quorum call:

mr. merkley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon is recognized. mr. merkley: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. merkley: i thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent the period for morning business for debate be extended until 6:00 p.m., with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. merkley: thank you, mr. president, and i note the absence of a quorum. quorum call:

mr. merkley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon is recognized. mr. merkley: thank you, mr. president. i ask that the qrl be -- quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. merkley: thank you, mr. president. i want to first address the bill that we passed in the early hours this morning. it is a very unusual thing to be passing a bill in the early hours, certainly on the first day of the year, and this bill had a lot in it.

this is a fiscal cliff bill. there are a number of reasons that i supported this bill but there is a number of concerns i have as well. and now i thought it might be appropriate to just summarize why it was important this bill pass last night but why we should also be aware that the bill has laid out a path that repairs us to do -- requires us to do substantial additional work in order to avoid having that path be one that leads us into a thicket. the first -- we did not pass this bill, and if the house does not get it done -- it's being considered by the house right now -- then there is a very good probability, economists estimate that the economy will turn down in the coming year by somewhere in the range of about 2% to 3%. and so we go into recession. and that means living wage jobs

for american families disappear. that's an enormous amount of hardship, and this is a self-inflicted political wound. and so it was important to pass that bill last night to avoid that. the second is that one of the immediate impacts would have been the end of unemployment insurance for a huge number of families across this country. in oregon, it would be about 30,000 families immediately terminated from unemployment insurance, and in the course of january, there would be another 10,000 families. so if you can imagine a bill that would have directly impacted the ability of 40,000 oregon families to pay their car payment, to pay their rent, to pay their heating bill in the middle of winter, that was the bill we were considering last night. it's a very big reason in it was important that it pass. in addition, the bill that we

addressed last night adjusted the rates in terms of the checks to doctors under medicare. if those -- that's often called the doc fix. if the doc fix did not get adopted and you had roughly a 25% reduction in payments, then which we would see is that -- what we would see is folks would have a very difficult time getting in the door of a doctor's office. you don't really have a medicare plan if you can't get in the door of a doctor's office, and you don't really have medical care at all if you can't get in the door of a doctor. so it's important that we address that, again, affecting thousands of people in my home state of oregon. and in addition, there was a loft concern that this fiscal cliff bill what do some things that were entirely unacceptable in regard to compromising the benefits under medicare and social security.

there was a proposal to increase the age limit for medicare from 65 to 67. i advocated fiercely that that would be unacceptable. i can't tell you how many town halls i've gone to and had folks approach me and say you know i'm 62 years old, i have these three conditions i'm wrestling with, i'm just trying to stay alive until i hit 65 so i can get medical care. that's a common situation in a country where many people do not have health insurance. and to raise the age by an additional two years for those folks who have no medical care would be cruel at best, and for some, it would be a death sentence. that was unacceptable. others proposed that we take and instead of making the cost of living provision in social

security match better what seniors buy, they proposed making it match less well what seniors buy. saving money by inaccurately estimating the impacts of cost of living increases. it's important to recognize that neither of these elements that would have attacked the benefits of medicare and social security were in the bill last night. that those programs were not on the table. so because we needed to avert a recession, because we needed to make sure we didn't slash unemployment, cut people off at the knees overnight, block folks from being able to get in the door of their doctor's office, and because the bill did not do some of the things that would have been 100% unacceptable, it merited

support last night in this chamber. and i say last night, it was actually in the early morning hours this morning on the first day of 2013. so i supported this bill, but i have grave concerns about certain elements. this bill essentially adopted 90% plus of the bush tax cuts. unless we continue to wrestle with the fact that revenue is at a historic low in this country, and the gap between revenue and spending is very high, then we are laying out a path for structural deficits as far as the eye can see. and that is not in the best interests of this country.

folks who are well off got a very good deal last night, a very low tax on capital gains. a huge loophole in the estate tax. a very low tax on dividends. and only the very top tax bracket for the wealthiest among us was touched at all. it wasn't the $250,000 level that president obama had said he was fighting for. it was $400,000 plus. there aren't many folks who are at that level and only that top bracket was touched. so if you are very well off in america, you got a very good deal last night but america got a big problem, which is the potential for enduring deficits, structural deficits that undermine the soundness of our future finances.

