again and got the chance to get a tour at his retirement party, a tour of the small museum in his modest church celebrating his life, but more set up to honor and commemorate the civil rights movement and the most personal kind of way and to describe, it's impossible for me to describe the feelings i had as he talked to a small group, connie and my wife and me, a small group of us as we toured this very small museum in a room at the church, but it was just packed with all kinds of me men tows and commemorations of the civil rights movement and of reverend shuttlesworth's fight in those days in alabama. these pictures in his memory, you learn not just about a man's life but his history. passage of our most basic civil rights laws would not have occurred without his vision and his fortitude. we honor his legacy and his passing. we also are charged with

upholding a sacred duty to take his -- to take his lead, and that's because progress in our nation is never easy. passage of voting rights and civil rights wasn't the result of one man's great speech in washington or one famous march across the edmond pettis bridge. a fight for women's rights and fair pay and protections for the disabled, none of those fights were easy, yet in the last few years, we celebrated the 90th anniversary of the 19th amendment, the 75th anniversary of social security, the 45th anniversary of the voting rights act, the 20th anniversary of the americans with disabilities act. what will we celebrate in 20 years or 45 years or 75 years from what we have done here this year? how will we show the march to our justice is the march of our nation's progress? we do so by marching with his spirit rather than standing in his shadow? dr. king said of reverend shuttlesworth -- quote -- "he proved to his people that he would not ask anyone to go where he was not willing to lead."

that's a testament to his courage. four years ago, then a candidate for president, president obama escorted shuttlesworth across the bridge in alabama. on behalf of a grateful state, ohio, and with in partnership with senator portman, senator shelby from alabama and senator sessions from alabama, i offer my deepest condolences to the shuttlesworth family and to all of his friends and to all of his loved ones. madam president, i offer this resolution. i think we will be looking at it later today. offered by senators portman and sessions and shelby and myself, and i ask for passage later but i thank the president. the presiding officer: without objection, it is so ordered, and we will, thank you.

mrs. feinstein: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from california is recognized. mrs. feinstein: i rise to speak on the currency exchange rate oversight act of 2011. before we get into the bill, i want to say that this is not an easy vote for me. it is a difficult vote because beginning in 1979, i developed a relationship as mayor of san francisco with china, and over these 30-plus years, i have seen china make the greatest changes of virtually any large country in the world, and i know china has wanted to reach out and the united states has reached out, and on the pacific coast, we have developed a century of the pacific where trade long ago overtook the atlantic sector, and this trade between asia and

this country is indeed large and prized. during that time, i have had occasion to have meetings with the former president of china, the former premier of china, foreign ministers and the latest foreign minister on the subject of currency, and i have urged each to let the renmenbi flow freely. in every conversation, they have indicated that beijing is aware of the situation and the need to allow it to respond to market forces. and there has been some progress from july of july, 2005, to july of 2008, the renminbi appreciated by 21% against the dollar, and since 2007, it has risen by an additional 7%. but unfortunately, action on this matter has not been sufficient, and china continues

to resist a free, floating currency. my last conversation with a major government official took place last friday evening in san francisco. on saturday, i pulled out my binoculars and our home is seated -- is situated on a hill, and it overlooks san francisco bay, and i watched the big cargo ships pulling out of the port of oakland going through the golden gate, and i watched five of them and i saw that they were half loaded. and half loaded cargo ships leaving the ports of america and going to asia and particularly china has become more and more a part of daily routine. most are loaded with scrap paper, but the equal trade is really missing. it is not.

we import huge amounts of goods from china and the same amount with exception of some high value goods really does not go back to china. so i believe that if we're going to have this great trading basin on the pacific ocean, not everybody has to play by the same rules. in my view, this bill is not about putting sanctions on china. it is not about imposing retaliatory tariffs. it's about sending a clear message to beijing that we're series about the need to let the renminbi respond fully to market forces. let me point out that china is not specifically mentioned in this bill. the aim is to address misaligned exchange rates whenever we find them. this does not talk about manipulation of race, but the bill has three fundamental

purposes. first, it requires treasury to report to congress which currencies are fundamentally misaligned. not manipulated but misaligned, including those currencies that require priority action. secondly, the legislation provides a mechanism for the commerce department. at the request of the united states industry to investigate whether an undervalued currency constitutes a subsidy subject to retaliatory tariffs. and finally, the bill triggers certain penalties. if a priority country fails to realign its currency immediately upon designation. additional consequences take effect after 90 and 360 days, subject to a residential waiver. now, what does this all mean? what it means is that really for the first time, priority countries are going to be looked

