Harry Reid

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, what are we doing the rest of the day?

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, if we have an agreement--and I am sure we do because I have great respect for Senator McConnell, Senator Boxer, and, of course, Senator Inhofe. We have this issue, though: We haven't seen the bill. There can be an agreement, but until we put an agreement in writing, things are a lot different. We have a number of committees that need to look this over in addition to the EPW Committee on which Senator Boxer is the lead Democrat. We have the Commerce Committee that we have to deal with. We have the Finance Committee that we have to deal with. We have the Banking Committee that we have to deal with. I want a highway bill. I have had the good fortune of being chairman of the EPW Committee twice. I worked on a number of long-term highway bills back in the good old days when we did that, and I hope we can have a long-term bill again. But we can't move forward on a bill until we have read it and seen it and studied it. That doesn't mean study it for several days, but we need to look at this document. I need to have a caucus after we have this document so we can look at it. So I hope my friend the Republican leader will be patient and wait until we get something we can study, and I will have a caucus with my caucus and we will sit down and decide how we should move forward on this matter. I repeat, I admire all of the hard work that has been done by everybody up to this point, but we have to make sure we move forward with this in the right direction. I understand all the issues probably more than most about all the time involved in a bill such as this. There are all kinds of potential ways to stall this, but we are not going to do that on our side. We are going to be as expeditious as we can once we have something that we can read and understand and, as I said, study so we can understand it.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Madam President, first, we all appreciate the work done by Senator McConnell and Senator Boxer. Senator Boxer has been tireless on this, as she is on everything. But we have an issue that I think we need to address. We received this bill, which is more than 1,000 pages, about an hour ago. I am going to have a caucus tomorrow, and I hope we will have an opportunity at that time to have reports from committees of jurisdiction. Committees of jurisdiction is more than just the Environment and Public Works Committee; finance is involved, commerce, banking, and other committees, of course, are interested. So we need the opportunity to look at this bill. This is a big bill with a lot of different sections in it dealing with a lot of different issues. We are not asking for anything unusual; we just want to be able to study the bill and talk about it in a private meeting tomorrow at 12 o'clock. Now, if we were doing something that was--``What are you talking about? You mean you want to read this?'' Please. I mean, we have pages of quotes from my friends. Senator Enzi said: That is what created this enormous outrage across America of: Did you read the bill? How can you read the bill if you have not seen anything in it, if it has not been given to you? I do not think it is intended to be given to us until we have to shuffle this thing through at the end [and not know what is in it]. Lamar Alexander, one of the most thoughtful people I have served with in government, said a couple of years ago: We want to make sure the American people have a chance to read it and they have a chance to know exactly what it costs and they have a chance to know exactly how it affects them. That is not an unreasonable request, we don't think. That is the way the Senate works. That is our job. When it came to the Defense authorization bill, we spent a couple of weeks doing that. When it came to No Child Left Behind, the Education bill, we spent 7 weeks going through it. . . . The Homeland Security bill took 7 weeks. The Energy bill in 2002 took 8 weeks. A farm bill last year took 4 weeks. So we have a little reading to do, a little work to do. John McCain said: But could I also add, if we haven't seen it, don't you think we should have time to at least examine it? I mean, I don't think it would be outrageous to ask for a bill to be read that we haven't seen. I--as have a number of people in this body--have worked on highway bills in the past. We have worked on these bills, and they have taken weeks to get done. We are being presented with something here that basically says: You take this or leave it. That isn't the way it should work around here. I am going to do everything I can to move forward on a long-term highway bill. I want to get it done. But we are going to have to look at this and find out what my different committees think, what different Senators think, what people at home think. You know, I have a lot of people at home who are interested in what is in this bill. There is the banking provision. There are the pay-fors. I looked at them last week, but that has been a moving target also. The ranking member of our Finance Committee at this stage--unless he has learned something in the last half hour--doesn't know what the pay- fors are either. So, in short, we want to be as cooperative as we can, but we are not going to lurch into this legislation without having had a chance to read in detail this 1,030-page bill and, after having read it, to have a discussion within the caucus on this bill. We would be in a very difficult position if--as the Republican leader said, we are going to work over the weekend, which is fine. I have no problem with that. I have tried that myself a few times; it didn't work so well. But I am willing to be part of the deal here if we need to work this weekend to get it done. I don't know what the House plans to do, but we are assuming a lot, that the House is going to take up this bill. If they did, that would be wonderful, but I have to say that based on my conversation with the Democrats in the House, in conversations they have had with the Republican leadership over there, I don't think there is a chance in the world they are going to take up this bill. They have sent us a bill--a bill that is for 5 months, with conversations between the White House--not our Whitehouse but the President's White House--to come up with a long-term highway bill. Part of that is some consideration of the Export-Import Bank. I realize how important that is. I have been on this floor talking about how important that is. We have about 45 different countries that have, as we speak, ex-im banks that are working, that are taking away all of our business, so it is important that we get that done also. But we cannot let one get in the way of the other. It is not our fault--Democrats' fault--that we don't have an Ex- Im Bank bill. We didn't create the problems with Ex-Im having gone out of business. So I want to get a highway bill done and I want to get Ex-Im Bank done, but the Ex-Im Bank problem should not stand in the way of us getting a good, strong, robust highway bill.