in addition, the bill that we considered last night created some additional fiscal cliffs in the very near future, within two months, within march. and one is that it doesn't address the debt ceiling. now, debt ceiling isn't about what we spend, not about the decisions on what we spend, it's whether or not we're going to pay the bill after the spending has been authorized. it's like saying to yourself, you know, when the credit card bill comes, i'm just not going to pay it. because i shouldn't have spent so much money. that's what the debt ceiling is. not to pay the bills you've already incurred. well, what happened the last time that we had this controversy is our national credit rating was diminished and that means when you borrow money, you have to pay more so we shot ourselves in the foot to

no purpose. the time to make the decision over what you spend is when you're making the spending decision, not when the bill arrives later. you've already made that commitment. you're already in that boat. and you have a responsibility to fulfill payment on the bills you've signed up for. but we will have that ahead of us in just two months. and in addition, the bill we had in the wee hours this morning, it pushes off the sequester for only two months. what is the sequester? the sequester is a series of mandatory payment cuts that fall on working people. now, there was a big budget deal a year ago that i voted against because what it said is that it was if the super committee doesn't come up with a good plan, we're going to balance the budget on the backs of working people and i voted

against it. the bill last night did not do that because it pushed off the sequester but only pushed it off for two months. so if you're concerned about a nation in which the bonus breaks for the best off are untouched while cuts fall on working people then you should be concerned about the battle that is just two months ahead. in addition, there was a last-minute additional of a farm bill, a farm bill -- not the senate's farm bill, an bill that was adopted in the committee process, an bill that was adopted on the floor of this chamber. an individual leader's farm bill. the minority leader's farm bill was inserted last night. now, earlier we had a speech by one of my colleagues who was saying it's so important that we do the hard work in committee, and we do the hard work on the floor with an open amendment process. that's what we did with the

senate farm bill. senator stabenow from michigan, the chair of the committee, ranking member roberts, they worked very hard to have an honest, open, public debate and votes on the individual elements. and in the course of that, we adopted disaster aid for farmers and ranchers across america who were scorched by the worst fires in a century, and one of the worst droughts in the last century. now, they should have been helped immediately upon those disasters, but they couldn't be helped because the farm bill had expired. and leaders said we'll quickly reauthorize it. well, the senate reauthorized it. we put those provisions in. we sent it over to the house and the house never acted on it. and then we tried to take those emergency provisions and put them into the sandy bill, hurricane sandy bill because if

you're going to address the disaster for hurricane sandy, as we absolutely should and must, we should also address the disaster of the worst droughts and worst fires in a century. an area in oregon the size of rhode island burned this last summer. the fences burned. farms and ranches devastated. other parts of the country, it was drought. that was devastating. well, the version of the farm bill stuffed in last night doesn't have those emergency provisions. even though this chamber put them in, this chamber supported them. the committee supported them. we also did something else on the floor. we said the historic imbalance between those who farm in a more

traditional fashion and those who farm in an organic fashion is going to be righted. under crop insurance there was a provision for organic farmers that said we're going to charge you a lot more for your insurance but in recognition of that, you're going to get the price of organic goods that is higher if you have something that the insurance policy covers, a disaster that it covers. but the department of agriculture never got around to calculating the organic price, and therefore the farmers got the short shrift paying high, high premiums on the front end without the compensation we promised on the back end. well, this chamber fixed that. but last night, the minority leader stuffed a farm bill into this package that stripped it out. so so much for the conversation i've been hearing about good committee work and good floor work. i absolutely agree with the senator who spoke earlier today talking about good committee

work and good floor work. but that was not honored in the farm bill that was stuffed in last night. and i'll tell you there's a lot more to this. research on specialty crops has a big impact on my home state. we have a lot of special twi ty crops. the willamette valley you can grow virtually anything. it's not pure weed and not pure rice and not pure soy, a lot of specialty crops but that research was stripped out. so we didn't get the bill that this chamber decided upon. now, the chair of agriculture has come to this floor and expressed extreme duress and frustration and she's absolutely right. the senate actually did a very good job of process and it doesn't often do such a good job of process. it went through committee. it went through a floor debate.

