Roger Wicker

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I wish to celebrate the passage of the National Pediatric Research Network Act, a bipartisan piece of legislation that was signed into law last month. I wish to thank my colleague, Senator Sherrod Brown, for his leadership on this issue. I was pleased to work with him on this important initiative in the previous two Congresses. The National Pediatric Research Network Act expands and enhances our Nation's commitment to pediatric research by providing the infrastructure that is needed to advance the field for decades to come. To do so, the law includes training and support for early-career investigators and authorizes the National Institutes of Health to select a number of competitive pediatric research consortia. Each consortium, comprised of multiple institutions, will focus on specific, high-impact pediatric research, including basic, translational, and clinical investigations. In addition, the law specifically states that a subset of the consortia must focus primarily on pediatric rare diseases. Participating institutions are encouraged to coordinate with multi-site clinical trials of pediatric patient populations. This will provide needed support for the families of children suffering from rare diseases, such as Duchenne muscular dystrophy, the most common fatal genetic disorder diagnosed in childhood, and spinal muscular atrophy, the leading genetic killer of children under the age of 2. The National Pediatric Research Network Act's collaborative approach allows us to rethink and improve the way pediatric research is conducted. Shared resources among pediatric institutions help maximize the government's return on investment and avoid duplication. Rather than allocating additional funds at the taxpayers' expense, the law seeks to accelerate treatments for pediatric diseases by emphasizing collaboration and the efficient use of limited Federal resources. I wish to thank the many families and organizations in Mississippi and across the country that helped build the bipartisan support necessary for passage of this bill, including Children's Healthcare of Mississippi, FightSMA, Parent Project Muscular Dystrophy, the Coalition for Pediatric Medical Research, Children's Hospital Association, National Organization for Rare Disorders, National Down Syndrome Society, the Federation of Pediatric Organizations, and the Kakkis EveryLife Foundation. Simply put, this law will result in an improved and coordinated NIH pediatric research investment. This effort will help children across our Nation overcome numerous devastating diseases and conditions. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure the timely and effective implementation of this law, and I will continue to fight for the health and well-being of our children.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. I understand that soon Senator Levin will come to the floor, and perhaps there will be an exchange between Senator Cornyn and Senator Levin about a matter that may be coming to a vote sometime in the next half hour, and that would be the motion to table the filling of the tree. I wish to speak for a moment or two about that. I think sometimes we talk about these things in shorthand within the Senate, and perhaps our constituents don't know what we are referring to when we say the majority leader has come in and filled the tree. I know most Members understand this, but what that means is the majority leader comes in and he offers all of the amendments that could possibly be ordered at one particular time and, therefore, doesn't give anyone else the opportunity to offer amendments. That has really been a problem for us on the minority side. We have that situation now, and perhaps the motion that will soon be made by Senator Cornyn will take care of that. But on this important Defense bill, which has been brought to the floor in a shorthand manner, the majority leader has filled the tree, and there are five amendments offered. One of the amendments, amendment No. 2555 by Senator Reid of Nevada, simply does this: Strike the words ``3 days'' and put ``4 days.'' That is all the amendment does. Another amendment: Strike the words ``4 days'' and insert ``5 days.'' That is all the amendment does. There is another amendment that says: The act shall be effective 3 days after enactment. There is another amendment that helps fill the tree: Change the word ``request'' to ``requested.'' In other words, not substantive amendments, but amendments designed to simply fill up the parliamentary tree and prohibit Members on our side or other Members from offering a substantive motion that might affect the defense policy of the United States of America. I would simply point this out and reiterate what Senator Cornyn said earlier today. Since becoming majority leader, our current majority leader, Senator Reid of Nevada, has filled the tree 79 times--in other words, offered all the amendments, prohibiting us from even getting a vote, getting a debate, on an idea that we might have. By contrast, his 6 predecessors combined filled the tree only 49 times; in other words 79 times by this majority leader and 40 times by the other Democratic and Republican majority leaders. Senate majority leader Bill Frist filled the tree 15 times during his 4 years. Democratic leader Tom Daschle filled the tree only once during his 1\1/2\ years. Trent Lott was majority leader, and he did it 11 times in 5 years. George Mitchell from Maine, a very distinguished majority leader, filled the tree 3 times in 6 years; and Bob Dole, when he was majority leader, filled the tree 7 times in 3\1/2\ years. The point I am making--and then I will sit down--is that this majority leader, in an unprecedented manner, has filled the tree over and over. Why? To prevent other Senators from having an opportunity, as representatives of the 50 States, to offer ideas to improve bills and to get them on record on important issues. I would hope that we could have a parliamentary motion in just a few moments to allow this tree to be taken down and to allow the elected representatives of the 50 States to come before the President of the Senate and before the American people and offer different ideas. I yield the floor.