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Marta Adams, who is retiring from her position as chief deputy attorney general for Nevada. For more than 27 years, Marta has been serving Nevada; and though many Nevadans may not know Marta, she has been working diligently to keep them safe. Soon after Marta graduated from the University of Wyoming College of Law in 1977, she began practicing law in the Silver State. She quickly gained experience in environmental law, and her knowledge about the West and its natural resources have contributed greatly to her successful legal career. Marta's persistence and commitment while representing the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects in opposing the Yucca Mountain project was instrumental in our State's legal fight against efforts to force nuclear waste on Nevada. Since 2008, Marta has worked as chief deputy attorney general and maintained a strong voice for Nevada on all issues pertaining to Yucca Mountain. On behalf of Nevada, I thank Marta for her decades of dedicated public service and wish her the best in her well-earned retirement.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I commend Senators Murray and Alexander for their good work on this education bill. But I want the record to be spread with this. The bill is passing this Congress because we have had a constructive minority during this Congress. Senator Harkin, who was chair of that committee, had indicated--and I said this on the Record last week--that on two separate occasions they reported the bill out of the education committee, but it was filibustered and never got to the floor. So I understand why my friend the Republican leader is beating his chest about how great the Senate works, because it does work if you have a cooperative minority, and that is what we have done. We have worked very hard to try to get this done, and as a result of our work together, we have been able to get it done. But please save everyone the lack of history. My friend keeps bringing up: Boy, the Senate is working so well. It is very cynical what my friends did in stopping everything for the last 4 years. They stopped everything. Hundreds of times they stopped bills from moving to the floor. So my friend comes to the floor and says: Oh man, things are working so great now. Isn't it great the Senate is working? Cynical as it was, the Republicans had a plan, and that was to oppose everything. We had a Democratic President, we had a Democratic Senate, and if they opposed everything, it would work out great for them, and it did. It wasn't good for the country, but they are now in the majority. Now, how long they stay there remains to be seen. If you look at the poll numbers about how well my friend is doing, the Republican leader is not doing very well, with the lowest numbers since they started doing polling on leaders--Democratic or Republican leaders. So we will continue to cooperate when we can. The highway bill is coming up, and I hope we can work together to get something done on that. It is something that is long overdue. We have tried to get that done in the past, but we had Republican objections on everything we tried. We have had 33 short-term extensions on the highway bill--33. We used to do them as a matter of routine every 5 years. But that isn't the way it is any longer. But we are going to cooperate as much as we can on the highway bill and everything else.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, prior to leaving the floor, I want to talk about another subject that is extremely important. One of the sad things that has happened the last few months is that Republicans have brought to a standstill--and that is even an understatement to say that--the Export-Import Bank. It is now gone. Legislation was not passed. So something we have always done in the past routinely--reauthorized this bill--we have not done so this time. The Republicans have stopped it. It is gone. The Export-Import Bank is gone. Our ability to sell to other countries our products has been seriously overwhelmed. It is so sad. And it really is sad. Other countries have these export-import banks. There is some mindset from my Republican friends that we can't do anything that government is involved in. But if we are going to be competitive in the world, we have to have a program such as the Export-Import Bank. It has been around for a long time and has been very successful. If we don't do this, for example, the airplanes we build in the State of Washington will actually come to a screeching halt. They can sell to America but not to other countries. Now, am I making all this up? No. In fact, other countries have these banks. Is it one or two countries? No, it is scores of countries-- scores of countries. I will take a minute or two to read the names of the countries that have working export-import banks to help their businesses and workers compete globally: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Hong Kong, Colombia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Oman, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, United Kingdom, Uzbekistan. Every one of these countries has a working export-import bank. Why do they have them? Because they want to be competitive. Whatever they are able to sell to a foreign country--whether a bag of wheat or some kind of product they manufacture--they want to be able to help their local businesses sell to foreign countries--but not the United States. And we are really hurting. I can't imagine--I can't imagine--how the Republicans, whose support for business-oriented operations--we thought over the years their interest was in helping business--has just turned a blind eye. They are not interested in helping business any more. Why? Because these working Export-Import Banks are government operations. Does it cost the Federal Government of the United States money? Of course not. We have received $7 billion back in rewards that goes to our Treasury. We make money on the deal. So I would say to my friend who believes the Senate is working well, I wish somebody would say to my Republican friends, you know, every small business organization supports the Export-Import Bank. The chamber of commerce is not an organization that is out beating the drums for Democrats, but they are running ads all over America saying: Republicans, do something about this. Huge companies like Boeing--there are hundreds of thousands of jobs at Boeing--are dependent on being able to export those big airplanes. As a result of Republicans' nonaction and not reauthorizing this important piece of legislation--before this collapse of the Bank took place, there were 165,000 Americans working in jobs related to the Export-Import Bank. I don't know how many there are today, but I guarantee there are not 165,000. Each day that goes by, others lose their jobs. Little companies from the State of Nevada are calling me and saying: We have to have this. We are going to go out of business. The bad feeling my Republican friends have for anything dealing with the government so that they do stuff like this--it is hard to explain to anybody why they would do something like this. Every one of these countries has programs. I have read their names into the Record. I think it is just a shame what has happened with this wonderful institution that is so good for creating jobs for America. If the Presiding Officer would announce the business of the day.

