On the recordOctober 12, 2011
I wish there was an explanation which was satisfactory or an answer which was satisfactory to Senator Brown's question. I am afraid the only answer I can come up with is because this started off as President Obama's job bill. It has been changed. Now we have a different source of funding for it. We have a millionaire's surcharge in there which will fund these critically important programs, these job-creation programs. I cannot think of any other reason, other than they think it will simply go away. What is an explanation? Maybe it was in the unanimous consent request of the Republican leader last night: I ask unanimous consent that this bill not be amendable--no amendments would be in order under his unanimous consent proposal--and then when it does not get 60 votes, which he knew it would not get, that it be immediately returned to the calendar. That is what he asked twice last night--immediately be returned to the calendar. The Republican leader wants this bill to go away. It cannot go away. It should not go away. It will not go away. The majority leader has already said he is going to move to reconsider the vote last night.…





