Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the following items, which are post office-naming bills: Calendar Nos. 385, 386, 387, 388, and 389, and that we do those en bloc.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the bills be read a third time and passed and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate on any one of the five.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 381, S. Res. 421.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 445 and the Senate proceed to its consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 454.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m. on Thursday, May 22, 2014; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks, the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 1:45 p.m., with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first 30 minutes, the Republicans controlling the second 30 minutes, and the final 10 minutes equally divided and controlled between Senators Leahy and Paul or their designees, with Senator Leahy controlling the final 5 minutes; and that at 1:45 p.m. the Senate vote on confirmation of the Barron nomination, with all other provisions of previous order remaining in effect; further, that upon disposition of the Barron nomination, the Senate resume legislative session, and pursuant to the previous order, the Chair lay before the Senate the message with respect to the conference report to accompany H.R. 3080; that there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled in the usual form prior to the adoption of the conference report, with all other provisions of the previous order remaining in effect.

Mr. President, there will be two rollcall votes at 1:45 p.m. tomorrow.

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

Mr. President, I now move to proceed to Calendar No. 92, S. 162, which is the Franken Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act.

Mr. President, following my remarks and those of the Republican leader, if any, the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 5:30 p.m. The time from 2:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. The Senate will recess from 12:30 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings. At 5:30 p.m. there will be at least two rollcall votes: confirmation of the Costa nomination to be a U.S. circuit judge and a cloture vote on the Fischer nomination to be a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.

brown v. board of education anniversary

Mr. President, we hear a lot--and have for many years--about the Brown v. Board of Education case, but what was that all about? Well, it was about a dad and a mom who decided they could no longer just go along; they had to try to do something to take care of their little 7- year-old girl Linda. In the 1950s this family lived in Topeka, KS, and the State was racially segregated. Little Black boys and girls went one place to school; little White boys and girls went someplace else. But it was clear where the little Black boys and girls went to school the schools were not very good; where the little White boys and girls went the schools were pretty good--certainly better than where the Black boys and girls went.

But a courageous father named Oliver Brown was determined to give his little third grader Linda a fair shot at a good education. These were long odds he took. Mr. Brown tried unsuccessfully to enroll his daughter Linda in the neighborhood all-White elementary school, the school that was close by. But the doors of that school were shut to little Linda because she was an African American--because of the color of her skin. It had nothing to do with her intellect; it had everything to do with the color of her skin.

She was forced to walk--a little 7-year-old girl, a third grader-- seven or eight blocks to a bus stop where she waited for a bus to take her to an all-Black elementary school some distance away.

Rather than accept the status quo, the Browns--and they got some other neighbors to join them--brought a civil case against the Topeka school board challenging the school district's segregation policy.

This case took a long time to work up to the U.S. Supreme Court, but it got there. This case is now commonly known as Brown v. Board of Education. As I said, it was eventually argued before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The plaintiffs were represented by the NAACP and a young lawyer by the name of Thurgood Marshall. I just finished a stunning book about this man. It is called ``Devil in the Grove,'' and

for anyone within the sound of my voice, I would recommend they read this book. It tells a lot about Thurgood Marshall and the struggles he went through. But it also talks about the South and what he had to put up with--death threats, accommodations. He had to stay at other people's homes. Even though he would go to a courthouse, and he would have to spend weeks in that town, he could not get a room nearby. He had to go live with an African-American family during that period of time. It is a good book, and it talks about how courageous the Brown family would have to be to do what they did: to challenge the status quo.

In rendering the decision, the U.S. Supreme Court--not in a 5-4 decision, not in a 7-2 decision, but in a unanimous decision--under the leadership of Chief Justice Earl Warren, unanimously held that a racially segregated public school was ``inherently unequal,'' and they overturned--some say half a century--what America had been for a long time. They changed it. We all know it did not change like that, but it changed.