Mr. REID

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

Mr. REID

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

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, is the time under this quorum call we will be in equally divided?

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, my heart goes out to the people in Eastern Kentucky, with the devastating floods. The issue before our entire country is that we have storms like this appearing from nowhere, storms like we have never had before. I don't know the history of Kentucky, but I have watched and been briefed on what is going on around the rest of the Nation, and these storms are coming all the time--untoward. It is too bad that my Republican colleagues have denied climate change. We have to do something, and we have to do something very soon. There was a meeting a few days ago at the White House where the President announced that with regard to climate change we have to do something now. He said that by the year 2100, scientists say, the seas will have risen 16 feet. What does that mean? It means that much of Florida will be underwater. We have things happening that have never been recorded before. In the Sierras, some bears are not hibernating. We have an average rainfall and snowpack in upper Colorado, and none of it gets into the river. So I would hope my friends would join with us in doing something positive with regard to climate change.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, more than 62 million vehicles were recalled last year in our country--twice the previous record. The number of safety complaints to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration doubled. Over the past year, for example, faulty ignition switches led to the recall of 2.6 million cars. At least 124 people died and almost 300 were injured by this ignition switch problem, which did many different things, one of which was to stall a car in traffic and during the process disable the airbags. The manufacturer was aware of the defect for more than a decade and did nothing about it. Exploding airbags--another problem--claimed the lives of at least 8 people and led to the recall of 34 million vehicles--the largest recall of any consumer product in the United States ever. Once again, it appears the manufacturer knew of the defect years before notifying Federal regulators. Given the number of recalls, Congress should be investing the resources to improve public safety and give regulators the tools to keep us safe. But it appears Senate Republicans have learned nothing from the many recalls just this year. The Republican highway safety bill, which is being considered in the committee on commerce today, does not increase funding for Federal traffic programs. In fact, it cuts them back. Why? The bill does not provide any new resources to address the record level of safety recalls and consumer complaints. Under the Republican bill that is being considered, automakers that cover up defects will continue to face the same very limited penalties. Their executives will be able to continue to escape accountability. But that isn't all of it. The highway bill the Republicans are pushing forward is loaded with harmful provisions that roll back efforts to strengthen public safety. The bill would allow 18-year-old young men and women--18 years old--to drive commercial 18-wheelers across State lines. Think about that. Despite studies which show that these young drivers have a fatal crash rate almost 70 percent higher than older drivers, the Republican safety plan would allow these inexperienced teenagers to drive the largest trucks that appear on the road. If this odyssey of the Republicans in the commerce committee is signed into law, it will lead to more crashes and, sadly, more injuries and more deaths. Every day, 30 people in our great country are killed by drunk drivers--30 people killed by drunk drivers. I just learned a couple of days ago of a person who worked for me, who was a tremendously great employee of the Senate--their brother-in-law was killed by a drunk driver. It is so sad that we are not doing more to not only stop drunk driving but to punish drunk drivers. The policy Republicans propose today hurts our efforts to combat drunk driving. Listen to this one. The Republicans' bill would lessen incentives for States that develop programs to prevent people who have been convicted of drunk driving from starting their cars if they have been drinking-- for example, just a simple, inexpensive device on a car. If someone has been drinking too much, the car won't start. But Republicans are going to take care of this and get rid of it. No longer will States have the ability to do that. The Federal Government should not be involved in programs like that. The Republicans' plan also undermines safety measures that protect passengers and trains and, of course, the safety of all of us because of the problems we have with freight trains. There is a program that was designed by science--it has been available for a long time--called positive train control which overrides operator error. A perfect example of this is what happened in Philadelphia. If that had been in effect, that accident would not have occurred. But the Republicans fixed this--they are going to stop the program for 3 years. Under the present law, these programs had to be implemented by the end of this year--not with the Republicans in the commerce committee, which will be part of any highway bill we have. They will just stop it for 3 years, and that will lead to more deaths, more injuries, and more terror. I can't understand why the Republicans would propose doing that-- delaying the deadline for positive train control by more than 3 years. I said 3 years, but it is actually more than that. There is no reason to roll back deadlines for important safety measures for our passenger trains. Is this the best Republicans can do? I ask that. For Americans who live near rail lines, trains are increasingly carrying more and more flammable materials--oil, ethanol, and other explosive products. In February of this year, a train carrying oil derailed in West Virginia, sending exploding fireballs into the air and causing large necessary evacuations. This and other crashes led the Department of Transportation to require the installation of new electronic brakes for any train moving flammable materials. Requiring better brakes when carrying these materials seems like a commonsense safety measure. What do the Republicans do? Their bill repeals an important freight rail provision, jeopardizing communities across the country with tragic spills. We don't need more accidents. We need fewer accidents. We need to move forward and to continue the minimal programs we have, not roll them back. It is clear the Republicans have not learned anything from the auto recalls or the train crashes. The Senate can do better than adopting the Republican's attack on public safety. If the Republicans choose to put those measures in the highway bill that I am told is coming forward, it will not survive the Senate. We can't have stuff like that. It would be just untoward and wrong. Mr. President, there is no one on the floor, and I ask that the Chair announce the business of the day.