss votes.

Of course. I appreciate that very much. As my friend indicated, prior to each vote there will be 1 minute on each side, pro and con. I also have asked the Parliamentarian to enforce this. I say to the Chair, and I hope you will notify your successor, we are going to gavel people after 1 minute. These 1-minute speeches drag on for 3 or 4 minutes. That takes away from what we are supposed to do. The 1 minute is something we have kind of traditionally started doing. There is nothing in the rules to say you have any time.

I ask unanimous consent that the first vote be 15 minutes plus 5, subsequent votes will be 10 minutes, with no wiggle room after that, and that there be 1 minute on each side on each amendment and that the Chair will enforce the 1 minute.

Mr. President, my final request would be that the Senator from Ohio, Mr. Brown, be given 5 minutes to speak as in morning business.

I ask unanimous consent for 3 minutes for Senator Kennedy.

Mr. President, one thing I did not mention--the Republican leader is on the floor--we are going to finish this bill tonight. Or if it goes past midnight, we are going to finish it on Friday. We are going to finish this bill. We have a lot of amendments. It is not as if we have not done this before. I hope people will be understanding of the rest of the Senators as to how many amendments are offered.

We understand the rules. You can offer all you want. We are going to finish this legislation tonight. It is important we do that. We have a very important work period coming, with many

things scheduled. I have had a number of Democrats and Republicans come to me and say it would be to everyone's advantage if we finished this bill earlier tonight rather than later. But whenever it is, whether it is late on Thursday, early on Thursday, or early Friday morning, we are going to finish this legislation tonight or in the morning.

Mr. President, I checked with the two managers, and on the amendments that are pending, I ask unanimous consent that there be no second-degree amendments on the list of amendments.

Mr. President, how am I recorded?

Mr. President, I appreciate my friend, the distinguished Senator from Arizona, but it has always been the standard here, when there is a close vote--and this is a close vote, I have to acknowledge that; I think now it is 50 to 50--people have the opportunity to change their vote.

We are doing our very best to hold it to the 10-minute limit. To go through the charade of reconsidering because somebody is--it is really unnecessary. This is the vote total, and I think people just have to be very patient. We are going to adhere to the 10-minute limit as much as we can. Everyone knows that if there is a problem on the other side, we do the same thing. We are not playing favorites with anyone.

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

Mr. President, would the Senator be kind enough to direct his inquiry, through the Chair, to me?

I am sorry, I think a lot of us didn't hear the question.

Mr. President, if I can just respond.

And certainly I am not taking the place of the Chair. I personally didn't know if Senator Cornyn was coming to vote or not. If you or Senator McConnell or anyone else had indicated that he was on his way, or one of those we have heard that of before--on his way--no one was trying to take advantage of anyone on the vote. No one was trying to take advantage of anyone. But I think we went through a lot of wasted time, and I probably would have done the same thing had I been in your position. But nobody was trying to take advantage of Senator Cornyn. It was late, and that is too bad. We will try to be as fair as we can.

At this stage, we have about 25 votes left.

Okay, so 40. That was the last count I looked at. And we are going to try to move through these as expeditiously as possible. There will be other close votes, and we are going to try to be as fair as we can to you and to us. So no one is trying to take advantage of anyone, and I think there is an order in effect. The order is we are going to have 10-minute votes.

Mr. President, certainly the Chair can respond to this, but there is an order now in effect that we are going to do 10-minute votes. Everybody agreed to that this morning.

I would simply say this: I do say, and I am glad the Senator from Arizona raises this as an issue, that there is not time for lunch, there is no time for meetings, unless you go to the reception area. In the future, I think people are going to have to start missing votes. It is really not fair to both sides if we have people simply off doing other things. Everyone is busy, and the reason we have the 10-minute rule is because we need to work our way through these votes.

So I think you have made a very good point, I say to my friend. I think we need to stick to the 10-minute rule. So we will stick with the 10-minute rule. If you have a problem when people are here shifting votes around--but I think they should be in the Chamber--that is how we will proceed. If anyone can figure a better way to do it, I am happy to listen, but I think the 10-minute rule should apply.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I have had a conversation with the distinguished managers of the bill, and we are not there yet, but we are at a point where maybe in the next 20 or 30 minutes we can have a final list of amendments. Whatever that number is, we will lock those in and spend the rest of the time working through those. So I hope we can do that. No one has been cut off from offering any amendments, but I hope people will work with the staffs. The staffs of Senator Gregg and Senator Conrad have worked very hard all this week, and I hope people will work with them and be considerate of not only them but these people up here who make the Senate work. They have been here since we started voting. So we hope we can do that. We will report back in a half hour or so.