at to see that we're all playing by the same trading rules and whether any currency is misaligned. if that currency in fact is misaligned, then the bill triggers a period of time to remedy that misalignment, and if it is not remedied within three months, it provides additional action, and again all of this is subject to a presidential waiver. so in effect what you have is the senate of the united states speaking out and saying enough is enough. the time has come to let the renminbi float free just as the dollar floats free, and we take the up side along with the down side. if that's the case, then you have an equal and fair trading community. if it is not the case, you have

a downward sloping trading community. the penalties include a prohibition on opec, the overseas private investment corporation loans, increasing antidumping duties on imports from countries with undervalued currencies, a prohibition on federal procurement, opposition to any new financing from multilateral banks. now, mr. president, there is little doubt that the renminbi is undervalued. the chinese leadership understand this. the chinese people understand it, and the american people understand it. in april, 2011, in a study by william klein and john williamson at the peterson institute for international economics, it was argued that the renminbi is undervalued by approximately 28.5%.

other studies provide different estimates, but the conclusion that the renminbi is undervalued is constant in virtually every study that has been done. this gives chinese goods a steep advantage over united states goods. it results in a loss of united states jobs, and it results in my putting on my binoculars and watching huge cargo ships leave a large port of oakland, going under the golden gate bridge only half full, and when it's half full, it's usually waste paper. you can only take so much of this, mr. president, and in my own way, i have been importuning the chinese for over a decade. they are always polite, they always say yes, they understand, but they always also say china has to take steps as china can take steps. well, the united states is now at a pivotal point.

in the great state of california, our unemployment rate is over 12%, and the half-empty cargo ships have to be filled up if we're going to have a fair trading community. and as i look at it, letting the renminbi float free is really what is necessary to do this. in testimony before the senate banking committee in september of 2010, treasury secretary tim geithner argued this -- the undervalued renminbi helps china's export sector and means imports are more expensive in china than they otherwise would be. it encourages outsourcing of production and job from the united states, and it makes it more difficult for goods and services produced by american workers to compete with

chinese-made goods and services in china, the united states and third countries. well, every economic report agrees with our treasury secretary's con collusion. history indicates that's correct. just using one's eyes indicate that's happening. indeed, cheaper chinese goods lead to bigger trade deficits with the united states, and that leads to fewer united states jobs. here's another report by economist robert scott of the economic policy institute, and he found that between 2001 and 2010, the trade deficit with china costs the united states 2.8 million jobs, of which 1.9 million were in manufacturing. and if you analyze the lost jobs over the last ten years, we have

lost five million of them in this country over the last ten years. it's the largest job loss of all categories. and nothing makes for what we gained in education jobs, health care jobs, but they are minuscule in comparison with the loss of manufacturing jobs. the report also argued that this trade deficit has been compounded. by china's decision to keep the renminbi artificially low. essentially subsidizing chinese exports at the expense of their american competitors. now, regardless of whether or not the number of job losses is as high as the economic policy institute estimates or as i have just said, at a time when we have got this national unemployment rate at almost 10% and 12%, we have to use every tool at our disposal to put

americans back to work, and that means quite simply stated that the united states senate, i hope, will be saying that we can no longer afford to ignore the deaf station of the manufacturing sector in this country. a july, 2009, article from the harvard business review by gary pazano and willie shuitt argues that the decline in manufacturing will negatively impact our status as a leader in innovation, and i agree that in order for the united states to address the ills and promote economic growth, we have got to reclaim our leadership in research, development and high-tech manufacturing. but in order to do so, we have to address the undervaluation of the renminbi. a market-based exchange rate between the renminbi and the

dollar isn't going to solve all our problems, and nobody should believe that it will, but it will help create a level playing field, and trading communities cannot long exist on an unlevel trading field. so this is very important for america at this time. in a sense --, and i don't like to to say this but in a sense, the legislation is a shot across the bow. it gives the treasury department and the commerce department clear authority to take actions against undervalued currencies, wherever they may occur, and particularly in high-priority currencies. but it's also important that this bill is not merely about imposing penalties, and it very well drafted in my view, and i read it cover to cover.

it mandates consultations with priority countries, the international monetary fund and key trading partners. in other words, it continues to place an emphasis on dialogue and dploams a. the bill -- diplomacy. the bill provides another tool for united states companies that have been affected by cheaper chinese imports due to an undervalued renminbi. it makes it clear that congress has the authority to investigate whether or not an undervalued currency is a subject -- is a subsidy subject to counterveiling duties, and it provides two well-known methodologies to determine the value of the benefit conferred on exports by an undervalued currency. so let me be clear. this bill does not mandate any counterveiling tariffs due to an undervalued currency.