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I issued a statement earlier this morning. Today's historic accord is the result of years of hard work by President Obama and his administration. The world community agrees that a nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptable and a threat to our national security, to the safety of Israel, and to the stability of the whole Middle East. Now it is incumbent on the Congress to review this agreement with a thoughtful, level-headed process and to give this agreement the review it deserves.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, in the Chamber this morning we have the chairman of the education committee, a man for whom I have the utmost respect. He is a person who understands education. He was the Governor of the State of Tennessee. He was the Secretary of Education, and he has been an outstanding Senator. But something occurred last night that I think is really outside the specter of reasonableness. Cloture was filed on the education bill last night, meaning we are going to have a vote on it tomorrow morning. We have worked on a few amendments, and basically all of them could have been accepted with voice votes. There was not a single difficult amendment that was brought up. So now cloture is being sought, and in the process, ignoring Democratic amendments that we have been waiting to offer for some time now. We are not going to allow cloture to succeed unless we have a pathway forward on these amendments. The ranking member of the committee, the senior Senator from Washington, knows this. She has talked with the chairman of the committee about this, and we are going to have to have a reasonable time to debate those amendments and have votes on those amendments. Otherwise, we are not going to complete this bill. It is an important bill. We should complete the bill. Senate Democrats have said for months that Republicans are running a sham on the appropriations process. From the very beginning, the Republicans have proceeded with an appropriations process that is designed to fail. They moved forward bills they know Democrats cannot support. Republican leaders in Congress simply have shown no interest in funding our government in a fair and responsible manner. This past week, even we were surprised how House Republican leadership has handled the appropriations process. Republicans brought their interior and environment appropriations bill before the House for debate. This legislation is nothing short of a disaster. In fact, the bill that they brought to the floor is so bad that President Obama has made it clear already that it will be vetoed. What does it do? It strangles the Environmental Protection Agency's budget, cutting it by 9 percent, $700 million. It prohibits completion and implementation of pollution standards for dirty powerplants to address climate change. It cuts funding for State drinking water infrastructure. It cuts funding for National Parks. We have such an infrastructure deficit in our National Park System that it is a crying shame. Yet they cut more from this program. We are the envy of the rest of the world with our national parks, but with how the Republicans have treated this wonderful system of parks we have, they are really being depleted. It allows corporations to shift costs of their toxic waste bills to taxpayers. We have had for decades a very successful program to clean up these very, very dirty spills dealing with chemicals and other substances that shouldn't be on the ground. It is called Superfund. What it does is make sure that these environmental disasters are paid for by the people who created the disaster. What does the House do on this? They change this and say: No, we are not going to have the people that messed up the environment clean it up; we are going to have the taxpayers clean it up. That is wrong. This bill that was in the House last week blocks hydraulic fracking rules for public lands designed to provide transparency and protect communities that host oil and gas drilling. Rules for public lands, not private lands--they eliminate that. Those are only a small number of the devastating provisions the Republicans have piled into this funding bill. But even more shocking was what occurred next, as legislation pertaining to the removal of the Confederate flag brought the Republicans' appropriations bill to a screeching halt. In an attempt to avoid voting on amendments that would outlaw the use of Confederate emblems, the House leadership shut down their own spending bill. The Confederate flag issue was brought up by Republicans. They accepted it the day before this debacle took place on the House floor. But then they wanted more debate on the Confederate flag, and it didn't sell. What did they do? They figured out a way to drop this bill totally and take it off the floor. Listen to a few of the headlines that were in the newspapers that follow. From the Atlantic: ``Republican Defenders of the Confederate Flag Derail a Spending Bill.'' From Politico: ``GOP Leaders Yank Bill after Confederate Flag Fracas.'' From Roll Call: ``The Confederate Flag Imperils Republican Goal to Finish Spending Bills by August.'' Finally, from the Wall Street Journal: ``Confederate Flag Debate Prompts House to Pull Spending Bill.'' It is very disappointing that this is what the Republican Party of the 21st century stands for--protecting emblems of racism and our tragic past. The Congress should not be protecting the Confederate flag. Protecting