Mr. WICKER. It would be inconceivable for the senior Senator from Arizona to say anything which I would find offensive or insulting, and I take no offense from his remarks. I wish to be recognized. We are in morning debate; are we in debate on the pending question?

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I rise this evening to speak briefly about the delegation chosen by President Obama to represent the United States at the opening and closing ceremonies of the 2014 Olympic Winter Games in Sochi, Russia. I would also like to offer a few suggested additions to the delegation. As Members know, Janet Napolitano, former Secretary of Homeland Security, will lead the U.S. delegation to the opening ceremonies on February 7. Our Deputy Secretary of State, William Burns, will lead our delegation to the closing ceremonies on February 23. Our two delegations will include tennis legend Billy Jean King, gold medalist figure skater Brian Boitano, gold medalist figure skater Bonnie Blair, silver medalist hockey player Caitlin Cahow, and Olympic gold medalist speed skater Eric Heiden. These individuals are American sports figures who should be lauded for their contributions. I am confident they will represent us well. May I suggest with all seriousness that this delegation could well be expanded. Some have asked what message the President might be trying to send to Russia in choosing this delegation. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney asserted this morning that ``in the selection of the delegation, we are sending the message that the United States is a diverse place.'' Whether we are sending a message or simply pointing to our diversity, I submit our official delegation would be enhanced by adding the following: an American citizen of Russian parentage, perhaps a Russian orphan adopted and raised to adulthood by loving parents in the United States would be a good addition to this delegation or a Syrian American who has fled the barbaric and treacherous rule of Bashar al- Assad in Syria. In addition, an Iranian-American exile from the oppressive and murderous regime in Iran might make an outstanding addition to this delegation. I would also suggest that LTG Keith Alexander, the Director of the National Security Agency in this administration, would be an appropriate representative also of the United States of America. So whether it is messaging that is taking place or simply diversity, I strongly suggest this outstanding delegation could be improved by these individuals and perhaps others. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I would point out that the distinguished Senator from Delaware was on his way to speak and has graciously offered to defer for moment or two while I make my brief remarks.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, if the Senator would yield for an answer to that question, precisely 3,456 DOD retirees--the very people we are penalizing in this provision--have been recalled to Active Duty since September 11, 2001.

Mr. WICKER. Thank you, Madam President. I would ask the Senator from Alabama, it seems to me no one wants to claim parenthood of this very onerous penalty on the retired servicemembers of the United States of America. I would have to infer from the answer of the Senator from Washington that she was not aware. One percent from COLAs sounds so innocuous, but when its comes to $130,000 for officers and $80,000 for enlisted people, it is real money. This is a penalty, and it is hitting the people who step forward and volunteer to serve our country and protect our security. So until someone is willing to step forward and claim ownership, I have to assume the negotiators did not know the impact this would have on our military retirees. It seems to me the Senator from Alabama has devised a way to surgically remove this provision, pay for it elsewhere, and send it back to the House. I think we would be doing them a favor, frankly. I thank my friend from Alabama for yielding.

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I wonder if the Senator from Alabama would yield to me for 60 seconds.

