Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, later today, Senators will have the opportunity to hear from South Korean President Lee, and I know we all look forward to it.

South Korea is a stalwart ally that enjoys a flourishing economy. It is a shining example of how embracing democracy and free market principles can transform a society for the good.

Imagine, in 50 years, they went from a civil war to a military dictatorship to an evolving democracy and on the economic side to a thriving capitalist country that has the 13th largest economy in the world--from a country that was a recipient of foreign aid and Peace Corps volunteers to a country with its own foreign aid program and its own peace corps--all of that in 50 years, right on the same peninsula with one of the last Stalinist regimes in the world. It is a great success story that the United States has had an awful lot to do with promoting.

The South Korean Free Trade Agreement we passed overwhelmingly last night on a bipartisan basis will only make our two economies stronger. Our already strong alliance will be even stronger.

These agreements should serve as an example of the kind of bipartisan legislation Congress should be focused on right now.

Many of us have been amazed to witness, as I indicated earlier, the rapid growth and evolution of South Korea--truly a remarkable accomplishment.

So we welcome this great friend of the United States to our shores. We hope he and his wife have a memorable trip.

As we face together the threat of North Korea and the rapid changes occurring in the strategic balance in Northeast Asia, we look forward to an even stronger alliance with South Korea in the years to come.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, before my friend, the majority leader, leaves the floor, let me remind him and our Senate colleagues and the American people that Republicans were prepared to vote on the President's second version of the stimulus bill last night. In fact, I offered a unanimous consent that we have that vote--not the motion to proceed to it but the actual vote. I am not going to renew that request at the moment but just would say to my friend, we are happy to have that vote. We were happy to have it last night.

With regard to the pieces of it, my friend is correct; some of the pieces of this second stimulus might well be appropriate. I have recommended to the joint select committee--that he and I appointed 50 percent of--that they take a look at some of the pieces of it which could well be included in a product we are going to get before Thanksgiving before the Senate and the House.

So, again, we would be happy to vote on the entire package. We were happy to do it last night and also happy to look at pieces of it. We do have, as the majority leader and I have discussed before, important work to do in the Senate. We have the trade agreements we are going to approve tonight. We have three appropriations bills we are going to go to after that--the basic work of government, which we have not done in the last few years, the American people would like to see us do. We also have a joint select committee set up that could look at parts of the proposal to which the majority leader is referring. So I have some optimism that we will be able to come together on pieces of it that we think make sense.

I will say that as far as I know, there is not a single Republican who thinks it is a good idea to raise taxes on over 300,000 business owners, which is what would happen under the so-called millionaires' surtax. So there are parts of it we very much disagree with. We have divided government. Neither party controls the entire government. We will only be able to pass those things we do agree on. I think there are parts of the package my friend refers to that could well be agreed to at some point this year on a bipartisan basis.

Madam President, later today the Senate will show that Democrats and Republicans can, in fact, work together to make it easier for American businesses to create jobs.

By passing free-trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea, we will help the economy, and we will put the lie to the ridiculous Obama campaign claim that Republicans are somehow rooting against the economy. Nothing could be more ridiculous and absurd as to suggest that Republicans are somehow rooting against our economy.

In fact, if President Obama were willing to work with us on a more bipartisan piece of legislation, nobody would even be talking about a dysfunctional Congress. There would not be any reason to.

But, as we all know, that does not fit in with the President's election strategy. The White House has made it clear that the President is praying for gridlock--he is actually hoping for gridlock--so he has somebody besides himself to point the finger at next November.

That is a big mistake. The American people will not tolerate their own President putting politics ahead of working with Congress on the kind of bipartisan legislation that we know both parties could agree on right now.

So this morning I would like to repeat my call to the President to put the political playbook aside and work with us instead on the kind of bipartisan, job-creating legislation the American people truly want.

The trade bills we will be voting on tonight are a good start. There is no reason we should have had to wait nearly 3 years for this President to send them to Congress for a vote, but they are a good start nonetheless--3 years late but still very important to do.

Now let's move on to some other things. We have pointed to areas such as regulatory reform, tax reform, and energy exploration where the parties could help create jobs without raising taxes or adding to the deficit.

It is just the kind of bipartisan cooperation that the American people are actually demanding from us, and what I am saying this morning is that Republicans are eager and willing to join Democrats in making that happen.

The Presidential election, for goodness' sake, is 13 months away; 13 months from now is the Presidential election. There is plenty of time to campaign. Why don't we put that off for a while and do what we were sent here to do?

But right now we have an opportunity to work together. Let's put aside the political playbook and focus

on results. I know that does not come easy for some around here. The senior Senator from New York, for example, made it pretty clear yesterday that he is more interested in drawing a contrast with Republicans than he is in actually passing bipartisan legislation that we know will spur job growth. But I do not believe the 14 million Americans looking for work right now care more about contrast than about jobs. The jobs crisis we are in calls for lawmakers to rise above these games.

Americans expect us to do something to help create jobs. That is what we should be doing. That is why Republicans will continue to seek to find Democrats who are more interested in jobs than in political posturing and work with them on bipartisan legislation such as the trade bills we will vote on tonight.

What we will not do, though, is vote in favor of any more misguided stimulus bills because some bill writer slapped the word ``jobs'' on the cover page. The stimulus bill with the word ``jobs'' slapped on the cover page and wrapped around a talking-point tax hike is not our idea of what is good for America. We refuse to raise taxes on the very people Americans are depending on to create jobs. We need to be looking for ways to make it easier to create jobs, not harder.