I had the good fortune last night--I got home fairly early, 7 o'clock--and watched the news. Every news show talked about the 60th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education, which occurred last Saturday. They interviewed everyone, and even though we have a long way to go, everyone acknowledged that decision changed America. The status quo of separate but equal in our Nation's public schools was struck down. It was gone--not in a decision, I repeat, that was close but unanimous. We need more of those. We need more collegiality in the Supreme Court, not only here in the U.S. Senate but in the Supreme Court, because after that was struck down, little kids such as Linda Brown were able to attend class with little White boys and girls.

This past Saturday marked the 60th anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education.

My children are not little kids anymore, but in Nevada, we had segregation. I can remember a man I served with in the State legislature. His name was Woodrow Wilson, an African American. He told me about Las Vegas and taking his children to a lunch counter that was in a drugstore. They told him to leave, that he could not eat there. That is Las Vegas; that is not Mississippi.

So things changed in Nevada. When my children were young, schools were not really segregated as I just described what was going on in Kansas, but they still had some issues. How it was handled in Nevada-- let's see if I can remember the grade--yes, for all sixth graders, White kids were bused to an African-American community to go to school for 1 year of their school career, but the rest of the time the Black kids were bused. So for 1 year White kids were bused; the rest of the time Black kids were bused. That is gone now. But it was handled differently. Was what took place with my two oldest children good? No. But it was better than it used to be.

After six decades, our Nation still owes a debt to those few brave individuals who stood against racial segregation in American schools, and the lawyer there was a man by the name of Thurgood Marshall. I never had the pleasure and honor of meeting this man when he was on the Supreme Court, but, boy, what a stalwart he was. And that book was so good. Again, I repeat, it is called ``Devil in the Grove.'' It is focused mainly on Florida and what went on in Florida--what a bad situation there, created by lots of people but principally one sheriff.

The Brown family, their fellow plaintiffs, the legal teams, and the nine Supreme Court Justices all refused to let inequality go unchallenged.

For the Browns, it was difficult, it was scary, and it was courageous to pursue legal recourse in the face of insults, slanders, and threats. But the Brown family and their fellow plaintiffs stood firm in the face of their opposition. Their legal teams did not waiver, led by Thurgood Marshall, and their supporters had their backs from the beginning to the end.

These parents could have given up, and I am sure there are stories that are untold where parents did give up. But here the Browns knew it was their responsibility to fight for justice. There was nothing given when they started this. In fact, the odds were stacked against them.

Today, along with my Senate colleagues, I express my gratitude for the men, women, and children whose iconic efforts helped bring racial segregation to a screeching halt. As I have said before, today our Nation is still far from perfect, and, sadly, we still see racism rear its ugly head. We saw what happened in Nevada very recently where a man said that African Americans were better off with slavery. Some people still believe such things. But no one can dispute that we are better off because of Brown v. Board of Education.

It is my hope we will recognize and support those other children like little Linda Brown in doing our part to equally and fairly look at what is going on and do our part to defend equality and fairness in our society. As we do that, we will complete the unfinished work of Brown v. Board of Education.

nominations

Mr. President, I want to briefly call attention to something that I think is extremely important for our country and for the Senate.

Last week we had all the police officers from Nevada, New Jersey, came from all over the country, to celebrate National Police Week, to express our appreciation for the crime-fighting men and women who protect our families every day. They had an honor roll there of people in our country who were killed in the line of duty as police officers.

While the rest of America honored our Nation's police officers, the U.S. Senate failed to do its part in supporting law enforcement.

For months--for months--we have struggled to get nominations done.

The chief law enforcement officer of our country is Eric Holder. He is the Attorney General of the United States. He has awesome responsibility. Yesterday we saw that seven Chinese military officers were indicted for hacking into different businesses to steal their trade secrets. A day rarely goes by where we don't see the Justice Department announcing something they have done for the good of our country. A big bank was fined $2.5 billion yesterday for doing things that were criminally done in our country--hiding money that people were putting into banks so they wouldn't have to pay taxes on them. The Justice Department is so important to the integrity of our Nation, but we have about 140 nominations that have been stalled by the Republican obstruction.