it simply restates that commerce has the authority to investigate whether such duties are appropriate if a domestic company provides the proper documentation. so, mr. president, over the past 30 years in visit after visit i have seen how dialogue and cooperation have solidified ties between the united states and america, and sino-american cooperation is very important. i've watched the process becoming the foundation for what i believe is our most important bilateral relationship. indeed, in my view, this relationship can positively impact the security and economic well-being of both countries. as such, when addressing disputes that may arise between washington and beijing, i believe it's in the interests of

both nations to use diplomacy and negotiation to find commonsense solution. yet, on this matter, i believe the time has come. we are past the polite talks where people say i realize, i know, i understand, and not much happens. and in the last ten years, it looked as if china was going to take action and then china has retrenched on that action. so i believe we must send a clear signal to china that it has to move faster to a market-based exchange rate. and i know china doesn't like this. i know it has serious concerns about the bill. i understand that many united states companies and national organizations that do business in china are concerned about the impact this bill will have on our bilateral economic

relationship. but i also know that over the 20-year period that i have been following the currencies of both countries, the improvement is small, and the impact on the united states has been great. so as a friend of china and a strong supporter of united states-china ties, i hope this vote will demonstrate our deep concern. i hope it will give the administration the leverage it needs to encourage beijing to work with us and our partners in the international community to bring the renminbi into alignment with market forces. i do not say this in a hostile way. i say it in friendship and with hope that there is a future where trading between china and the united states can be on equal terms. i also would like to salute the

authors of this legislation, because i think they have really done a very good job. senator brown, who is on the floor, senator schumer, graham, and others have really put forward, i think, a carefully worded bill which carries with it the real opportunity for change between the relationship -- trading relationships of our two great countries. so i thank them, i thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor. mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum

be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that at 6:45 tonight the senate proceed to votes to suspend rule 22 with respect to the following amendments: mcconnell number 735 dealing with jobs act, coburn number 670 dealing with foreign aid, paul number 678, federal funding audit, barrasso, number 672, cement, hatch, number 680, currency alternative, cornyn number 677, fighter planes, taiwan and demint, 689, right to bork. on disposition of the motion to suspend, there be no other amendments, points of order or motions in order other than budget points of order, that the bill be read a third time and the estimate proceed to vote on package of the bill. finally, that the time until 4:00 -- i'm sorry, 6:45 be equally divided between two two leaders or their designees.

the presiding officer: without objection. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. mcconnell: mr. president, just reserving the right to object, i want to make sure i understand the amendment lineup. you have substituted, in the amendment lineup, i would say, you've added a paul amendment that senator paul is willing to stand down for the time being and offer it on some other occasion and he has added in place of that --. mr. reid: mr. president, if i could respond. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: the list that we have, there were other amendments for vitter, brown, johanns, -- vitter, brown, johanns. it's my understanding that we've

accepted the -- a vote on all those except those three. so that's pretty good batting average. the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: if i may, i'm trying to get this correct. let me just ask my friend the majority leader. did his list include coburn number 670 on foreign aid? mr. reid: it included coburn 670 on foreign aid, yes. mr. mcconnell: and hatch, 680 on china. mr. reid: the leader is right. mr. mcconnell: demint, 689 on right to work? mr. reid: that is true. i'll gove over this once again. mr. mcconnell: it included 7 cornyn 677 on taiwan? mr. reid: that's right. mr. mcconnell: the majority leader has substituted from the list i gave him a paul amendment number which i don't have --.

mr. reid: 678. mr. mcconnell: instead of johanns amendment on farm dust. mr. reid: the motions to waive that have been filed we did not include vitter, brown, or johanns. mr. mcconnell: i'd like to try to modify the majority leader's list, not to expand the number, we agree on seven, but the list that i submitted to the majority leader included the johanns amendment number 692 on farm dust. instead of the paul number, paul amendment, the number of which i do not have. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i can't get consent from my side on that. i can't do it. but i've offered seven, the -- paul is taken off, i'm glad to hear that but we'd be happy to do his. we've offered seven but it's not the seven that you want.