Mr. WICKER. I don't mean to prolong this, but I wish to ask this of the distinguished chairman. I think everyone should understand that although the Senator from Washington chairs the committee and was a member of the conference committee, this is not a report of the conference committee. The question I wish to ask is, Did the negotiators realize, when this COLA- less-1-percent provision was inserted in the conference committee, that it would mean $80,000 lifetime out of the retirement pay of the typical enlisted retiree? Did the conferees realize the magnitude of what they were agreeing to? Did the two negotiators agree to the magnitude of what they were sending to the House and Senate?

Mr. WICKER. Will the distinguished chairman yield on her reservation?

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, it is my understanding that at 10 a.m. the Senate will proceed to a cloture vote on the proposed budget. It has already been passed by the House of Representatives. The cloture vote will take 60 Senators. If those 60 votes are in favor, we would then move to a period of debate--pro forma debate, actually, because the question would already have been decided. If Members do not favor this budget, the time to register that opposition is this morning. At 10 a.m. is the last chance to say no to this proposal and simply send it back to the negotiators and ask them to do a better job. I rise this morning to reiterate my strong opposition to the House- passed budget, to the Murray-Ryan budget. I do so for one specific reason. I would first interject that there are many aspects of the budget that Members do not like, that we are not overly delighted with. We realized from the outset that there would be compromises and unpleasant decisions that had to be made because when you find additional revenues, when you cut programs that are popular, it hurts and it is uncomfortable. So I appreciate the fact that Senator Murray and Representative Ryan have made tough decisions. Apparently, the House of Representatives on a bipartisan basis has agreed to go along. But my objection that moves me from ``undecided'' to a ``no'' is what the budget does to current and military retirees and the fact that it breaks a promise that has been made to military retirees for years and years. It does so retroactively, unlike what it does to Federal employees, unlike what this Congress directed on an earlier occasion when establishing a commission to look into retirement. What it does to military retirees under the age of 62, instead of receiving the same cost-of-living adjustment everyone else would be receiving, it cuts their COLA back to COLA less 1 percent. Why do we have a cost-of-living adjustment in the first place? The cost-of-living adjustment is designed to protect the purchasing power of a pension. So when a young man or young woman joined the military, say, 20 years ago at age 22, for example, they served for 20 years at least and they were entitled to a pension under the law. That was the deal. We agreed also that once that pension was received and was in place, we would protect that pension against inflation each year by a cost-of-living adjustment. It is simply fair. It protects the purchasing power and the real ability of that pension to protect and support the retired military person and that person's family. What this budget does is it goes back on that promise. It says to people who have completed their service, who have completed the full 20 years of their bargain: You may have done what we asked you to do, but now the government is not going to do what we told you we would do. We are not going to protect the purchasing power of your pension. In the first year, we are going to cut that cost-of-living back 1 percent. The next year, whatever cost-of-living there is out there, you get that less 1 percent. It adds up over time. I think Members have been astonished to learn that an E-7 retiring at age 40 today; that is, an enlisted person, would experience a loss of $83,000 in purchasing power over the course of the 22 years that pensioner would experience between ages 40 and 62--$83,000 in broken promises to our military retirees. An O-5 would lose some $124,000 lifetime with this budget agreement. It is on the verge of being adopted. The only thing that stands in the way between our military retirees and this broken promise amounting to $83,000 for the typical enlisted person and $124,000 for the typical retiree officer--the only thing standing in the way is this vote at 10 a.m. on cloture. Forty-one of us could say to the Senate: Hold on a minute. We know we have a problem. We know we have an $80 billion package. But there is $6 billion of it here that is unfair to military retirees. We can do better than that. There are amendments we would like to offer. There are amendments Senator Graham would like to offer. There is an amendment by Senator Ayotte, the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, that would eliminate this broken promise to our military retirees and pay for it with other savings elsewhere, savings that have already been endorsed as good government and are simply a matter of tightening up the enforcement of laws that are already there. We can find, my colleagues, $6 billion elsewhere without breaking a promise to people who during the time of a global war on terror have stood forward, donned the uniform of the United States of America, and volunteered time and time again to re-up, to go overseas, place themselves in harm's way, and embark on a career in the U.S. military. We can pass a budget that accomplishes the goals of Murray-Ryan without breaking this promise. I so hope we will. But this is the time. Forty- seven minutes from now is the opportunity we will have. After that, it is a simple majority. The deal will be done. The news accounts say that the debate is over, that the votes are already in. I would hope that somewhere someone within the sound of my voice is realizing this is just another example of the government breaking its word. When we do this, when we tell falsehoods and change our minds and change our positions to the American people over and over again, what does that do to the confidence the American people should have in their government and the confidence in their elected officials to do what we promised to do and to fulfil our side of the agreement? I implore my colleagues even at this late hour to take a pause, perhaps ask the committee, the conference committee which I was a member of and which was not consulted, to take another look, find the $6 billion in savings elsewhere, and fulfill our promise to the American people. One other point before I yield back. I wish to point out that a commission was established last year by Congress entitled the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission. The purpose of this commission is to provide us with a comprehensive list of ways to make meaningful reforms to military pay and benefits. Members should remember that we specifically told this commission it could recommend any option as long as it grandfathered in those who currently serve and those who are currently retired. That was the sense of the Senate, and that was the sense of the Congress last year. This is one reason why military retirees are so surprised by this reversal--so surprised that we would be on the brink of changing the rules in the middle of the game--because we specifically said, only last year, that we would not do such a thing. I hope we will honor that promise, and there is yet time for the Senate to do so. For this reason, I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on the cloture vote which will begin shortly. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. I didn't hear any debate during 2009, in the extensive hours I stood on the floor and listened to the other side propose this, explaining that in situations as in Georgia, folks in the metropolitan area would pay half the premium that folks down in rural southwest Georgia would pay. That was never something the majority party, in proposing this so-called affordable act, said: Now, we are going to have to live with this, we just want you to know that. This is a total surprise, and one of the myriad unintended consequences of this unfortunate law. Did my colleague hear any warning about that to the American people?