it went through an amendment process. and all of that was ignored. and so the next time that we hear lectures about process, i'd like it to be noted about what happened last night and how ranchers and farmers across this country were betrayed by the farm bill that was stuffed in at the last second. so we have a lot of work to do in this chamber. the path that we were starting on last night is one that addressed some immediate emergencies. and people being able to get in their doctors' doors and folks being able to continue to have a coherent unemployment insurance policy while they're looking for work while unemployment rates are still high. but we have a lot of work to do from here forward or we're going

to end up in some places that make our path forward as a nation much more difficult. and i certainly am committed to continuing, continuing the effort to put this country on a sound financial footing, and to continuing to try to make the process here in the senate work better. and in that context, we have a debate that's going to begin in just two days about the process in the senate. because in the course of my lifetime, in the lifetime of everyone here, the senate has gone from a deliberating chamber, a decisionmaking chamber admired around the world to perhaps one of the most dysfunctional legislative chambers to be found anywhere. there are still members who like to think of the senate with those words the world's greatest

deliberative body. but they're the only ones who might think of that in the senate, and -- about the senate because no one else paying attention considers the senate to be a great deliberative body. it has become deeply, deeply paralyzed. and the root of this goes partially to the circumstances of bitter partisanship that has dominated our politics. and that's unfortunate. but it also goes to the fact that as a social contract unraveled and perhaps related to that partisanship, that you have rules that worked well in the past that don't work well now. and one of those is certainly the filibuster. in the early senate you can imagine the 26 senators, two from each state saying we should have the courtesy of hearing each other out to make sure we

make great decisions so we get everybody's opinion on the table. that's the courtesy of not ending debate until everyone has said what they want to say. and over time the senate grew larger, became a little more difficult, but the principle was honored because when the debate had wound down, someone would ask unanimous consent to hold the vote, and generally they would would get unanimous consent and the vote would be held. it was understood that this was a simple majority body and if you were going to stand in the way of that final vote after everyone had had their say, then, in fact, you were interrupting the process by which this chamber makes decisions and helps take this country forward. and certainly at the heart of it was the understanding that the pathway favored by the most is most of the time the pathway favored by the majority. the majority is the heart of the democratic process. and we had challenges along the

way. there were occasionally periods where folks gave long speeches and managed to stop a vote before the -- before this senate went on recess. but in general, it worked pretty well, in part because the individuals who might abuse the process realized that the rules could be changed by a simple majority. by a simple majority. so if they abused it on one occasion, the privilege of being able to express their full views for an extended period might be changed by the majority changing the rules. so it kept the process in check. there was an understanding. of one got to be heard. everyone got to have their opinion considered. but if you abused it, there could be a response to that. well, in 1917, it was abused. a small faction blocked the ability of a bill to go forward that would put armaments on

commercial shipping, u.s. commercial shipping, and those ships were being sunk by germa germany. and woodrow wilson, president woodrow wilson was outraged, senate leaders was outraged. how could a small faction allow our ships to go unarmed in a situation where they're being sunk? that's unacceptable. well, that small faction had their reasons. they felt once you put armaments on to a ship, you are probably going to be firing shots. and when you fire shots, you're involved in the war and they wanted to block the u.s. getting involved in the war. but there were only a small group in the senate that believed that that was the right response and that we should just allow germany to continue sinking our ships with -- with no -- no response. and so the senate came together and said, okay, we're going to respond to a small faction objecorinstructing the bill of s body not allowing us to go

forward. they've had their say, we've heard them out, they've had their opinions, and we're not going to allow two-thirds to shut down debate and get to a vote. that was 1917. the chamber adopted the first such motion, it's called a cloture motion, as in closing debate. well, that continued to work pretty well. and, you know, it worked well until about 1970. so for 50 years it worked pretty well. why did it work well? well, in part, because there was a big overlap between democrats and republicans. if you were to chart out those from the most -- the most liberal republicans, the most conservative democrats, there was a lot of overlap in the middle. and generally because it was the understanding that this was a simple majority body and that you should only object to a simple majority vote when everyone had had their say, if it was a principle of deep and exceptional matter, personal principle, or an issue affecting your state. and then because you were

objecting to the ordinary functioning of this body, you felt a compulsion to stand up and make your case before your colleagues. and in a sense, because the chamber is -- had reporters up on the upper level following, you were making your case before american citizens. well, over time, filibusters -- that is, an objection to a simple majority vote -- evolved in two ways. instead of it being a faction standing on principle, it started to be utilized as an instrument of the minority party to obstruct the ability of the majority party to put forth an agenda. so instead of, it became a small group and an important principle, it became a legislative tactic of the minority leadership. true for democrats and republicans. there's not one party that is more guilty in this, if you will. they both employed it, this

tactic, over time. but in addition, with the increasing polarization of america, you started to get less overlap in the perspectives of democrats and republicans. so now we have a situation where 20 years ago we might have had 30 senators in that span between the most conservative democrat and the most liberal republican, you might have an overlap of 30 senators so you could still get two-thirds and that served as a check on the use of the minority of the filibuster as a tactic of paralyzation. but as the senators from world war ii started to move out of this chamber and as those from the house, who had adopted kind of a ruthless partisanship strategy came to move into this chamber, then we saw that social cohesion break down and we started to see more and more use of the filibuster. i'm going to chart it -- it out for you.