the Confederate flag certainly is not worthy of bringing the entire U.S. Government to a standstill. But that is what the Republicans have been doing all along with their bogus appropriations bills--bringing our country to a standstill. It has been clear for months that the only way Congress will arrive at a responsible budget is by Republicans and Democrats, Senate and House, sitting down together and finding a path forward. Now is the time to negotiate--not in September, not in October. We know that the Republicans are experienced in shutting down the government. They did it before for several weeks. It was devastating to our economy, and it was a real shock to the worldwide community. Sequestration is another ingenious method of the Republicans to hurt the American middle class. Republicans are experienced in shutting down the government. They did it 2 years ago. We know how the American economy suffered. Senate Democrats aren't the only ones calling on Republican leaders to sit down for bipartisan funding talks. Listen to what was said by congressional Republicans. Hal Rogers is dean of the Kentucky delegation and chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. Here is what he said: If we wait until the end of the fiscal year, then we're going to have to pass a C.R . . . then try to cobble together something in the meantime like we've been doing, but under pressure. And that's not the best way to legislate. House Appropriations subcommittee chairman Mike Simpson of Idaho said: Under sequestration, the way it currently exists, you can't pass appropriations bills. It ensures that what you've got is a C.R. for the rest of your life. House Appropriations subcommittee chairman Tom Cole said: The reality is we still live in a divided government. It's not as if the Democrats can be shut out, but they can't dictate to us any more than we can dictate to them. It's time to sit down and see if we can make a deal. Charlie Dent, Appropriations subcommittee chairman in the House, from Pennsylvania, said: We all know there's going to have to be a short-term C.R. to take us from September to December. And I would hope sometime between now and then, we'll have a negotiated budget agreement. These are just a few of the quotes of the House Republic chairmen. The only way we are going to avoid another Republican Government shutdown is by both parties sitting down to construct a bipartisan agreement. Let's skip all of the unnecessary drama by starting today to work together to avoid another government shutdown. What is the business of the day, Mr. President?

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Through the Chair to my friend, the senior Senator from Tennessee, the way the rules now exist, now after coming in tomorrow, there will be a cloture vote. I say to my friend that we need an agreement prior to that or we are not going to get cloture on the bill, on the substitute, which would be a shame. I hope that we can have adequate debate on these amendments. If we have 5 minutes per amendment, that won't work. I know that my friend is a fair man, but we are trying to understand why there was a rush on filing cloture on this bill. I know there is a lot of work to do around here, but you can't shortchange one bill in an effort to get to something else that may not work either. We have two cloture votes on this bill. We can avoid the cloture vote, and that would be great. Maybe we can avoid the cloture vote on the bill itself. I hope so. But until my Senators are protected, we are not going to invoke cloture tomorrow morning.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Madam President, cowboy poet Georgie Connell Sicking conveyed my feelings for the Nevada desert in her poem ``Nevada's Subtle Beauty.'' This picture I have in the Chamber has appeared all over the country. It appeared, for example, in the Washington Post a week or so ago, and there are other pictures that show this at more of a distance. The man there is so small compared to the vastness of the Nevada terrain. But here is what Georgie Sicking said in her poem: Have you gone outdoors one morning after a summer rain, With a gentle breeze blowing across a black sage valley And smelled the earthy sagey freshness, none like it on this earth. It sure makes life worth living, and you know when God was giving, He didn't short-change Nevada. Have you ever in the afternoon watched the mountains changing colors, From the shadows as they grow from brown and black to tan and violet, Or sometimes the deepest blue. Ever changing, ever different, they seem to smile, then frown, Waiting for sky colors to be added as the sun goes down. If these things I mention you have seen and felt and known, Beware, for Nevada has a hold on you and will claim you for her own. This is not Iowa terrain. It is very typical Nevada terrain, the deserts of Nevada. It is perfect. It is peaceful. It is the Nevada desert. It feels right. To me, it feels like home. Last Friday, President Obama permanently protected over 700,000 acres of land in Eastern Nevada as the Basin and Range National Monument, which photographer Tyler Roemer has captured beautifully in these pictures. The land President Obama designated as a monument--two basins and one range--is a perfect example of the stark beauty of the Nevada desert. This monument is an area where the Mojave Desert meets the Great Basin and Joshua trees and cactus give way to sagebrush. This monument is an area that is home to desert bighorn sheep, mule deer, elk, and pronghorn antelope. This monument is an area that provided food and shelter for Native Americans and is where one can see their history today in incredible rock art panels we call petroglyphs. This monument is an area that reflects the pioneering western history from early explorers to the ranching that still exists. Four or five years ago, I visited this area. I had been in the area but not here. I went there for a number of reasons. I had been informed of a five-decade-old art project in the middle of the vastness of this desert. While going to see this work of art, I also saw the unique beauty of the Nevada desert, and it is unique. After I completed my trip, in giving this a lot of thought and contemplation, I became passionate about doing something to protect and preserve this incredible work of art and the stark beauty of the desert, both of which