mr. mcconnell: all i would say to my friend the majority leader, weed sort of like to be able to pick our amendments and not have him pick them and we've worked hard to narrow down to a list of seven, and senator paul graciously decided to -- that he would step aside for the moment, and we had included the johanns amendment on farm dust. i would remind everyone that the minority has not been able to offer any amendments prior to cloture. now we are left with motions to suspend at a 67-vote threshold and all we're asking for here 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 ask, we worked hard to get it

down to a list of seven and i don't think it's unreasonable not having had any amendments prior to cloture to at least be able to prioritize our seven. mr. reid: mr. president, two things. first of all, the hatch amendment, that's always been offerable. we would have voted on that, everyone within the sound of my voice should know that. we agreed to that. that he should be able to offer that amendment. we also talked about other amendments that could have been offered. so we did not stop amendments from being offered. my friend shall the republican leader, filled up the slot that was available and he didn't tboonts take it down. we were willing, even though that were up there to move to other amendments. he disagreed, didn't want to do that for reasons i don't understand. but that's the way it was. now, mr. president, we've agreed to seven nongermane, nonrelevant amendments. i think that's really fair.

i would -- i have worked a good share of this afternoon trying to clear some of these other amendments. we have gotten permission from the democratic -- the democratic senators to have votes on these matters that i have listed. i cannot get consent on the johanns amendment. i cannot get consent on the brown amendment. i cannot get consent on the vitter amendment. i can't do that. i've tried. i can't get it done. so these are the ones that i can get, and if the paul amendment -- my last conversation with the republican leader, he told me that paul wasn't going to offer his, and i appreciate that. but that's where we are. we can have six votes. we could complete this fairly quickly. i don't like this process, but i'm willing to go along with t bur thesbut that's my consent a. i can't do anymore. mr. mcconnell: 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? mr. reid: mr. president there is a unanimous consent request pending. the presiding officer: the republican leader, do you want to restate your question. mr. mcconnell: at the end of cloture, would it require consent to offer motions to suspend? the presiding officer: once an amendment slot is available -- or a notion suspend is in order. -- a motion to suspend is in order.

is there objection to the unanimous consent? mr. mcconnell: reserving i think right to object -- the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: all we're asking for here 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're trying to cooperate here and get these motions lined up in a way that would give everybody an opportunity to vote here 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. and 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. mr. reid: mr. president, did the senator object to my consent? the presiding officer: the unanimous consent is pending. is there objection? mr. mcconnell: i object. mr. reid: mr. president, on tuesday -- the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. reid: on tuesday, 79 senators moved to invoke cloture on moving to this bill, the china currency manipulation. after the senate decided it wanted to move to this bill, i spoke to the majority leade minn how the senate could move teements. that action froze the amendment process. notwithstanding that impasse, earlier today 62 senators moved to invoke cloture on this bill. manifestly, this is a measure that a supermajority of senators wish to pass. mr. president, could we've order in the senate? the presiding officer: the

majority. mr. reid: now since the senate amended rule 22 in 1979, cloture has been a process to bring the senate consideration to a close. the fundamental nature of cloture is to make consideration of the pending measure finite. the terms of rule 22 provide that the question is this: and i quote, it is the sense of the senate that the debate shall be brought to a close. end of quote. indeed, late this morning the republican leader stated, and i also quote what my friend, the republican leader, said. "if 60 senators are in favor bringing a matter to a conclusion, it will be brought it a conclusion." that's just what happened a few minutes ago." so i repeat, that's what the republican leader said. now, notwithstanding the clear nature of the cloture rule to provide for finite consideration of a measure, a practice has begun in this congress that has undermined the cloture rule. the practice has arisen with

senators filing multiple motions to suspend the rules for the consideration of further amendments. and so on this measure, the republican senators have filed nine motions to suspend the rules to consider further amendments. but the same logic that allows for nine such motions could lead to the consideration of 99 such amendments. the logical extension of allowing for the consideration of further amendments, notwithstanding cloture, leads to a consideration of a potentially unending series of amendments. the logical extension of this practice is to lead to a potentially endless vote-a-rama at the end of cloture. this potential for filibuster by amendment is exactly the circumstance. that the senate sought to end by its 1979 amendments. plainly, mr. president, this practice has gotten out of hand. i see on the floor the junior senator from the state of oregon. he and a number of other senators worked very hard at the beginning of this congress to

kind of change what was going on around here, to make things move more quickly, to make things move more fairly, and there was a lot of talk about, you know, they were going to try to move things along, not going to hold up motions to proceed and all that, but, you know, that, mr. president, hasn't worked too well. i say to my friend through the chairk the senator from oregon, this is another example of how the rules have been abused in this congress. this didn't happen -- it happened rarely last congress. but now this is standard procedure now -- again in an effort to avoid the rules. so, mr. president, this practice has gotten way out of hand. so notwithstanding this abuse, this morning i once again offered to work together with the republican leader to come to a reasonable number of motions to suspend. the republican leader and i discussed -- we had a list of nine or ten motions to suspend on which he sought votes.