i think this first chart probably sums it up pretty well. during the time that lyndon johnson was majority leader for six years, he faced one filibuster. one. harry reid during his six year years -- at the time i made this chart a week or so ago, it was 387. now it's in the 390's. probably going -- well, in two days, i guess we wouldn't have anymore filibusters so we may not break 400. but what a contrast between one when lyndon johnson was majority leader and basically 400 in the six years that harry reid has been majority leader. that's an enormous change. and in addition, normally the objection to a majority vote was done on the final vote on a bill but starting about 1970, folks

realized that any debatable motion, the same paralysis could be brought. you could object to a simple majority vote on any debatable motion. so i'm going to lay out how this has changed over the last 40 years in different categories. now, one is in nominations. mr. merkley: so here we see that before about 1968, there were virtually no filibusters on nominations. in fact, the rule was changed i believe it was 1949. there was a -- a question raised over whether the filibuster could be used on nominations, and after some debate, this

chamber decided to change the rule and allow it on nominatio nominations. so when people say, well, this is the way we've always operated, 200 years of history, well, first, there was no cloture motion before 1917. and, in fact, a simple majority could change the rules back then, and there were no clotures on nominations. so we have this new world. now, if i move this podium so you can see the far right edge here, you can see this steady increase in this tactic. and this impact -- you see this very tall bar here at 2012 -- this impact isn't just on this number of, say, these two dozen nominations. this affects and creates a whole backlog of unfilled positions in the executive branch and in the judicial branchmen.

so this chamber since 1970 has essentially said, you know what? there's supposed to be three equal branches of government but we're more equal. we're going to use our advise and consent power under the constitution to effectively undermine and attack the judiciary and the executive branch. that is not what the framers had in mind. show me a "federalist paper" and the discussions over how the constitution was put together where any of our framers argued that advise and consent is designed so that congress can basically damage the executive branch, judicial branch by refusing to consider nominatio nominations. so that's one big change. well, let's take a look at motions to proceed. motions to proceed, we see back here in 1932, there was filibustered. and then we see in the early 1960's a few. and then we see from about 1970,

took off. realize that it was not thought that it was appropriate to filibuster just any debatable motion. the idea was it was an issue of deep principle, that you had to make a final stand on to block a bill from passing, that would be final passage. but now, suddenly, oh, hey, we can paralyze the process by even keeping a bill from getting to the floor. now, what sense does it make to argue that you're facilitating debate by blocking the debate from happening? no, many folks come to the floor and they say, "oh, the filibuster is all about facilitating debate, making sure everybody has their say." but blocking a bill from ever getting to the floor doesn't facilitate at all. so we see this growing form of paralysis. the same story is true on amendments.

so here on amendments, again, we see from the early 1970's forward a big growth. well, again, previously it was kind of been the perspective that the filibuster is something to stop a bill from getting enacted. you didn't know what the bill would be until the amendments had been fully debated sow didn't block the amendments from being -- so you didn't block the amendments from being voted on. but again, the process grew. and so let's take a look at final passage. now, here we see the traditional use of the filibuster, one or two, an average or so during this time period from the 1920's forward, from 1917 forward until the early 1970's. and then we have this explosion. no longer blocking a bill on a deep personal issue of deep

personal value or something key to your state that you were willing to take this floor and talk about. but instead, just a routine obstruction becoming the instrument not of principle but of politics. well, we even have a challenge in getting bills to conference committee. now this is a case where the senate passed a bill and the house passed a bill and we just want to start negotiation. how does it facilitate debate in any kind of way to block getting to a conference committee and starting those negotiations? and so it was never done until the early 1970's. there you have it. the growth in this measure. now, because once this instrument of obstruction was utilized, then this chamber often decided to forego the

conference committee, we gave up on it. and so oftentimes when i was here in 2009, i would say, well, let's get the conference committee going. oh, well, we're not going to do that because it will take weeks of this chamber's time to get the conferees appointed and get the motions done, the three debatable motions done to be able to get to a conference committee. what? isn't that outrageous, that we can't even have a negotiation with the house? and so we have to go through this complicated process of sending a bill over to the house and the house has to amend it and send it back to us and we amend it and send it back to them. or maybe forming informal nationz are out of -- informal negotiations that are out of public view, instead of holding a conference committee in front, an official operation, a official recorded -- record lings of -- recordings of what's being said and what's being worked out. instead of being done in public, it's being done in a back room. so this is certainly damaging to our process.