are priceless. This picture is part of the City. This work of art has taken 48 years to construct. It is the size of the National Mall here. It is a couple miles long and very wide--almost a mile wide. It is something that is in the center of the Basin and Range National Monument. It is called the City. It is a grand modern art sculpture the size of, I repeat, the National Mall, part of which you can see in this photo from a group called the Triple Aught Foundation. The creator is internationally renowned artist Michael Heizer, who is known all over the world. He has been working on this project, as I indicated, since 1972. The New York Times has called City ``the most ambitious sculpture anyone has ever built, one of those audacious improbable American dreams at the scale of the West, conceived for the ages.'' The canvas which makes up the background of his art is the untouched desert land of the Basin Range, which makes it all the more monumental. Hundreds and hundreds of people worked on this under the guidance of Michael Heizer. He has done remarkable stuff all over the world. The latest thing he did is in Los Angeles--in the middle of the city of Los Angeles at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. That is a big project, but it pales in comparison to this. What he did there, he moved a rock weighing 400 tons 102 miles through the cities of California. It is called Levitated Mass. The thing in L.A.--this 400-ton boulder--looks like it is suspended in space. It is not. But people walk under it. I talked very recently to the Los Angeles County Museum director, and he said this thing needs no advertising. People come to see this. And that is the same way this will be. This is a wonderful piece of art. One of the art critics for the Washington Post said it was the most-- and I am paraphrasing--significant piece of art in the last 50 years in America. When I first brought this up to President Obama, he said: Tell me what it is. Explain it to me. I said: I can't. How, Madam President, as you are presiding over this body, would you describe this? It is really hard to describe, and we are only seeing a tiny bit of this. It is 2 miles long and 1 mile wide, approximately. He has done amazing things. He has developed his own dirt. We have plenty of dirt in the desert, but he was afraid it would be washed away. This will never be washed away--the same up here. As I indicated, he has art projects all over the world, but he is from Nevada. He has spent a lot of his time in Nevada for the last 48 years, in addition to his other projects. So I am very happy this has happened in Nevada. By using his authority under the Antiquities Act, President Obama has helped preserve the life, history, and culture of Nevada--the land I love. Look at this. This has been preserved for my children, my grandchildren, their children, and their grandchildren. This is exquisite. Nevada is growing very rapidly. In the southern part of the State-- Las Vegas--there are about 3 million people now. People are traveling all over Nevada, and we don't have--even though it is a very large State--much unspoiled land, but this is something that has not been spoiled. There are no roads through it, no railroads, no power lines. This is beautiful, and I am so glad the President did this. As renowned journalist Steve Sebelius wrote in his Sunday column in the Las Vegas Review-Journal, ``Preserving the land from development was the right thing to do. History will bear that out, long after the wails of the disaffected have ceased to echo through the desert canyons of Nevada's newest monument.'' I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is obvious that the Republican leader has certainly changed his view on filing cloture. There was a time on several occasions when the Republican leader bemoaned what he called ``a quick trigger on the cloture motion.'' That is a quote. There was a time--that was in 2012, 2013--when the Republican leader called filing cloture ``heavy-handed behavior.'' Now, keep in mind the backdrop of all of this. For 4 years, the Republicans simply wouldn't let us move to anything. We couldn't offer--they refused to allow bills to come up. We never even got on the bills. We would file a motion to get on a bill; they would object to that. We have a different world now in the 7 months that we have been under the direction of the Republican leader, the senior Senator from Kentucky. We have been working in good faith to try to get things to move along--specifically this bill, the elementary and secondary education bill. There is no sign of a filibuster that I am aware of, at least on our side. There are still a number of major amendments that need to be addressed. Senators Murphy, Booker, Warner, and others have an amendment on accountability for the lowest performing schools. They have worked hard on this. We have Senator Franken, who is very passionate, on an amendment to protect LGBT students from discrimination. Senator Markey has an amendment that provides grants to allow schools to teach climate science. Senator Casey has an amendment to expand and improve early education, particularly for 3- and 4-year- olds. These are important amendments dealing with education. There are others, but these are a few that I mentioned. So to have the Republican leader come to the floor and file cloture when we have just had a few amendments--he can come out and talk about all the votes we have had, but they have been on nothing amendments. They could have been accepted really. We didn't even need votes on them. We have had virtually no serious amendments, and now, all of a sudden, the Republican leader has changed totally, I guess, his philosophy on how to legislate by filing cloture very early. I am very disappointed in this, but it speaks volumes about how this Senate is being run by this Republican majority. It is appropriate to file cloture when the shoe is on the other foot, I guess, except the difference is that we never had a chance to get on the legislation. This is a perfect example of this. We didn't need to have a vote on a motion to get on a bill. We just said: OK, go ahead and move to it. So I am really surprised, quite frankly, but that is what has happened. But it is not the first time I have been surprised about how things have been going on around here the last 6 or 7 months. I have nothing further.