i note that it would be more amendments than the motions already filed by senators. in good faith i counteroffered that i would be willing to schedule votes on seven of these republican motions to suspend. that was reasonable, i thought. the republican leader rejected that offer. and that's what has led to us where we now are. unless the senate votes to change its precedents today, we will be faced with a potentially serious series of motions to suspend the rules and that is a result that a functioning democracy cannot tolerate. i, mr. president, withdraw my amendment number 695. i withdraw amendment number 695. the presiding officer: the senator has that right. mr. reid: i call up the motion to suspend rule 22 filed by senator coburn with the purpose of considering amendment number 670. officer the clerk will report. the clerk: mr. reid for mr. coburn moves to suspend rule

22 paragraph 2 including germaneness requirements for the purpose of proposing and considering amendment number 670. mr. reid: i make a point of order that the motion to success pend is a dilatory motion under rule 22. the presiding officer: point of order is not sustained. mr. reid: appeal th the ruling f the chair and request the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? mr. mcconnell: mr. president, parliamentary inquiry. parliamentary inquiry. the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: if i may just make a brief observation here, 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 would be -- it strikes me as very difficult to argue that we are establishing some precedent for filibustering by amendment, because he had i had agreed to seven. the only place this ran aground

is with the majority leader trying to pick all seven of the minority's amendments. so what we have here is 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. reid: mr. president, is there a sufficient second to my -- the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there is a sufficient second.

the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on the vote the yeas are 48, the nays are 51. decision of the chair does not stand as the judgment of the senate. the majority leader. therefore the point of order is sustained. mr. reid: mr. president, i know there is some hurt feelings here, perhaps on both sides because this hasn't been easy for me either, but let's not dwell on that. but i want the record to reflect that the fact that we have to do things sometimes that are difficult doesn't mean that senator mcconnell and i have any problems with each other.

i want to make sure the record is clear in that regard. so we'll discuss later how we're going to move forward on other things, but here's my suggestion, unless someone has some objection: the time for cloture running out on this is sometime tomorrow afternoon, i don't know the exact time. i think it would be to everyone's interest that we would vote on this on tuesday when we come back. we have a judge we could vote on that's already settled, we could vote on final passage on this and then vote on the jobs bill that's up. then what we're going to do is as -- that night, the work to have an agreement that's arranged paws we don't have the time worked out on this. under the rule there's 60 hours. we're not going to use 60 hours on these three trade agreements. but everyone should understand we're going to finish the trade agreements on wednesday. and if that means people want to

spend 20 hours debating one of them they may have to spend all night tuesday doing that because we're going -- we have some things here that we've made commitments. yes. mr. mcconnell: what i hear the majority leader saying we're going to vote on the trade agreements on wednesday. is that what my friend is ache? mr. reid: that's what i said. mr. mcconnell: 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. reid: so unless someone has some objection, we will leave here for the evening and the staff will work out a proper unanimous consent agreement i will announce at some subsequent 250eu78 after conferring with the republican leader. a senator: mr. president. mr. president. back here.

mr. wicker: has the unanimous consent request been propounded or was the majority leader simply stating that we would proceed to vote on tuesday unless there was objection? mr. reid: what i said, my friend from mississippi is right, unless someone has an objection, we will set things up to vote tuesday evening. otherwise we would have to vote tomorrow afternoon. mr. wicker: well, mr. president -- the speaker pro tempore: the senator from mississippi. mr. wicker: if i could reserve the right to object and i may or may not object, but i think -- the speaker pro tempore: the senator from mississippi, there is no unanimous consent at this time. mr. wicker: i'd like to be recognized to speak then. the presiding officer: the majority leader still has the floor. mr. reid: mr. president. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: a senator: mr. president, i'd

like to vitiate the quorum. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. wicker: reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. continue calling the role. mr. wicker: i didn't object. i reserved the right to object. if the the senator from would -- the senator would like to speak -- the speaker pro tempore: the senate is in a quorum call. a senator: mr. president. i move to vitiate the quorum. the presiding officer: is there objection? there is objection. the clerk will continue the roll. a senator: mr. president, parliamentary inquiry. the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. a senator: i move to vitiate the quorum. the presiding officer: is there objection? there is okay. the clerk will continue the roll.