We changed the rules in the Senate. We are getting our judicial nominations done. These good men and women will serve a lifetime in their jobs. They were blocked, and now we have a way to get them done. But rather than live up to those responsibilities, Republicans are pouting. They are pouting. They are saying: Oh, they changed the rules to get these judges done, so we are going to agree to nothing--things we used to do as a matter of fact. I can remember when I was the whip here and I did work for Senator Daschle, who was the leader. One evening, by consent, we did 70 nominations just like that, walked out with a consent agreement and approved them. That is the way we used to always do it until President Obama was elected. They have done everything they can to make it so that this man's job is very difficult. Everyone can try to figure out why they have done it, but they have done it. They have opposed everything this good man has tried to do.

Right now, if you can imagine this, we have three people--it is very important--who want to be U.S. attorneys in New Mexico, Louisiana, and Connecticut. These are extremely important jobs, fulfilling those responsibilities. But they can't fulfill those responsibilities because they are being held up by Republicans. These are jobs that were never held up in the past. These are people who are prosecuting crimes in the States of New Mexico, Louisiana, and Connecticut, but they are being held up. Why? For no good reason. These are all good men and women.

The U.S. attorneys are our Nation's top prosecutors for drug trafficking, bank robbery, counterfeiting. When I practiced law, it was kind of a joke: What are they trying to do--make a Federal case out of it?

Yes.

Why do they say that? Because Federal cases are good cases. They are investigated by the FBI and other agencies, and they bring these cases to the

U.S. attorney, and they make a Federal case out of them. But they are not making Federal cases out of those cases in New Mexico, Louisiana, and Connecticut. Everyone who is watching what I say today, that is a sham.

The reason I mentioned the Attorney General, we have two Assistant Attorneys General they are holding up. Eric Holder called me yesterday and said: Is there anything that can be done to help me?

Again, I will have to file cloture on these. This is how it works, everybody: I file cloture, we get cloture, and they have 30 hours to stand around and do nothing. When 30 hours is over we finally get a vote. They get 30 hours for a circuit court judge, Supreme Court Justice, and Cabinet officer. For U.S. attorneys and assistant U.S. attorneys, they get 8 hours--an arbitrary number.

I don't plan on changing the rules again, but how much longer can we put up with this? Even law enforcement officers, as I have indicated, are held up for no reason. We don't hear people giving speeches about what horrible people the President selected to be U.S. attorney in Connecticut, Louisiana, and New Mexico--not a word. They just hide behind their obstruction.

I ought to mention that we have about 40 ambassadors they have held up. These are not political appointments; these are career ambassadors who have worked their whole lives to have one of these jobs where they represent our country. We have major countries where they have held up ambassadors: 25 percent of all African countries, no ambassadors; Peru; and on and on with all of the things that are being done--not for the betterment of our country.

We have the Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division. One would think that is kind of important with the fires burning in the West and the number of fires caused by malicious acts.

Is it right that we have all this degradation of our environment and there is nobody to enforce the law? I know the Koch brothers want no environmental protection. They say that, so maybe they are at the beck and call of the Koch brothers, who don't want these laws enforced.

The U.S. Department of Justice is the crime-fighting arm of our government, and they should not be handcuffed by not having the people to allow the Attorney General to have help with his responsibilities. It is hard to fathom that the work of Attorney General Eric Holder is being recklessly hindered by Republican obstruction.

It used to be easy for me to say ``I call on my Republican colleagues to stop it,'' but they haven't stopped it for 5\1/2\ years. It is a shame. I would at least hope they could give our Nation's law enforcement all the tools they need to protect us.