Mr. REID

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

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, Nevada is one of the largest States in the country--the 7th largest, to be exact--but we have just 17 school districts. By contrast, California, has over 1,000 school districts. Among our 17 Nevada districts is the Clark County School District with over 300,000 students. It's the Nation's fifth largest district-- where two-thirds of the students are minorities, and one-in-five students is an English-language learner. For the past decade, Clark County School District has been one of the fastest growing districts in the Nation. In some years, Clark County was opening a new school every month to keep up with the growth. But northwest of Las Vegas and Clark County is another one of our 17 districts--vast, rural Esmeralda County. Esmeralda County School District is huge, in terms of land. It covers almost 3,600 square miles, but has just four schools and about 80 students. And Esmeralda County is not unique in Nevada. There are other rural school districts in the State with schools that still have one teacher instructing multiple grades--much like the school I attended as a boy. This diversity of Nevada's school districts makes the State a microcosm of our Nation. So I understand the issues that overcrowded, urban schools face; and I understand the challenges that rural schools must confront. More importantly, I understand that in order to improve education at every school in America, we need a comprehensive approach. The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act that is before the Senate is a step in the right direction. This reauthorization has been a long time coming. Congress last reauthorized ESEA with passage of the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001. That expired in 2007. Despite serious efforts to pass a reauthorization in 2011 and 2013 under former Senator Tom Harkin's leadership, we were not able to overcome real policy disagreements on the best way forward. But thanks to the hard and determined work of the chairman and ranking member of the Senate HELP Committee, we are able to begin work on the bipartisan Every Child Achieves Act. I know it was not easy for the senior Senator from Washington or the senior Senator from Tennessee. I appreciate their efforts. Because of their work, almost 14 years after the last reauthorization, and 8 years after it expired, we finally have a bipartisan bill to strengthen our Nation's schools. I have many concerns with current Federal education law. It has caused schools to spend too much time testing and preparing for tests. It has led many schools and districts to reduce or eliminate many subjects--such as social studies, music, the arts, and physical education--that are important parts of a well-rounded education. It has led to too many schools--many making real gains in student achievement--to be labeled as failing. Despite these real flaws that need to be corrected, there are some aspects of current law we need to keep and improve upon. Schools, districts, and States must now make sure all students--including those with disabilities, or those not proficient in English--are making progress. We also have seen real gains in student achievement. Our Nation's high school graduation rate is the highest it has ever been and the achievement gap between minority students and white students is narrowing. This bipartisan bill does build off some of these successes and addresses many of the flaws in current law. It maintains annual testing requirements, but includes provisions to consolidate tests--helping reduce the number of tests and amount of time students spend taking tests. It continues to require student achievement to be reported by groups of children, including by income, race, English-language proficiency, and for students with disabilities. It makes early childhood education a priority, with a new grant to improve early childhood education access and quality for low- and moderate-income families. It makes important changes to a grant program to help our lowest-performing schools. Most notably, this bipartisan agreement also does not include many of the proposals included in earlier draft bills that would dilute the effectiveness of title I dollars or allow States to reduce their support for education. This bill is an important first step in strengthening our Nation's schools and ensuring that our children have a world class education. And it is a true compromise--with both sides making concessions to move forward. We all agreed that improvements needed to be made to our country's education laws. Although Democrats and Republicans have vastly different approaches, through compromise, Senators Murray and Alexander were able to craft a balanced bill. That is not to say that this bill is perfect. We still have work to do. I know that many Senators will have ideas for improving this legislation. I, for one, think we can do more to ensure that our lowest-performing schools make progress, or that we can do more to address schools with persistently low graduation rates. I believe we can do more to expand early learning opportunities and to do more to protect students from bullying. I will also strongly oppose efforts to weaken public schools through voucher programs. I look forward to a substantive debate on this important bill. After all, helping to ensure that every American child gets a quality education could be among the most important things that the Senate will do during this Congress.