For nearly 3 years, Republicans have told Democrats again and again that we are willing and eager to work with the Democrats anywhere, anytime, on real job-promoting legislation on which both sides could agree.

I have been calling on the President to approve these three free- trade agreements since the day he took the oath of office. All the President had to do was to follow through on these agreements and send them up to Congress, and we would have had an early bipartisan achievement that did not add a single dime to the deficit, that would have convinced people the two sides could work together, and that by the President's own assessment created tens of thousands of jobs right here at home. But he did not. The President chose to push a highly partisan stimulus bill instead that the administration said would keep unemployment below 8 percent. We all know how that turned out. Nearly 3 years later, the only thing left is the nearly $1 trillion it added to the debt and the government programs it created. As for jobs, well, unemployment has been above 8 percent for 32 months straight, and according to the Labor Department, there are now 1.5 million fewer jobs than there were then.

It is time to try something different. Republicans have proposed a number of ideas that would not only represent a change in direction but would also attract broad bipartisan support. There is no good reason whatsoever for the President and Democrats in Congress to prevent us from doing these things. As I see it, the President actually has a choice: He can spend the next 13 months trying to get Republicans to vote against legislation which will not create sustainable private sector jobs and which is designed to fail in Congress or he can work with us on legislation that will actually encourage small businesses to create jobs and is actually designed to pass.

There is an entire menu of bipartisan job-promoting proposals the President could choose to pursue over the next year. Republicans hope he works with us to approve them. Americans are waiting. We are ready to act. The free-trade agreements we are voting on tonight are a good first step. They demonstrate the way Washington can actually help tackle the jobs crisis, not by spending borrowed money to create temporary jobs--spending borrowed money to create temporary jobs. We have tried that. This will lower barriers to private enterprise, unleashing the power of the private sector to make and sell products, expand market share, and in doing so create sustainable private sector jobs that will not disappear when the Federal cash spigot runs dry. But if we are going to tackle the enormous challenges we face, we need to do much more than that. With these trade agreements, we are showing we can work together to create jobs and help the economy. We can and must do more of this kind of thing.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, we are on the verge of doing something very important for our country tonight, and we are going to do it on a bipartisan basis. I wish to congratulate the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, for the role he played and for the constructive efforts by Senator Portman and Senator Blunt to help us get to this evening. But I wish to single out for special praise our leader on this issue, Senator Hatch, the ranking member of our Finance Committee, who has been a stalwart on behalf of free trade over the years.

I think it is appropriate to take a moment before the vote to note the importance of what we are doing. The first point to make about these agreements is that they will help American businesses create new jobs in the United States. The second point to make is there is strong bipartisan support for all three of these agreements. In other words, anyone who says that two parties can't agree on anything isn't telling the whole story.

Consider this: On the very day Democrats and Republicans were planning to come together to vote in favor of these trade agreements, Democrats spent the entire morning talking about what a shame it is that it never happens--that we never get together. Clearly, this vote is getting in the way of their political message, and that message is kind of absurd to watch.

Frankly, I think it would be a lot less confusing for anybody watching at home--not to mention a lot better for job creation--if our friends on the other side would agree to work with us more often on a bipartisan basis, as we have done on the bills before us. Our friends on the other side may think it helps them politically for Americans to think we don't cooperate, but what I am seeing is that the vote we are about to take shows that is simply not true.

We could get a lot more done up here if the President and our friends who control the Senate would move away from the left fringe and stop insisting on partisan bills that are designed to fail. If they agreed to that, then this Democratically led Senate would be a lot more productive.

Here is why these trade agreements are so important. First, they lower the barriers to selling American-made goods to consumers in other countries. On a variety of agricultural and manufactured goods, those tariff barriers are completely and totally eliminated, and increasing exports is crucial to growing the economy in States such as Kentucky, where nearly one-fifth of manufacturing workers depend on exports for their jobs.

It isn't just manufacturing that will benefit. America's service and technological sectors--where we are global leaders--will gain greater access to these foreign markets and strong assurances that the legal environment will not change to disadvantage U.S. firms. So passing these trade agreements will mean more U.S. exports and more U.S. jobs.

The total value of exports just from my own State of Kentucky currently totals more than $19 billion. With these trade agreements, that number will only grow, increasing demand for Kentucky-made goods even more. What is more, the vast majority of Kentucky companies that export goods overseas--80 percent of them--are small- and medium-sized businesses.

So the question is, Do we want small businesses in Kentucky and other States finding new customers for their goods in these growing economies or do we want to cede those customers to other countries that are only too happy to exploit the advantages they had before today?

These agreements are good news for American businesses looking to expand the market for their goods, and they are good news for all the American workers who benefit when those businesses are able to compete on a level playing field with workers in other countries.

While we have waited to pass these agreements, America's competitors overseas have increased their share of the markets in Panama, in Colombia and in South Korea and operated without the barriers American job creators have faced prior to tonight. Today, we are leveling the playing field, and when the playing field is level, we know American workers and American businesses and farmers will come out on top. They just needed us to clear the way.

Personally, I have never voted against a free-trade agreement, and I hope we will consider others in the near future.