Reservation of Leader Time

Would the Chair announce the business of the day.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that, notwithstanding the previous order, today, at 5:30 p.m., the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Calendars No. 521, 622, and 765, and the Senate proceed to vote on confirmation of the nominations in the order listed; that there be 2 minutes for debate prior to each vote, equally divided in the usual form; that any rollcall votes following the first in each series be 10 minutes in duration; further, that if confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to the nominations; that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; and that following disposition of these nominations the Senate proceed under the previous order.

What this means is tonight at 5:30 p.m. we could have as many as five rollcall votes. Some of these votes could be confirmed by voice, so we will wait and see about that, so there would be maybe only two rollcall votes, on confirmation of Jeffrey Costa to be a U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit and cloture on Stanley Fischer to be a member of the Federal Reserve Board.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that, notwithstanding rule XXII and the previous order, if cloture is invoked on Calendar No. 768, Fischer, on Wednesday, May 21, 2014, at 12:15 p.m., the Senate proceed to executive session and all postcloture time be expired and the Senate proceed to vote on confirmation of Calendar No. 768, Fischer; further, that following disposition of Calendar No. 768, the Senate be in recess until 2 p.m.; that at 2 p.m., there be 10 minutes for debate, equally divided between the two leaders or their designees prior to a vote on cloture on the nomination of Barron, Calendar No. 576; further, that if cloture is invoked, on Thursday at 2 p.m., all postcloture time be expired and the Senate proceed to vote on confirmation of the Barron nomination with all other remaining provisions of the previous order remaining in effect; finally, that following the cloture vote on the Barron nomination, the Senate proceed to consideration of Calendar Nos. 773, Cook; 774, Daly; 775, Green; and 743, Martinez; and vote on confirmation thereof in the order listed; further, that there be 2 minutes for debate prior to each vote, equally divided in the usual form; that any rollcall votes following the first in each series be 10 minutes in length; the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to the nominations; that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the Record; that President Obama be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

With this agreement, on Wednesday, we expect one rollcall vote at 12:15 p.m. on confirmation of the Fischer nomination, and as many as five rollcall votes at 2:10 p.m. We hope all four votes will be by voice, but we have to wait and see.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Johnson of South Dakota, I ask unanimous consent that Krishna Patel and Dan Fichtler, detailees on the Banking Committee, be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's session.

Mr. President, this resolution concerns a request for testimony in a criminal misdemeanor action pending in City Court in Lafayette, LA. In this action, the defendant is charged with disturbing the peace arising out of his appearance at Senator David Vitter's Lafayette, LA office. A trial is scheduled for May 28, 2014.

The prosecution has sought testimony from two current employees of Senator Vitter's office, and one former employee of that office, who were witnesses to the charged event. Senator Vitter would like to cooperate by providing relevant testimony, and, if necessary, documents from his office. This resolution would authorize those current and former employees, and any other employee of the Senator's office from whom relevant evidence may be necessary, to testify and produce documents in this action, with representation by the Senate Legal Counsel.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 92, S. 162, the Franken Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act.

Mr. President, following my remarks and those of the Republican leader, the time until 11:15 a.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. At 11:15 a.m. there will be a series of rollcall votes in relation to several nominations. Following those votes, the Senate will recess until 1:45 p.m. to allow for the caucus meetings we are having today. At 1:45 p.m. there will be another series of rollcall votes in relation to nominations as well as a cloture vote on the Wyden substitute amendment to the tax extenders legislation. The filing deadline for first-degree amendments to the substitute and the bill is 1 p.m. and the filing deadline for second-degree amendments to the substitute is 3 p.m. today.

Campaign Finance

Mr. President, a memo from the Koch-funded political organization Americans for Prosperity found its way into the national press last week. The memo details Americans for Prosperity's plan to spend at least $125 million--and more if necessary--ensuring the Koch brothers' hand-picked candidates win elections this November. This memo was sent to a select group--the ultrarich, the megarich. That is who got it. The memo was entitled ``Confidential Investor Update.''