we could go on about one other area here which is conference reports, those reports come back. this is a little bit more like final passage in that this is before something becomes law and goes to the president's desk. and here again, we see rarely used until the early 1970's and then explosion. and then not for deep personal principle but for paralysis. i have found it quite interesting to hear some of my colleagues say, this was the constitutional design, the senate be a supermajority chamber. that is beyond out of sync with american history or any -- any facts. and they say, well, isn't there a story about george washington talking with thomas jefferson and george washington says, "you know, the senate's meant to be the cooling saucer and, therefore, wasn't the senate

always a supermajority body?" and the answer is, well, no. it wasn't a supermajority body. as i've demonstrated by these charts, it was very rare before 1970 to oppose a final majority vote. and when it was done, it was done for principle. and when it was done, people took this floor -- they didn't have to but they took this floor and they explained themselves to their colleagues and the american public. because the framers were very suspicious of using a supermajority in the setting of legislative action. they thought it should be used for serious changes in the design of government. for example, they considered that if we're going to pass a treaty, it should be a supermajority. they put that into the constitution. they laid out that if we're going to override a veto by the president, it should take a supermajority to do that. and they put it into the constitution. they said if we're going to amend the constitution itself,

we should take a supermajority. they put that into the constitution. they didn't put a supermajority for legislating in. they thought about it. they talked about it. they wrestled with it. they kept coming back to the belief that the heart of the democratic process is the path that the majority chooses as the right path is the path that should prevail. not the path chosen by the minority. and so there were commentaries on this in various of the "federalist papers." there we have alexander hamilton on supermajority rule. and he said supermajority rule in congress would lead to -- and i quote -- "tedious delays, continual negotiations and intrigue, contemptible compromises of the public good." that's what hamilton thought. you know that overlays pretty well with a lot of what we see on the floor of the senate today. how about madison?

madison had commentary on this. and he said "the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed" if this chamber did legislation by supermajority. why did he say that? because it would mean the path chosen by the few would prevail over the path chosen by the majority. there's a lot of nostalgia when people think back to a time when the filibuster was an instrument of principle. many americans think about this. they think about the movie where jimmy stewart portrays jefferson smith, a new newcomer to the se. he comes to the well of the senate, and he fights for the principle of avoiding corrupt

practices regarding a voice cam. he didn't have to take the floor and demand a supermajority vote, blocking a simple majority. but he was determined both to make his case before the american people as well as his colleagues, and certainly to eat up as much time as he could physically, which is another strategy of the standing talking filibuster, so that the public would have a chance to respond. well, many folks say that's just a romantic hollywood things. but the charts i've shown you, those charts show that the filibuster was used only rarely. it was viewed as an exceptional instrument of fighting for personal principle when you were willing, when you had the courage to stand before your colleagues and make a stand. and it was that way when i came here in the early 1970's. i came as an intern in 1976.

the previous year there had been a big fight over the filibuster because its earl by liu abuses, the early years from the 1970's. the attitude changed. it start to become used as an issue of partisan politics rather than personal principle. they had a debate in 1975 and said we're going to change it from 67 to 60 and startd with this body affirming multiple times it would start with a simple majority change of rules as envisioned under the constitution. it's also the way it was envisioned under the original rules of the senate. a simple majority could change the rules. until 1970. there was a lot of observations by ordinary americans that the senate is broken. and we should listen to ordinary americans who expect us to be a legislative body that can

deliberate and decide. the cartoon that came out from tom tolls in "the washington post." a senator is at the podium. the senator says i'll tell you all the reasons we shouldn't reform the filibuster. number one, it will restrict my ability to frivolously stymie everything. number two -- and he thinks for awhile. can't think of any other reason that we shouldn't reform the filibuster. so he asks the staff, how long do i have to keep talking? and little commentary down here, you could read the recipes for paralysis. well, the filibuster has become a recipe for paralysis. and it's up to us two days from today, when we start a new session of congress, to take responsibility for modifying the rules of the senate because we have a responsibility to the american people to address the big issues facing our nation. and we can't do that when this