Now that we have finally finished the business of the last administration's trade efforts, President Obama needs to think about what the trade agenda of his administration is going to be moving forward. Will he let America fall behind our competitors or will he embrace a proactive free-trade agenda that he knows will help create jobs here at home and project American influence around the world? For our part, Senate Republicans are ready to work with him on an even more robust trade agenda, one which involves reauthorizing a stronger TPA and which helps him help the economy in a bipartisan way, just as we are doing tonight.

This is a very important vote. It shows that the two parties can, in fact, work together to help American businesses create jobs, and I hope it leads to a lot more of the same.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today, as I do on many occasions, to bring attention to the numerous challenges that face the people of Burma. Of great concern to those advocating for democracy in Burma is promoting reconciliation among the diverse groups in the country. Like many ethnic groups in the country, the Kachin people of northern Burma have a distinct and longstanding heritage. Yet, they continue to be targeted by the ruling junta. Not only is their struggle against the oppressive junta of concern to those of us focused on reforms in Burma, but they also have an important historical connection to the United States, a connection that I would like to highlight today.

On September 13, 1945, Japanese soldiers surrendered to Allied forces in Burma. As many in this Chamber are no doubt aware, many Americans bravely fought in the China-Burma-India theater during World War II. The late Senator Ted Stevens, for example, flew the treacherous ``hump'' over the Himalayas, and many other Americans helped build the important Ledo supply road, linking China, Burma and India. In the Allied effort in this theater, the Kachin people deserve particular mention for the commitment, sacrifice and invaluable support they provided Allied forces to reclaim that country.

The situation in this region was bleak for Allied forces in 1942. The Burmese terrain, a combination of dense rain forest and high altitude, proved a formidable obstacle in itself. Of particular importance was building and maintaining the Allied supply lines into Kunming, China. This task was assigned to GEN Joseph Stilwell and was later described by George Marshall as ``one of the most difficult assignments'' given to any theater commander. As part of this endeavor, CPT Carl Eifler directed U.S. efforts against Japanese forces in Burma. Captain Eifler assembled an accomplished group of officers with a diverse set of skills, ranging from linguistics and medicine to piloting and explosives. Detachment 101 officially began on April 14, 1942, a mere 3 weeks before the Japanese Imperial Army would take Rangoon and, with it, effective control of the country.

As part of its mission, GEN Stillwell wanted Detachment 101 to learn to adapt to and thrive in Burma's thick rain forests. He would use his troops' familiarity with fighting in such terrain to harass the enemy with unconventional tactics, weakening its grip on strategic locations such as the Myitkyina Airbase in the Kachin State. The historian for U.S. Army Special Operations Command, Dr. C. H. Briscoe, credits part of Detachment 101's operational success to support from a group of Burmese in the ``Kachin Rangers'' unit and, in particular, their efforts in intelligence collection, as well as pilot rescue and sabotage missions. In the spring of 1945, due to its success, Detachment 101 expanded its Kachin forces to more than 10,000 troops.

The Kachin Rangers are credited with many effective and unconventional warfare tactics, some of which have subsequently been incorporated by the Army Special Forces Green Berets. In just a few years of combat, according to James R. Ward--a member of Detachment 101--the Kachin Rangers reportedly provided the U.S. 10th Air Force with 75 percent of its targets and the 164 Kachin radio teams in Burma provided some 85 percent of the intelligence received by General Stilwell's Northern Combat Area Command. In addition, these Kachin soldiers are credited with destroying an estimated 15,000 tons of Japanese supplies and killing or capturing more than 15,000 enemy troops. According to reports, the group also helped save the lives of as many as 425 downed Allied airmen during the war.

Ultimately, following the Japanese surrender of Burma, Detachment 101 was awarded the Presidential Distinguished Unit Citation by the Army Chief of Staff at the time, future President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Efforts by the Kachin people helped secure an Allied victory in Burma 66 years ago. Currently, the Kachin--like other ethnic minorities in Burma--deserve our recognition as allies in another noble cause: to secure freedom and reconciliation in a democratic Burma. We honor their bravery and commitment to freedom six decades ago as well as today.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the accomplishments and achievements of lifetime educator Carl Weaver. For almost 40 years, Carl devoted himself to teaching young Kentuckians history, civics, and psychology while also coaching little league baseball in the afternoons and the South Laurel High School boys' baseball team.

Carl began teaching as an undergraduate student while at the University of the Cumberlands in 1963, at the age of 19. After graduation, Carl spent 6 years teaching in Ohio before returning to Laurel County, KY, where he earned his master's degree from Union College while simultaneously teaching full-time and raising his three children, Wayne, Karen (Davenport), and Whitney.

Carl witnessed many changes during his 33-year career teaching in Laurel County, but he cherishes most the time he spent teaching his own kids--Carl had each of his three children in at least one class in high school and also had the opportunity to teach Karen psychology her freshman year at Sue Bennett College. Carl never had a problem with any of his children in the classroom, recalling, ``I was probably harder on them than on other students.''

For Carl, it was always about the kids. Carl has an amazing passion for teaching and he truly enjoyed and appreciated the students. ``That's what it's really all about. You're teaching the student, not the subject,'' Carl says. Carl still misses teaching, but he was forced to retire at the 27-year mark due to ongoing complications with his legs as a result of his diagnosis with polio as a child.