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, we are now on Calendar No. 349, Susan P. Watters of Montana to be U.S. district judge for the District of Montana. I note on the Executive Calendar this nomination came before the Senate from the committee on September 19. It is my understanding that this nominee was cleared by our side of the aisle and could have been brought up on any Monday afternoon by a voice vote. I think Members might be wondering and certainly people within the sound of my voice tonight might be wondering why we are spending time tonight in a protracted debate on three district court nominees--Landya B. McCafferty of New Hampshire, Brian Morris or Montana, and now Susan Watters of Montana to be confirmed--when there has never been a district court judge in the history of our Republic prevented from serving because of a filibuster. To me, we have gotten to this point because of the heavyhanded overreach of the majority in trampling on the rights of folks on our side of the aisle. We find ourselves--temporarily, I hope--in the minority. That has a way of changing from time to time. But it is the sort of overreach that I am reminded of from 2009 when a supermajority in both Houses rammed through ObamaCare and caused all of the grief that we currently are facing and that real, live Americans are having with the so-called Affordable Care Act. It actually might be in one way beneficial that we are spending this time on something that could have been done so quickly because it gives us an opportunity to point out that we should be right now, at this moment, working on the National Defense Authorization Act and also on the budget--two matters that are pending that must be addressed by this Senate before we can go home and take a day or two with our constituents and loved ones for the Christmas holiday. But it gives me an opportunity, as the budget comes over tonight from the House of Representatives, to point out one of the most onerous provisions in the budget, which has just passed with sweeping bipartisan support in the House of Representatives. I will stand before this body tonight and say that I cannot vote and will not vote for this budget, and I hope that even yet Members of the Congress and the American public will listen to the broken promise that is contained in this budget that will be coming forward. We will perhaps get back to the nomination in a moment. We should note two things about this budget. It asks for an additional contribution for pensions for Federal employees, but it does not do it to current Federal employees. As you enter the Federal service after the beginning of the year, you pay an additional amount that is withheld from your paycheck for your pension. That is hard to do, it is distasteful to do, but at least it is fair to the people who join the Federal service under one set of rules. On the other hand, the budget that comes over to us from the House of Representatives and that I will oppose when it eventually does come up for a vote hopefully next week does to retired servicemen what we were persuaded not to do to Federal employees: It breaks a promise to retired service people who have already served their time. This is what it does. It says to every retired servicemember under the age of 62: You are not going to get your COLA anymore. Each year until you get to be 62, you are going to get your COLA, less 1 percent. I can tell you that this is not a matter of nickels and dimes to the people who have stepped forward, joined the military, volunteered for a career in the military, done their 20, and now are going to be told, if this budget passes next week: We are sorry. We are changing the rules way after the game has begun. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter to me from VADM Norb Ryan, U.S. Navy, Retired, president of the Military Officers Association of America.