quorum call:

reid mr. president? sneer sphert majority leader. the presiding officer:

majority. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. reid: mr. president -- the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: thank you very much. as i understand the rules, each nor is entitled to an thundershower speak postcloture if they care to. it is my understanding that senators corker, wicker and vitter wish to speak postcloture. it would be better for everyone here -- and, you know, an hour, if you want to speak for pan hour, that's fine. i have to place to go. but if you could -- if we could all have an idea as to how long senator corker, senator wicker, and senator vitter wish to speak, it could help us manage what's going on here. so if i could direct this expression through the chair to my friend, senator corker. the presiding officer: the senator from tenton. mr. corker: thank you for recognizing me. i really don't want to speak. here's what i want to happen. i think members on both sides of the aisle feel like this institution has-to-degraded into

a place that is no longer a place of any deliberation at all. and i'd like for you and the minority leader to explain to us so that we have one story here in public as to what has happened this week to lead us to the place that we are. that's all i'm asking. that's all i want to know. explain how the greatest deliberative body on a bill that many would say was a messaging bill in the first place ended up having no amendments and we're in this place that we are right now. i'd just like to understand that. mr. reid: mr. president, through the chair to my friend from tennessee and others who wish to listen, we moved to this legislation with a very -- the china currency with a heavy vote. 79 senators who wish to proceed to that. once we were on the bill, i have -- i partially filled the tree,

and why did i do that? because i found over the last congress and nine months that when i try to have an open amendment process, it is a road to nowhere. it just hasn't worked. we haven't been able to effectuate a single bill being passed that way. regardless whether that's right or wrong, that's what i did. senator mcconnell wanted to offer an amendment on the president's jobs bill. to do that, he -- and that in effect tied us down because he wasn't willing to let us move to any other amendments. i was willing to move to other amendments. specifically, everyone that was involved in this process thought that senator hatch was entitled to an amendment because his was clearly germane and relevant. but without going into he said,

he said, the fact is that no amendments were offered, even though i was happy to have some amendments offered. now, what has happened over the last nieng months -- nine months is that -- and hurricane katrina this went on last year where we and even this went on last year where we learned about this. when cloture was invoked, senators -- it was led by senator demint and then senator coburn picked up on this quickly. as soon as cloture was invoked, motions to suspend the rules were filed. now, as i said today, that was done in this instance. now, i know that my republican friends say the reason we did that is we couldn't offer amendments on the underlying bill. i disagree with that. i think people could have offered amendments, but we're at the point where we were. we had nine or ten amendments relating -- nine or ten motions to suspend the rules.

i worked all day, much of the time later this afternoon, with the senator -- with senator mcconnell trying to come up with a list of those amendments. a list of those amendments that had been suspended. i had to get approval of my caucus to move to all of those amendments. i couldn't do it. i couldn't. i, in effect, made a number of my senators very unhappy by moving to amendments that are extremely difficult. they are not -- the only amendment that i am aware of that's germane to what we were working on is senator hatch's amendment. the rest of them are not germane. they may be good amendments, great message amendments, causing a lot of pain over here, but i agreed to do seven of the nine. and senator mcconnell said that he needed at least one more. i couldn't get one more. so, what procedurally took place here is this: i believe that, as i indicated

in my opening statement, that rule 22 dealing with cloture says that when cloture is invoked, it is a finite -- it's finite, ends debate on that issue. unless there are amendments that have been filed that can be dealt with during the 30 hours. there weren't any in this instance. so i have been here quite a while, and one of the most unpleasant things i've had to deal with over the years has been the vote-a-rama when we do the budget thing. we've had 60, 70, 80, 120 amendments filed. urpdz this procedure that has recently been -- under this procedural that has been recently been adopted by the minority in this instance, there's no limit to how many amendments can be filed. today there was nine or ten. this has to come to an end. this is not a way to legislate. and that's why the motion to overrule the ruling of the chair -- that's why i made that. i think this is something that

was discussed in great detail at the beginning of this congress. i had a number of senators on my side who believed very strongly, as my friend from tennessee has just described, that the senate has become a place that's very difficult to debate anything. and so senators merkley and senator udall joined by others wanted to change the rules. and at that time we believed -- and the parliamentarian and all the law that we were familiar with -- said a simple majority could change the rules dramatically. as how to relates to filibuster and all other kinds -- other things. i had felt that -- i felt that certain changes were important, and maybe we should ease into this. that's why we are not reading the amendments now, as we used to do, be forced to do on occasion. and we had a gentleman tion agreement that there would be motions to -- motions to proceed

would not be opposed to generally. i would not fill the tree all the time. and as a result of that, senators merkley and udall, much to their consternation because i didn't join with a majority of my caucus -- opposed what they did. because i was hopeful that we could get back to doing some legislating that we had done in the past. now, i feel very comfortable that what we're doing and what we did today is the right thing to do. my staff this morning when i talked about doing this, the first thing they said to me, well, what if you're in the minority? let kneel everyone within the sound of my voice, if i -- if i were in the minority, i wouldn't do this. i think it's dilatory and wrong. just as i have sea said when we were -- just as i've said when we were in the famous debate that's now famous dealing with the judges issue that we had the nuclear option.