How fitting for the Koch brothers' hostile takeover of the American electoral system to call something ``investor update''--investor update. You see, these billionaires are dumping unseemly amounts of money into a shadowy political organization. Their donation is an investment in an America rigged to benefit themselves at the expense of the middle class.

The Kochs' political expenditures are investments--investments-- similar to any other that is listed in their financial portfolios, and they absolutely expect monetary returns on their investments in buying America. That is what this is all about.

The Kochs' bid for a hostile takeover of American democracy is calculated to make themselves even richer. Yet the Kochs and their Republican followers in Congress continue to assert that these hundreds of millions of dollars are free speech.

For evidence of that look no further than the Republican leader, who has flatout said: ``In our society, spending is speech.''

Let me pose a question to everyone, including my friend the Republican leader. If this unprecedented spending is free speech, where does that leave our middle-class constituents, the poor? It leaves them out in the cold. How could everyday working American families afford to make their voices heard if money equals free speech? Should voters mortgage their homes if

they are worried about climate change? If they are concerned about their children's education, should they max out all their credit cards making political contributions?

Is our involvement in government completely dependent on financial resources? The answer should be a resounding no, but the shadowy Koch brothers and all their different organizations, in attempting to buy America--if they succeed--the answer to that question is yes. Involvement in government, according to them, would be on how much money they spent.

There should be no million-dollar entry fee for participation in our democracy. As retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens noted very recently--he did this before a Senate panel just a couple weeks ago--``money is not speech.'' He went on to say:

Speech is only one of the activities that are financed by

campaign contributions and expenditures. Those financial

activities should not receive the same constitutional

protection as speech itself. After all, campaign funds were

used to finance the Watergate burglaries--actions that

clearly were not protected by the First Amendment.

At its core the Constitution of our great country is the great equalizer. The Constitution gives all Americans, regardless of race, background or financial status, the same freedoms and rights. The U.S. Constitution levels the playing field--but not so calculated by the Koch brothers. According to them, lots of money is their name and it is their game.

The playing field of campaign finance is skewed in favor of interest groups and corporations. The more money there is, the more skewed it becomes. Justice Stevens rightly labeled these massive campaign contributors as ``non-voters.''

Elections in the United States should be decided by voters--Americans who have a constitutional, fundamental right to elect their representatives. Yet more and more we see Koch Industries and Americans for Prosperity--one of their shadowy front groups--dictating the results of primaries and elections across the country. Behind these nonvoting organizations are massively wealthy men, hoping for a big monetary return on their political donations. When the candidates they bankroll get into office, the winners inevitably begin to legislate their sponsors' business plans--less regulation and less oversight for corporations.

Remember, the Koch brothers' dad was one of the inventors of many other strange organizations. It is hard to believe that one of these men ran for Vice President in 1980 as a Libertarian, and the views he pronounced at that time were so radical--doing away with Social Security, no taxes whatsoever, no power to enforce the laws, doing away with all environmental regulations. They have now become part of the main stream of the Republican Party. That should frighten everyone. Their dad was one of the beginners of the John Birch Society. Think about that.

Let me be very plain for all to hear: No one should be able to pump unlimited funds into political campaigns, whether they are a Democrat, a Republican or an Independent. As one political observer noted, we currently have a campaign finance system in place which compels each party to pick which billionaires they like best. What a shame. That is exactly why the system needs to change.

There is absolutely no question the Koch brothers are in a category of their own, in both degree and kind. No one else is pumping money into shadowy campaign organizations and campaigns like they are. There is not even a close second. They are doing this to promote issues that make themselves even richer. One hundred million dollars is not enough for the Koch brothers. No other individuals are recreating the role of a national political party. That is what they are doing. They are recreating the Republican Party.

I say why not level the playing field for everyone? Let's get this money out of our political system. Let's undo the damage done by the Citizens United decision. We should do it now. The Supreme Court has equated money with speech, so the more money, the more speech you get, and the more influence in our democracy. What kind of a system is that? It is wrong.