These obstacles don't hinder Carl's spirit however, as he continues to stay busy by helping out in his son's produce stand on East Ky. 80. Carl admits he's enjoyed a good life. As he looks back now on his teaching career however, he says he doesn't regret a thing.

Mr. President, Carl Weaver is a humble, selfless Kentuckian who dedicated his life to educating the youth of Kentucky. I thank him for his passion and the wisdom he has shared with the people of our great Commonwealth. The Laurel County Sentinel Echo published an article in the spring of 2011 to honor Carl's career and accomplishments. I ask unanimous consent that the full article be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, a little later today, the Senate will vote on President Obama's second attempt to address our Nation's ongoing jobs crisis with a stimulus bill, and Republicans actually welcome the opportunity. If voting against another stimulus is the only way we can get Democrats in Washington to finally abandon this failed approach to job creation, then so be it.

The President has been calling for this vote for weeks, and, in my view, we cannot have it soon enough. In fact, on the previous bill, I kept trying to get a vote on the President's first version of the stimulus bill. We will be voting on the second sort of modified version of the stimulus bill this afternoon. This is a vote Republicans are anxious to have.

For nearly 5 years, Democrats have controlled the Senate. For the last 3 of those years, they have also controlled the White House. By proposing a second stimulus, Democrats are showing the American people they have no new ideas for dealing with our jobs crisis.

Today's vote is conclusive proof that Democrats' sole proposal is to keep doing what has not worked--along with a massive tax hike we know will not create jobs. So it is hard to overstate the importance of this vote.

The President's first stimulus was a legislative and economic catastrophe. Nearly 3 years after passage, we are still learning about its failures and its abuses. We knew it was a bailout for States. We knew all about the absurd projects it funded. Over the past few weeks, we have also learned that the Obama administration was doing the very thing with solar companies that it once rightly criticized many others for doing on Wall Street: gambling with other people's money; the Federal Government playing venture capitalist with our tax money.

But there is only one thing we need to know about the first stimulus to oppose the second one and it is this: $825 billion later, there are 1.7 million fewer jobs in this country than there were when the first stimulus was signed. That is the clearest proof it was a monstrous failure, and it is the surest proof we have that those who support the second stimulus are not doing so to create jobs.

As I see it, that is what today's vote boils down to. Everyone who votes for this second stimulus will have to answer a simple but important question: Why on Earth would we support an approach that we already know will not work?

Of course, the truth is most Democrats know just as well as I do that passing another stimulus and tax hike is a lousy idea, which is why the Democrats are having such a hard time convincing their colleagues to vote for it.

Here is what they have decided to do instead. Democrats have designed this bill to fail--they have designed their own bill to fail--in the hopes that anyone who votes against it will look bad for opposing a bill they mistakenly refer to as a ``jobs bill.''

That is not just my interpretation. The senior Senator from New York has

been out there telling reporters that what the Democrats are going for today is ``contrast.'' The senior Senator from New York said this is all about contrast--not about jobs, about contrast.

It does not seem to matter that this bill will not pass or that even if it did pass, American businesses would be stuck with a permanent tax hike. Forget about all of that. What matters most to the Democrats who control the Senate, according to the stories I have been reading, is that they have an issue to run on for next year. This whole exercise, by their own admission, is a charade that is meant to give Democrats a political edge in an election that is 13 months away.

Well, with all due respect to the senior Senator from New York, the American people don't want contrast, they want jobs. They want the Democrats who control the Senate to stop thinking about how they can improve their own political prospects 13 months from now and start thinking about how they can help other people's job prospects right now. They want Democrats to focus on job creation, not political preservation. So I have a better idea. How about we get this vote that Democrats already know will not pass behind us so we can focus on real job-creating legislation that we actually know is worthy of passing with bipartisan support. Republicans have been calling on Democrats to work with us on bipartisan job-creating bills for 3 years, and every once in a while we convince them.

Tomorrow, we will approve three free-trade agreements I have been calling on the President to approve since his first day in office. These agreements will not add a dime to the deficit, and they are expected by Democrats and Republicans to create tens of thousands of jobs. They will have strong bipartisan support, and they do not contain a single job-destroying tax hike.

Both parties also came together earlier this year to pass a patent reform bill President Obama and Democrats in Congress touted as a job creator, and Democrats and Republicans came together this summer to pass a highway bill extension, FAA extension, that will lead to just the kind of job creation that has bipartisan support. You don't hear much about any of this from the President. It gets in the way of his campaign strategy. But that does not mean Republicans cannot continue to urge the President to work with us, and that is just what we plan to do.

Over the next weeks and months, Republicans will continue to press our friends on the other side to work with us on legislation that will actually do something to create jobs in this country. Our first criteria for any proposal is that it would actually lead to more jobs, not fewer. I know that may seem crazy to some, but in our view it is not a jobs bill if it leads to fewer jobs. Our second criteria is that it does not add to the deficit. There is no reason we need to exacerbate one crisis in an effort to tackle another one.

Democrats like to point out that the second stimulus we will have a vote on today is ``paid for with tax hikes'' and that it contains a ``tax cut.'' What they do not tell you, of course, is the tax cut lasts for 13 months, while the tax hikes last forever. They hide the fact that over the next 5 years it will actually increase the deficit, by nearly $300 billion next year alone: Permanent tax increases, temporary tax cuts, increase the deficit by $300 billion next year alone.