Mr. WICKER. Let me point out what the retired vice admiral says. On behalf of the 380,000 members of the Military Officers Association of America, I am writing to express our strong opposition to the proposal within the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 which penalizes future uniformed service retirees and current retirees under the age of 62. Even though the budget deal would help ease the harmful effects of sequestration for 2 years for the Department of Defense, something we support, doing so on the backs of servicemembers who served our Nation for over 20 years is just shameful. I would interject at this point that I have to agree with that statement. The vice admiral goes on to say: Reducing working age retiree annual cost of living adjustment by 1 percent until they reach the age of 62 is simply a tax. Servicemembers who retire at the 20-year point would feel the full negative final effect of the proposal by reducing their retired pay by nearly 20 percent by the time they reach the age of 62. This is the pertinent part of the letter I am having printed in the Record, and my colleagues should hear me on this: For example, an Army sergeant first class, E-7 retiring this year with 20 years of service would see an average loss of over $3,700 per year by the time he or she reaches age 62, a cumulative loss of nearly $83,000. That is what this bipartisan budget resolution does to the retired military enlisted people who have volunteered to serve our country for 20 years and who joined under one set of rules--$83,000 lifetime taken from this retired E-7. For a lieutenant colonel, O-5, the average annual loss would be over $6,200 annually, a cumulative loss of over $124,000.

Mr. WICKER. I will yield on this, absolutely, to my friend.

Mr. WICKER. The rules, if this budget passes and is signed into law by President Obama, will be changed on this individual retroactively. The result will be that, instead of the retirement pay he signed up for and agreed to under the law when he did his duty, he will experience an $83,000 loss, lifetime.

Mr. WICKER. I can only imagine that it is a severe blow to morale. Also, it has to make people who are willing to step forward and risk their lives, be separated for months and years from their loved ones, it has to make them wonder, what else is being promised to me that is going to be taken away?

Mr. WICKER. Right. We do not do anything to any other Federal employee retroactively, only the military in this budget. I cannot imagine how the public could think that is fair.

Mr. WICKER. I will tell you who else believes it is discriminatory. I have a list of members of the military coalitions listed in a letter to the Honorable Harry Reid and the Honorable Mitch McConnell dated December 11, 2013. I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record.