chamber is paralyzed. mr. president, i thank you for the time to address this issue. i look forward to the debate we're going to have two days from today. i see our majority leader has come to the floor, and i thank him for all the dialogues over the last two years on this topic. i know as the majority leader didn't see the chart i put up to start with, but it was his picture. can you see it? he has been suffering, if you will, through these nearly 400 filibusters in the six years he's been majority leader, who so many issues in america go unaddressed. each one of these filibusters procedurally taking up as much as a week of the senate's time even if you can get the votes to shut it down. mr. president, we must change the way we do business in this chamber to honor our responsibility under the constitution to legislate in order to address the big issues

facing americans. thank you, and i yield the floor. mr. reid: mr. president? i did watch the presentation of my friend. i appreciate his tenacity. the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: and his thoroughness. i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations calendar numbers 870, 871, 878, 879, 911, 912, 913, 914, 915, 916, 917, 989, 919, 920, 922, 934, 945, 941, 942, 943, 944, 945, 946, 947, 949, 950, 951, 953, 954, 955, 956, 957, 958, 959, 960, 961, 962, 964 with the following

exceptions. colonel steven raider, colonel randall spear, eric peterson and all nominations placed on the secretary's desk, the nominations be confirmed en bloc, no intervening action or debate, no further motions be in order to any nominations and any related statements be printed in the record and president obama be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate consider calendar number 645 and we proceed to vote with no intervening action or debate on the nomination, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table with no intervening action or debate, and no further motions be in order to the nomination, any statements related to the nomination be printed in the record, that president obama be notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: without objection, so order. if there is no further debate, all those in favor say aye. opposed nay. the ayes seem to have t. the ayes have it. the nomination is confirmed.

mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the foreign relations committee be discharged from further consideration of the following foreign service nominations: presidential nomination 1878, gary green, presidential nomination 1970, fill limb goldberg; and ending with robert wetsall, nomination 2028, michael hardigan and ending with eric windberg with the exception of jerry wiggin. nomination 203, steven gonyea and ending with catherine webber with the exception of scott cameron. nomination 2031, the list begins with sharon lee kromer and ending with clinton white with the kpegss of kromer.

and nomination 2032, a list beginning with carl miller adam and ending with daniel menko hirsch. that the nomination be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, there be no intervening action or debate and any no further motions be in order to any of the nominations, any related statements be printed in the record and that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask that the following committees be discharged from further consideration of the following nominations: presidential nominations 1919, that is the commerce committee. 1919, 1774, 1924, 1702, 1925, 1509, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 202 1, 2045, 2046. veterans' affairs committee nomination 1948, homeland

security nomination 1698. public courts committee nominations 1966, 65, 64, 1966, 1965, 1964, 1398, 1950, that the nomination be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, there be no intervening action or debate, any related statements be printed in the record and the president be notified. i ask -- the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: i ask consent now that we move the following nomination under the executive calendar, 1566, 19 34, 19 45rbge confirmed and motions to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, no further motions be in order to the nominations, statements be printed in the record and the president be notified of the

senate's action. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: i ask the homeland security committee be discharged from consideration of h.r. 46 -- 4365. the presiding officer: without objection the committee is discharged. the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be considered and laid on the table, there be no intervening action or debate, any related statements be printed in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent the senate proceed to h. con. res. 147. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h. con. res. 147 concurrent resolution waiving the requirement that tph-rbs enrolled -- that measures enrolled during the remainder of the 112th congress be printed in parchment. the presiding officer: without objection the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent when we complete our business today the senate adjourn until 12:00 p.m.

tomorrow morning. i guess i was rushing through here a little bit, mr. president. there was no objection. is that right? the presiding officer: the senate is considering the measure. mr. reid: thank you. i ask consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, there be no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection so ordered. mr. reid: i ask consent when we complete our business today the senate adjourn until 12:00 p.m. tomorrow morning, january 2, 2013. following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour deemed expired and the time for the two leaders be reserved for use later in the day. following leader remarks the senate proceed to a period of morning business until 1:30 p.m. with senators permitted to speak up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: mr. president, i appreciate everyone, including

the presiding officers we've had the last few days. and everyone, especially the staff, for working so hard. everyone's just as tired as i am, i'm sure. so i appreciate very much the hard work. and we hope tomorrow will go well. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask we adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate adjourns until noon tomorrow, january 2, 2013.