Another thing the Democratic supporters of this bill fail to mention is that about four out of five of the people who would be hit with their new taxes are, in fact, businesses, including thousands of small businesses across the country--in other words, the very people Americans rely on to create new jobs. So the legislation we will be voting on today is many things, but it is not a jobs bill. Republicans will gladly vote against any legislation that makes it harder to create jobs right now.

The President's advisers have said they are counting on a do-nothing Congress. That is why we will be voting for legislation today that is designed to fail. If you ask me, this is a pretty sad commentary on the state of the Democratic Party in Washington.

I think the American people deserve better. I think the 16.5 percent of Americans who are looking for work or who stopped looking for work deserve better. I think the 4.5 million Americans who have been out of work for more than a year deserve better. I think the nearly 15 percent of young Americans who cannot find work right now deserve better. Americans deserve more than a clumsy political stunt. They deserve better than the same well-rehearsed talking points we have been hearing from Democrats over the past few weeks. Above all, they deserve a different approach to this crisis than the one they have gotten from Democrats over the past few years. For nearly 3 years, Democrats in Congress have done virtually everything the President asked of them-- everything he asked of them. And I would remind everyone that they owned the government the first 2 years of the Obama administration. They got everything they wanted. They passed his health care bill. They passed his financial regulations bill. They passed his stimulus. They waved through all the regulations, the bailouts, and the massive spending bills. And what did we get? A bad economy became worse; record deficits and debt; a first ever credit downgrade; and 1.7 million fewer jobs. Democrats may have run out of ideas, but Republicans are ready to work with them on a new approach. It is why we are here. And we are ready to act.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we have done a lot of sparring back and

forth over the last week trying to get a vote on the President's so- called jobs proposal, and now we have before us cloture on the motion to proceed to the second version of the President's so-called jobs proposal. It strikes me it would be appropriate to try one more time to see if we could get a vote on the actual proposal. So I have indicated to my good friend the majority leader that I am going to ask unanimous consent that we vote on both the original President Obama jobs proposal and the revised Obama jobs proposal upon which we currently have pending cloture on the motion to proceed. It strikes me this would expedite the process. The President has been out on the campaign trail asking us to vote on his proposal and vote on it now without change. If that is a vote our friends on the other side do not want to have, we would be happy to have a vote on the President's proposal as changed, which I gather he also supports.

So bearing that in mind, I now ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to S. 1660, the newly introduced jobs act, be vitiated, the Senate proceed to its consideration, the bill be read a third time, and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of the bill, with no intervening action or debate; provided further that if the bill does not receive 60 votes on passage, the bill then be placed back on the calendar.

I further ask unanimous consent that immediately following that vote, the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. 1549, the President's job package; that the bill be read the third time and the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill, with no intervening action or debate; provided further, that if the bill doesn't receive 60 votes on passage, the bill then be placed back on the calendar.

I have been trying for a over a week to get a vote on the President's so-called jobs proposal, which he has been asking us to give him repeatedly. Our friends on the other side are not only objecting to voting on the President's original jobs proposal but his jobs proposal as modified.

The practical result, however, of voting for cloture on the motion to proceed, rather than going on and voting on the bill, as the President has asked us to do on 12 occasions out on the campaign trail, is we will not be able to proceed to one of the things that is rare here--we actually have a bipartisan agreement to go forward on these important trade agreements, pass them tomorrow night, and then have the President of South Korea address a joint session of Congress. South Korea is one of our most important allies--probably the most important ally in Asia. Why would we not just want to vote on the proposal tonight? I am sorry we will not be able to do that.

I will continue to look for opportunities to give the President the vote he has asked for repeatedly--not a procedural vote but a real vote on the matter he requested.

I object.

Mr. President, what this week has shown beyond any doubt is that Democrats would rather talk about partisan legislation they won't pass than actually passing legislation we know would create jobs.

Two and a half years after the President signed his first stimulus, there are 1.7 million fewer jobs in this country. Now he wants to do it again. Why? Because Democrats think it makes for good politics.

This week, it was revealed that there wasn't enough support within the Democratic ranks to pass the President's so-called jobs bill--it was simply too partisan. So yesterday, instead of making it less partisan, they made it more so. By adding a tax on small business owners, they made it even less attractive to job creators rather than working with Republicans on legislation that would actually help create jobs.

I mean, what is our goal here? If the goal is to create jobs, then why are we even talking about tax hikes? The President himself has said that raising taxes is the last thing we want to do in a weak economy. That is the President of the United States. Even the White House predicts the unemployment rate will be high when this tax would kick in. So the real goal here for Democrats, as far as I can tell, is entirely political. By arguing for a permanent tax hike to pay for a temporary stimulus, they are essentially admitting they are not particularly interested in creating jobs. Proposing a partisan tax hike 13 months before an election will not create one single job--not one. So I would suggest that our friends on the other side put away the playbook and work with us instead.

As I have said repeatedly, Republicans are ready to act right away with Democrats on bipartisan, job-creating legislation--on the three trade bills, for instance, on regulatory reform, increasing American energy production, and tax reform. All those things would help the economy, and all could be strongly--strongly--bipartisan. Yet Democratic leaders do not seem to be interested in working together.