Mr. WICKER. I simply say, in answer to the distinguished Senator from Georgia, here are the groups who are expressing outrage, dismay, and strong opposition to this provision: The Air Force Sergeants Association; Air Force Women Officers Associated; AMVETS; AMSUS; Association of the United States Navy; Chief Warrant Officer and Warrant Officer Association, U.S. Coast Guard; Commissioned Officers Association of the U.S. Public Health Service, Inc.; Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States; Fleet Reserve Association; Gold Star Wives; Iraq & Afghanistan Veterans of America; Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America; Marine Corps League; Marine Corps Reserve Association; Military Officers Association of America; Military Order of the Purple Heart; National Association for Uniformed Services; National Guard Association of the United States; National Military Family Association; Naval Enlisted Reserve Association; Society of Medical Consultants to the Armed Forces; the Military Chaplains Association of the United States of America; the Retired Enlisted Association; United States Army Warrant Officers Association; United States Coast Guard Chief Petty Officers Association; Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States; and Vietnam Veterans of America. This distinguished list of organizations consisting of members and former members of the U.S. military have registered their opposition. I can only hope at this point that Members of the Senate will listen. This is a so-called savings of $6 billion out of an $80 billion package. Surely we could find $6 billion without putting an $80,000 penalty on the back of an E-7 retired enlisted person who is not rich, who served honorably under one set of rules and who has been now told sorry. I have to say when people see the government not keeping its promises, I think it is destructive to our system of government. It is exactly the sort of thing we are seeing with ObamaCare. It is not being overly repetitive to remind my colleagues that the President of the United States, Barack Obama, repeatedly, over and over, promised the American people that they could keep their insurance. For example, in a speech at the American Medical Association on June 15, 2009, President Obama stated: That means that no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what. These are the words of the leader of the free world. Of course, we know from story after story of real people who are being hurt by this law that time after time after time again, in thousands of homes across the United States of America, that promise, just as the promise made to the servicemen, is being broken. If the Senator from Georgia will indulge me, let me give one example of a family of real individuals, honest, hardworking Americans who feel that another promise is being broken in the form of the so-called affordable health care. I received an email from a father in Greenville, MS, who is concerned about his 27-year-old son. For the past 6 years his son was covered under a policy provided by Humana. When the healthy 20-year-old first received coverage, the policy protected against a major medical emergency and the cost was only $70 a month. The President told the American public: ``If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan.'' According to this father in Greenville, MS, this policy is no longer available, and the plan available for his son will now cost just under $350 per month as opposed to $70 a month--a broken promise. The healthy 27-year-old who works in the automotive industry has been working since he was 20. He now questions whether he can afford to insure himself at all because his cost has quadrupled. His discretionary income will now taken a huge hit--as the discretionary income of these retired heroes will take a huge hit--and the higher premiums will cause uncertainty in his family. I know my friend from Georgia may want to give some examples of some people in his home State. Once again, in this instance, a promise has been made, a very explicit promise. In a very blatant way that promise turned out not to be the case at all.

Mr. WICKER. I thank my colleague from Georgia. Let me mention a husband and wife in Hernando, MS. They are small businesspeople. As the Chair is aware, that is how we create jobs in the United States of America. We love it when a big manufacturing plant moves in, but it is the small businesses throughout this great land that create the bulk of the jobs, and we appreciate it. ObamaCare has hit the small businesses so hard and hurt their ability to create jobs. This particular small business couple in Hernando, MS, tell me their private insurance plan that they have offered their employees in the past will not be grandfathered and the new plan they are forced to offer their employees will have a 7-percent premium increase in 2014-- that is real money--and a 66-percent premium increase in 2015, according to their insurance agent. Perhaps they believed the President when he said: ``If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period.'' Perhaps they believed Members of the majority party, such as the distinguished majority leader from Nevada who said it not only means making sure you can keep your family's doctor or keep your health care plan if you like it but also that you can afford to do it. Perhaps they believed that, but instead a 7-percent premium increase is hardly affordable at that and then a 66-percent premium increase, which is a blow. Their small group plan they offered to their eight employees currently costs $491 per month per employee. By 2015 the plan will cost this small business couple over $800 per month per employee. These are real stories. These are real facts. It is going from $491 per month per employee to $800 per month per employee. I wonder how many jobs they will be adding to that small business. This plan doesn't include dental or vision. They pride themselves, this small business couple, on providing their employees quality, affordable health care that they help supplement. But with the frequent changes the President is making to the law, they are uncertain whether they will be able to cover the enormous cost. As small business owners, it is impossible for them to expand. They will not be able to hire additional employees with the uncertainty of the future. Let me mention one other example and then perhaps Senator Chambliss can have a moment to speak on some Georgians. The next example is a family of four living in Corinth, MS, in the northeast corner of our State. They are full-time employed parents who currently do not have health care. They spent a month and a half trying to sign up for coverage for themselves and their two children. The least expensive plan they could eventually find after spending countless hours trying to navigate the Web site will cost them just under $800. For a working family in Mississippi with two young children to care for, this cost is an almost impossible burden on this family of four. It may be that the Senator from Georgia has examples similar to these.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, indeed, this does hit rural America much harder, but it hits all Americans hard. I would ask unanimous consent if the Senator from Georgia and I may speak as if in a colloquy.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. I ask for the yeas and nays.