Every American should have the same ability to influence our political system: One American, one vote. That is what the Constitution guarantees. The Constitution does not give corporations a vote, and the Constitution does not give dollar bills a vote.

From what I have heard recently, my Republican colleagues seem to have a different view. Republicans seem to think billionaires, corporations, and special interests should be allowed to drown out the voices of all Americans. That is wrong and it should end.

I oppose the notion that a big bank account should give billionaires, corporations or special interest groups a greater place in government than American voters. That is why I support the constitutional amendment proposed by two Democratic Senators, Senators Tom Udall of New Mexico and Michael Bennet of Colorado. Their amendment curbs unlimited campaign spending. This amendment grants Congress the authority to regulate and limit the raising and spending of money for Federal political campaigns. That is not a bad idea.

Senators Udall and Bennet's amendment reins in the massive spending of super PACs, which have grown so much since the Citizens United decision. It also provides States with the authority to institute campaign spending limits at the State level. I know in the State of Montana that was in effect for decade after decade after decade. The courts knocked that out because of the Citizens United opinion. It is such a shame.

The proposed amendment makes our Nation's campaigns fairer and allows candidates to represent their voting constituents instead of big- spending special interest groups.

Here is something else that Justice Stevens said:

Unlimited campaign expenditures impair the process of

democratic self-government. They create a risk that

successful candidates will pay more attention to the

interests of non-voters who provided them with money than to

the interests of the voters who elected them.

``That risk is unacceptable,'' Justice Stevens said.

So it is unacceptable that the recent Supreme Court decisions have taken away power from the American voter; instead, giving it to a select few megabillionaires.

Soon Chairman Leahy and the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on Senators Udall and Bennet's constitutional amendment. The Senate will vote on that legislation.

I urge my colleagues to support this constitutional amendment, to rally behind our democracy. I understand we Senate Democrats are proposing something that is no small thing. Amending our Constitution is not something any of us should take lightly, but the flood of special interest money into our American democracy is one of the most glaring threats our system of government has ever faced.

Let's keep our elections from becoming speculative ventures for the wealthy and put a stop to the hostile takeover of our democratic system by a couple of billionaire oil barons.

It is time we revive our constituents' faith in our electoral system and let them know their voices are being heard because the American people clearly deserve a fair shot.

Madam President, I yield back all time.

Reserving the right to object.

Everyone listen. The selfpronounced guardian of gridlock just gave us his presentation. That is what the Republican leader calls himself, and that is a good name that he got for himself--the guardian of gridlock. That is what we have in the Senate. That is what we have had here for 5\1/2\ years. We have struggled through parts of it, but it has been difficult.

It is no surprise to me or to us that, of course, when something is said about the Koch brothers, there are people who run down to the floor to defend them. This time we have the Republican leader defending the Koch brothers.

What I talked about today is something so radical--listen to what it is--that we should have restrictions on how much money people can spend in political campaigns and not have the government purchased by the two richest people in America--the Koch brothers. So it is no surprise we have someone running to their rescue.

I would also suggest this. My friend, the Republican leader, wants a vote on Keystone. They had a vote. They wouldn't take it. As one of my Democratic Senators said, my friend the Republican leader is more interested in an issue than getting the pipeline done.

So here is where we are. The Republican leader has asked for alternating amendments. That is a buzzword for ``we are going to continue our filibusters.''

The chairman of the Finance Committee, Ron Wyden, as the new chair-- and we all have great expectations from Ron Wyden. He is an experienced legislator. He spent many years in the House, and now he is a veteran here in the Senate. He made a reasonable proposal--it was done before the world--saying: OK, you want amendments, let's do them in relation to this bill; that is, the tax extenders bill.

But I will go even a step further than that. First of all, everyone should understand that this is a bill which was done by the Finance Committee on a bipartisan basis. But if they are interested in more amendments, why don't we have Senator Wyden and Senator Hatch see what they can come up with? And if that is good enough for me, it is good enough for my caucus.

I object.