Two days ago, for example, I offered the President his request to vote on his second stimulus. Our Democratic friends blocked the vote. Instead of working across the aisle with Republicans on solutions that would help put people back to work, Democrats have fallen back to tired talking points--the same, stale rhetoric we have heard literally for years. With 14 million Americans out of work, this is completely and totally unacceptable.

We are wasting valuable time. Despite the President assuring Americans that nobody is talking about raising taxes right now and that a down economy is a horrible time to raise taxes--again, this is what the President said--the new Democratic tax hike would take effect in a little over a year, when CBO tells us the unemployment rate will still be well over 8 percent.

It is no wonder the economy is stagnant, businesses are not hiring, and unemployment is at 9 percent. How can anyone be expected to make plans when the next ``gotcha'' tax hike to pay for this President's spending binge is always lurking right around the corner?

The President has said it is wrong to raise taxes in this weak economic environment. If he meant what he said, surely he will join me in opposing this unwise tax hike Senate Democrats have proposed.

Republicans, along with some Democrats, have progrowth solutions to help solve this crisis, but we will not stand for a permanent tax hike for a temporary stimulus that is largely a rehash of the same stimulus ideas this administration has already tried.

This bill is the same wasteful spending, the same burdensome union giveaways, and the same temporary tax policy that has failed the American people in the last 2 years.

This economy can grow and create jobs when Washington reduces spending and regulations, and by simplifying our incredibly complex tax system. This is what is needed to literally unleash the private sector.

It is time Democrats move beyond the political rhetoric and for the President to stop campaigning. It is time for

Democrats to reach across the aisle on bipartisan legislation that can actually pass.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would only add that the practical effect of where we are, not having been allowed to offer any amendments during the consideration of this bill, is we are left with motions to suspend. As the majority leader indicated, we are going to have some discussions about how many motions to suspend the majority will, shall I say, tolerate. The bad part of all of this from the Senate's point of view as an institution is that the minority is put at a substantial disadvantage.

Having said that, as the majority leader indicated, the floor staff is going to work together and see whether we can come up with some list of motions to instruct that will at least allow the minority to have some voice in the course of the consideration of this piece of legislation.

Would my good friend yield for a question? I listened very carefully to what the majority leader said. We interact every day. What my good friend has just said is that he would be more than happy to have amendments he gets to pick. He gets to pick what amendments we get to offer. That is not, I would say to my good friend, the view of the minority as to how we ought to operate. We ought to be able to determine what amendments we are going to offer, not my good friend the majority leader. What he is saying, in effect, is, yes, he would be prepared to allow us to offer amendments, but he would select which of our amendments might be appropriate. That is not a place that the minority, no matter which party is in the minority, would like to find themselves.

Mr. President, I would only add the way the Senate used to work was the majority didn't pick the amendments the minority chose to offer, but there was some ability to determine whether it got a vote because any Senator could prevent a time agreement on the opportunity to get a vote on an amendment. So it wasn't totally freewheeling. Then at some point, if 60 Members of the Senate thought we ought to move to conclusion, we would. It was a much more orderly and open process, leading to the same result, which is that if 60 Members of the Senate wanted to end the matter and bring it to a conclusion, they could. So my complaint is about what we do before we get to the 60 votes, which I think in this particular instance is unfair to the minority.

Now, my party was divided on this issue. Some Members were for it; some Members were against it. That meant for sure that at some point 60 votes were going to be achieved and it was going to pass. The problem, I would say to my good friend, is what we did before then, which has the practical effect of putting the minority in the position where it gets no amendments at all or is, once again, at the sufferance of the majority with motions to suspend at the end, in which we are basically--the majority determines how many we get, and all of that.

This level of control is not necessary, in my judgment, in order to make the Senate move forward because, I will say again before I yield the floor, if 60 Senators are in favor of bringing a matter to a conclusion, it will be brought to a conclusion. That is what just happened a few minutes ago.

So I hope we can move forward in a more orderly process in the future, and maybe we can work out some agreement to have motions to suspend this afternoon that will not require us to be here tomorrow.

My good friend referred to ``the good old days.'' The good old days weren't that long ago. I can remember just a few years ago when my party was in the majority in this body, and I was the assistant leader,

making the point with great repetition while listening to a lot of grumbling that the price for being in the majority is, you have to take bad votes; you have to take votes you don't like in order to get legislation across the floor and finished.

So this is not ancient times we are talking about where the minority actually got votes, took votes, and were not shut out. I hope we can move back in that direction. I think it would be a lot better for the Senate.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

I wish to make sure I understand the amendment lineup. The majority leader has substituted, I would say to my friend, or has added a Paul amendment, and it is my understanding Senator Paul is willing to stand down on that for the time being and offer it on some other occasion. The Senator has added in place of that----

Mr. President, if I may, I am still trying to get this correct. Let me just ask my friend, the majority leader, did his list include Coburn No. 670 on foreign aid?

It included Barrasso 672 on cement regs?

It included Hatch 680 On China?

It included DeMint No. 689 on right to work?

It included McConnell No. 735 on stimulus?

Cornyn 677 on Taiwan?

So the majority leader has substituted from the list I gave him a Paul amendment--the number of which I don't have----

Instead of the Johanns amendment on farm dust.

Mr. President, I would like to try to modify the majority leader's list, not to expand the number because we agree on seven. But the list I submitted to the majority leader included the Johanns amendment No. 692 on farm dust, instead of

the Paul amendment, the number of which I do not have.