i said, if i were in a position to exert when i felt was the nuclear option on jurnlings i wouldn't do it. and i wouldn't. i think we have to do a better job of legislating here under the rules. and so even though perhaps senator merkley and senator udall were disappointed in my advocacy to not massively change these rules, i went along hoping that things would work out better. what just took place here is an effort to try to expedite what goes on around here. and, am i 100% sure that i'm right? no, but i feel pretty comfortable with what we've done. there has to be some end to the dilatory tactics to stop things. cloture means end. it's over w. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, who has the floor? the presiding officer: the minority leader has the floor. mr. mcconnell: i'd like to give my very, if i may, to the -- the presiding officer: the majority leader has the floor. mr. reid: i yield to my

friend, the republican leader, to respooned to any questions that the senator from tennessee may have. mr. mcconnell: yes, let me -- the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: for the benefit of our colleagues, let me explain what exact happened. iit is not complicated. it was pretty clear, whether you liked this bill or didn't, it was going to pass. you could tell that by cloture on the motion to proceed with a very large majority. so i don't think my good friend, the majority leader, had to worry about whroarnst whether or not 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 had no amendments. and the reason we had no amendments is because the majority leader used a device that we've all become all too familiar with called filling up the tree.

thereby allowing no amendments that he doesn't approve. and he said we're open for amendments. but what he means is we're open for any amendment that i approve. so he filled up 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 toward approving the bill with no expression whatsoever. and so we have in the postcloture environment the motion to suspend kh-rbgs has not been -- 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 this bill, what we've had in effect is no amendments before cloture, no motions to suspend after cloture, no expression on the part of the minority at all. and i don't know why anybody should act like they were offended by nongermane amendments. this is the u.s. senate. we don't have any rules of germaneness. no, we don't. any subject on any bill can be offered as an amendment. we all know that. now, the fundamental problem here is the majority never likes to take votes. that's the core problem. and i can remember when i was the whip in the majority saying to my members over and over and

over again when they were whining about casting votes they didn't want to vote that the price of being in the majority is you have to take bad votes. because in the united states senate the minority is entitled to be heard. not entitled to win, but entitled to be heard. that is the core problem here. i say to my friend the majority leader, nothing personal about it, we are fundamentally turning the senate into the house. no amendments before cloture. no motions to suspend after cloture. the minority's out of business. and it's particularly bad on a big that has the support of over 60 members, as this one did. if you're not among those 60, you're out of luck. now look, this is a bad mistake. the way you get business done in the senate is be prepared to take bad votes, and at some

points if 60 members of the senate want a bill to pass, it will pass. if 60 members of the senate don't want a bill to pass, it won't pass. and it is more time-consuming. and i assume that's 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're in the majority or the minority, because today's majority may be tomorrow's minority. and the country is better off to have at least one place where there's extended debate and where you have to reach a supermajority to do things. so i would say to my good friend, the majority leader, i understand his frustration, but you were going to win on this bill. you didn't need to jam us. you shouldn't 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 wasn't going to become law anyway. we're sitting around here when we ought to be passing trade bills. the president asked us to vote on his jobs bill. i wanted to give him an opportunity to have a vote the other day. you guys didn't want to vote on what the president was asking us to vote on without any changes. but you could prevent that, and you did. look, let's don't change this place. america doesn't need less debate. it needs more debate. and when 60 members of the united states senate decide to pass something, it will pass. i think we made a big mistake tonight. and as soon as we all kind of cool off and think about it over the weekend, i hope we'll undo what we did tonight because it's not in the best interest of this institution or the american people. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: the senate should function like the senate, and i acknowledge that. but we have major pieces of legislation that have been

brought down as a result of not being able to have finality of that legislation. unending amendments, not germane, irrelevant. the small business administration bill that passed in the past years easily. we had the economic development administration bill, passed easily. job-creating bills that we had an open amendment process, they were brought to -- simply stopped. now there are rules of germaneness in the senate. there are rules of germaneness in the senate. and let's think about these amendments that i agreed to. there are others i didn't agree to, but the amendments i agreed we should have a vote on. not that i wanted to have a vote on them because they had nothing to do with the underlying bill. nothing. and there are rules of germaneness that that should be the case. mr. mcconnell: rules of germaneness before cloture? mr. reid: the demint amendment right to work.