All I would say to my friend, the majority leader, is that we would sort of like to be able to pick our amendments and not have him pick them. We have worked hard to narrow down to a list of seven. Senator Paul graciously decided he would step aside for the moment, and we had included the Johanns amendment on farm dust.

I would remind everyone the minority has not been able to offer any amendments prior to cloture, and now we are left with motions to suspend, at a 67-vote threshold, and all we are asking for is the right to pick our own amendments.

I appreciate the majority leader agreeing to seven. That is the number we had finally settled on. But I do think it would be fair to let the minority pick its amendments. We had hundreds of amendments that people would have liked to have had. We worked very hard to get it to a list of seven. I don't think it is unreasonable, not having any amendments prior to cloture, to at least be able to prioritize our seven.

I might say to my friend, I may be confused from a parliamentary point of view, but, technically, I would ask the Parliamentarian, through the Chair, if it requires consent to offer motions to suspend at this point.

At the end of cloture, would it require consent to offer motions to suspend?

Reserving the right to object.

Let me just say, again, all we are asking is the opportunity to prioritize the seven that the minority would like to offer.

At the end of cloture, as I just heard the Parliamentarian say, we would be entitled to offer it anyway. We are trying to cooperate and get these motions lined up in a way that would give everybody an opportunity to vote shortly.

I just would say to my friend the majority leader, it doesn't seem to me unreasonable for the minority to be able to pick the minority's amendments. It was challenging enough for us to filter our way through the hundreds that my Members would have liked to have offered to get down to seven. It was particularly challenging since they were not allowed to offer any amendments prior to cloture on the bill, which would be the normal process around here.

I object.

Mr. President, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

If I may make a brief observation. Listening carefully to the majority leader, he is suggesting the specter of filibustering by amendment when, in fact, we had already agreed to seven.

Having agreed to seven, it strikes me as very difficult to argue that we are establishing some precedent for filibustering by amendment because he and I had agreed to seven. The only place this ran aground was the majority leader trying to pick all seven of the minority's amendments.

So what we have is that no amendments have been considered other than those of a technical nature offered by the majority leader in order to fill up the tree. That was prior to cloture. So what is about to happen is that the majority is trying to set a new precedent on how the Senate operates.

For the record, my preference would have been to consider amendments on both sides under a regular process, which we could have done earlier this week. Instead, we have been locked out, and in a few moments the rules of the Senate will be effectively changed to lock out the minority party even more.

Mr. President, will the majority leader yield?

What I hear the majority leader saying is we are going to vote on the trade agreements on Wednesday. Is that what my friend is saying?

That means the President of South Korea will have the opportunity to address the joint session on Thursday, having, hopefully, seen the United States approve these long-awaited trade agreements.

Mr. President, who has the floor?

I would like to also give my version, if I may, to the distinguished Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

Yes. Let me, for the benefit of our colleagues, explain what, in fact, happened. It is not complicated.

It was pretty clear, whether you liked this bill or did not, it was going to pass. You could tell that by cloture on the motion to proceed with a very large majority. So I do not think my good friend the majority leader had to worry about whether his bill was ultimately going to pass. The question was whether there were going to be any amendments at any point to the bill. And my conference made a decision--actually against my best advice--to go on and invoke cloture on the bill after we had no amendments. The reason we had no amendments is because the majority leader used a device we have all become too familiar with called filling the tree, thereby allowing no amendments he does not approve. And he said that we are open for amendments, but what he means is this: We are open for any amendment I approve. So he filled the tree and, prior to cloture on the bill, controlled whether any amendments would be allowed and chose not to allow any, as a practical matter. So against my best advice, my conference decided to invoke cloture on the bill. So we were moving to approving the bill with no expression whatsoever.

So we have in the postcloture environment the motion to suspend, which has not been abused by this minority--not been abused by this minority. The majority leader, in effect, has overruled the Chair with a simple majority vote and established the precedent that even one single motion to suspend--even one--is dilatory, changing the rules of the Senate. And if you look back at his bill, what we have had, in effect, is no amendments before cloture, no motions to suspend after cloture, no expression on the part of the minority at all.

I do not know why anybody should act as though they were offended by nongermane amendments. This is the Senate. We do not have any rules of germaneness. No, we do not. Any subject on any bill can be offered as an amendment. We all know that.

The fundamental problem here is that the majority never likes to take votes. That is the core problem. And I can remember, when I was the whip in the majority, saying to my members over and over again, when they were whining about casting votes they did not want to vote, that the price of being in the majority is that you have to take bad votes because in the Senate, the minority is entitled to be heard--not entitled to win but entitled to be heard. So that is the core problem.

I would say to my friend the majority leader--and this is nothing personal about him; I like him, and we deal with each other every day-- we are fundamentally turning the Senate into the House: no amendments before cloture, no motions to suspend after cloture, and the minority is out of business. And it is particularly bad on a bill that has the support of over 60 Members, as this one did. If you are not among those 60, you are out of luck.

Now, look, this is a bad mistake. The way you get business done in the Senate is to be prepared to take bad votes. At some point, if 60 Members of the Senate want a bill to pass, it will pass. If 60 Members of the Senate do not want a bill to pass, it will not pass. It is more time consuming. I assume that is why a lot of people ran for the Senate instead of the House--because they wanted to be able to express themselves. This is a free-wheeling body, and everybody is better off when we operate that way. Everybody is, whether you are in the majority or the minority, because today's minority may be tomorrow's majority, and the country is better off to have at least one place where there is extended debate and where you have to reach a supermajority to do things.

So I would say to my good friend the majority leader that I understand his frustration. But you were going to win on this bill. You did not need to jam us. You should not jam us on any bill, but on this bill you were going to win. Now, some of us think we were wasting our time because, as the Senator from Tennessee said, this was not going to become law anyway, and we are sitting around here when we ought to be passing trade bills.

The President has asked us to vote on his jobs bill. I wanted to give him an opportunity to have his vote the other day. You guys did not even want to vote on what the President was asking us to vote on without any changes. But you can prevent that, and you did.

Look, let's not change this place. America does not need less debate, it needs more debate. And when 60 Members of the Senate decide to pass something, it will pass.

I think we made a big mistake tonight. As soon as we all kind of cool off and think about it over the weekend, I hope we will undo what we did tonight because it is not in the best interests of this institution or the American people.

Let me make sure we understand. There are not any rules of germaneness precloture in the Senate. There are not any. Any amendment can be offered on any subject. And that has been one of the great frustrations of every majority down through the years. We all know that. So my friend the majority leader, in order to prevent the votes on unpleasant amendments, fills up the tree and decides himself that he is going to confine the amendments to those that are either germane--relevant--or, put another way, of his choosing, whatever you want to allow.

My friend keeps talking about wasting time. Well, wasting time to him might not be wasting time to us. We might not think that offering an amendment on something we think is important for the country is a waste of the Senate's time.

So who gets to decide who is wasting time around here? None of us. None of us have that authority to decide who is wasting time. But the way you make things happen is you get 60 votes at some point, and you move a matter to conclusion, and the best way to do that is to have an open amendment process. That is the way this place used to operate.

I have been here a while. I know this is not the way it has always happened. This is not the way we always operated. And we did get things accomplished, not by trying to strangle everybody and shut everybody up but by allowing the process to work. And when the Senate gets tired of the process, 60 people shut it down, and you move to conclusion. That is how you move something ahead, not by preventing the voices.

I mean, we have sat around here 2 days in quorum calls. Have you all noticed that? We could have been voting on amendments. Sitting around in quorum calls--talk about a waste of time.

Mr. President, the Senator from Mississippi is accurate. Until the vote we had just a few moments ago, motions to suspend postcloture were appropriate. No longer are they appropriate because, as my friend from Mississippi pointed out, we have in effect changed the rule.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a respectable and courageous Kentucky veteran, Mr. John W. Dearmon of Somerset, KY. John served his country for 28 years, from 1943 to 1971, as one of our country's very first Navy SEALs.

John moved to Burnside, KY with his family when he was a boy in 1936. During World War II John was chosen to be part of a class of 141 that produced the first 27 Navy SEALs from underwater demolition teams. During the war, John was in command of a 45-foot intercoastal patrol boat that navigated the harbor and coast of Guam in the Western Pacific.

SEAL training for John consisted of 16 weeks of basic training, with 6 weeks of underwater swimming school. In addition, John recalls parachuting from 30,000 feet during jump school--his team was capable of jumping from up to 43,000 feet but he never had to jump from that altitude.

John is very proud of his service to his country and claims the Navy made him tough. Being a Navy SEAL instilled in John the courage to feel like he can accomplish anything, a trait he takes great pride in. John's formal education ended after he finished the 8th grade, however, he believes he received a real education about how to succeed in life from the Navy.

John W. Dearmon is a true American hero and patriot who is an inspiration to the great people of Kentucky. In fact, when asked if he ever thought about quitting during his arduous assignment, he responded, ``No! Absolutely not! I'm an old Kentucky farm boy. I'm gung-ho. I never thought about quitting.''

John devoted his life to protecting the liberty and freedom our great country was founded upon, and I commend him for his bravery and honor. The Pulaski County Commonwealth Journal recently published an article to honor John's life and accomplishments. I ask unanimous consent that the full article be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a devoted mother, parent, and fixture of the Colony Elementary School lunchroom staff, Ms. Jenny Bowling of Laurel County, KY. Jenny's love for cooking and sharing great food with people led to a long and fulfilling 38-year career as a cook and lunchroom manager at Colony Elementary.

Jenny began her career as a lunchroom cook in May of 1959 so that she could be close to her three children, who were enrolled at Colony Elementary at the time. She grew close to the teachers and other school staff over the years. She also served as the lunchroom manager. This included cooking as well as running the cafeteria, keeping payroll records and processing the free lunch forms.

In addition, Jenny was an avid volunteer within the school. Jenny was a member of the PTO and rarely missed a meeting. The value and importance of school involvement to Jenny was irreplaceable, a tradition that is still very much alive within her today--Jenny still volunteers every year at Colony Elementary's annual Thanksgiving celebration by assisting in the lunchroom preparation of the traditional turkey and stuffing meals. Jenny passionately served the children and staff of Colony Elementary for almost four decades before she retired in 1997.

Ms. Jenny Bowling's lifetime commitment to serving Colony Elementary with smiles and home-style meals is truly admirable and an inspiration to the citizens of our great Commonwealth. The Laurel County Sentinel Echo published an article highlighting and thanking Jenny for her service to the people of Kentucky. I ask unanimous consent that the full article be printed in the Record.