cornyn amendment on taiwan. we had a vote on that. hatch amendment, that is relevant and germane. barrasso, not so. cole federal funding. mcconnell, jobs act. mr. president, part of cloture is enforcing germaneness. that's what it's all about. we're happy to do germane amendments. but the fact is the republican leader himself decided not to have amendments on this bill. i agreed to amendments on the bill prior to cloture. if everybody doesn't know that, they should because that's the way it is. so, mr. president, we have to make the senate a better place, and i think a better place is to do what was done tonight. get rid of these dilatory amendments. i mean, this is -- we would be happy if poor senator bingaman could get some bills out of the energy committee. we could do something on cement.

we could do something on -- if we could get some bills out of the foreign relations committee, we could maybe look at foreign aid. these things are dilatory and only unnecessary in an effort to divert from what we're really trying to do here, and that is legislate. the issue is this, mr. president. i believe that what we did at the beginning of this congress was the right thing to do. but as the weeks and months have rolled on, wasting months of our time on a c.r. that was done on a series of c.r.'s one week, two weeks, three weeks, funding government until october, a few days ago. what a waste of time. we have spent months, months on raising the debt ceiling. months and making it nearly impossible, if not impossible, to legislate on other matters. and when we get a chance to

legislate, we shouldn't be held up by these dilatory matters. i'm welling to legislate. i'll take a lot of hard votes in my career and i would be happy to vote on these. but there has to be an end to this. i'd be happy if my friend -- mr. mcconnell: let me make sure i understand. there aren't any rules of germaneness precloture in the senate. there aren't any. any amendment can be offered on any subject. and that's been one of the great frustrations of every majority down through the years, and we all know that. so my friend, the majority leader, in order to prevent votes on unpleasant amendments, fills up the tree and decides himself that he's going to confine the amendments to those that are either germane, relevant, or put another way, of his choosing. of his choosing. mr. reid: what was that? mr. mcconnell: of your choosing. whatever you want to allow. my friend keeps talking about wasting time.

wasting time to him might not be wasting time to us. who gets to decide who's wasting time around here? none of us. none of us have that authority to decide who's 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's the way this place used to operate. i've been here awhile. i know this isn't the way it's 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's how you move something ahead, not by preventing the

voices. i mean, we have sat around here two days in quorum calls. you all notice that? we could have been voting on amendments. sitting around in quorum calls. talk about a waste of time. mr. reid: mr. president? mr. president? mr. president? i'm going to respond to this. i don't know the exact number now, but almost 30 judges are waiting to be approved. people who are waiting to change their lives for their patriotic duty to public service. we can't -- i can't file cloture on all those: there's 29 of them. we, mr. president, have been stymied here in this congress in getting things done. holding up nominations for judges. holding up nominations, some people have been on the executive calendar for a long, long time. it's unfair. that's what's going on. we can do all the make-believe

that my friend, the republican leader, is talking about, about what great things should happen around here. i'll tell you a few things should happen. we should be able to move matters through here that have been happening since the beginning of this country. nominations, for example. we can't do that because my friend the republican leader, an candid as he was said his number-one goal was to defeat president obama. that's what's been going on for nine months here. this issue relating to these dilatory tactics on these motions to suspend the rules is part of that game that's been played. i agree. let's get back to legislating as we did before the mantra around here was defeat obama. mr. leahy: mr. president, would the majority leader yield for a question? mr. reid: i'd be happy to yield. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, i pose this question, and i look around this floor, with the exception of senator inouye, my dear friend from hawaii, nobody

has served in this body longer than i have of the current membership. nobody. i keep hearing this talk about 60 votes. most votes you win by 51 votes. and this constant mantra of 60 votes, 60 votes, this is some new invention, i tell my friends based on my history. so my question to the majority leader, whether we were here with a democratic majority or a republican majority, does he remember a time when judges who were confirmed unanimously, every single republican, every single democrat voting for them out of committee would then sit on the calendar for three, four, five, staoeuplgs six months -- sometimes six months because

there's not an agreement to vote on them without a 60-vote supermajority. i cannot remember any time in 37 years. i don't know if the majority leader recalls such a time. mr. reid: the senator from vermont has been here longer than i have, but he's absolutely right. i would also, mr. president, add this. the republican leader said, and i think this says it all, today, extemporaneous remarks from his position here where he's now standing -- and i quote -- "if 60 senators are in favor of bringing a matter to conclusion, it will be brought to conclusion. that's what happened a few minutes ago." and that's what cloture is all about. that's what cloture is all about. i believe in cloture. as i've indicated several times earlier, i wasn't in favor of changing the rules relating to cloture as some of my colleagues did. but i think this is a step forward. it will make this process work a lot better. i want to tkwraoeld to my friend