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, first, I wish to take just a moment to praise the good work being done by the chairman and the ranking member of the HELP Committee. The senior Senator from Tennessee and the senior Senator from Washington have done a remarkably good job to bring this reauthorization to the floor. Elementary and secondary education is so important, and we are not living up to the standards that we should have. It is important to remember that all of this could have been done a long time ago. On the floor I mentioned yesterday that Senator Harkin--who I said was a legendary Senator who served here for six terms, plus a number of terms in the House of Representatives--for quite some time was chairman of the HELP Committee, and when he wasn't chairman, he served under the guidance and leadership of Senator Kennedy. Yesterday I said that the Republican leader came to the floor and was boasting: Oh, we are getting this bill done. It is so great that things are working so well in the Senate. I mentioned at that time--yesterday--that Senator Harkin tried to bring the bill to the floor. He sent me an email last night, and he said that he on two separate occasions--2011 and 2013--got a bill out of the committee. But what happened? It was blocked coming to the floor by the Republicans--the same group of people who are now boasting that things are working so well here. Well, Mr. President, I think it is a shame that people come here to the floor and boast about the fact they have spent the last few Congresses trying to ruin Congress and the country. And they have done a pretty good job of it. We are happy to be on this bill. And there is no motion to proceed, such as I had to do on virtually every bill we brought to the floor. But let's understand that historically. My friend the Republican leader is living in a dream world. In fact, it is fast becoming a theme of this 114th Congress--bringing up legislation that Republicans have blocked in the past. Senator Stabenow from Michigan calls it the filibuster makeup. Look at the accomplishments about which my friend the Republican leader brags that he has gotten done this year: Terrorism risk insurance. We would have done that at any time during the last Congress--at any time--and he knows it. The Clay Hunt suicide prevention bill. That was a bill which was so easy to get done. It was blocked. The Republicans wouldn't let us move forward on it. Appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security. We were prevented from doing that. The human trafficking bill. We spent a lot of time on it in this Congress. We would have done that last Congress easily. We were prevented from doing so. The repeal of Medicare's sustainable growth rate. We call it SGR. We would have done that at any time, Mr. President. There are no great shakes here. How did we get it done? It wasn't paid for. Why? Because it was a budget gimmick in the first place, during the Bush years. So to hear my friend the Republican leader coming and boasting about all this stuff getting done, we could have done--most of it could have been done two Congresses ago. Certainly in the last Congress we should have gotten it done. The extension of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act--the PATRIOT Act. We knew it had to be done. We tried to get it done last Congress but couldn't get it done. We were prevented from doing so. Now it is the same with the elementary and secondary education bill. I am glad we are on this and glad to complete this other stuff, but let's not try to rewrite history, Mr. President. These things could have been done easily had they not been filibustered here on the Senate floor. Any one of these bills would have easily passed in the last Congress, but every one of them was blocked by Republicans.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, finally, yesterday the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia affirmed what Native Americans have been saying for decades--the Washington football team name is disparaging. It is racist and morally objectionable, and it should be changed now. U.S. District Court Judge Gerald Bruce Lee sustained the Patent and Trademark Office's decision that the Washington football team name should not be protected by a Federal trademark registration. That is good news. But how did the Redskins respond? Sorry to use that name. I made a mistake. How did the Washington football team respond? By saying: Well, our football team is worth a lot of money, and as part of that value, the Redskins name is worth some money. I mean, does Daniel Snyder have enough money? I think so, without disparaging the group of Indians we have in Nevada--22 separate tribal entities in Nevada. They do not like this. Snyder tried a couple of things--bought them a car and thought they would back off and no longer object. They saw that one coming, and they said: No, you keep the car. What the judge did yesterday is good news. The Federal Government should not protect a team or company that takes pride in hearing a racial slur every time their name is mentioned. While the ruling is a step in the right direction, this battle is not over. Ultimately, the response will rest with the owner, Dan Snyder, a multibillionaire. The U.S. Government cannot change his team's name; only he can. For far too long, owner Snyder has tried to hide behind tradition, but yesterday's ruling makes clear that his franchise's name only fosters a tradition of racism, bigotry, and intolerance. I admire so very much the Republican Governor of South Carolina. She has all the conservative credentials anyone needs, and after that terrible incident at a church in her State, she said the Confederate flag is going to go. Yesterday, after a long debate, as I understand it, the South Carolina Legislature said no more public display of the flag. So tradition is not the name of the game. Fairness--not racism, not bigotry, not intolerance--is the game. Dan Snyder should do the right thing and change the team's name. There is no place for that kind of tradition in the National Football League, and there is certainly no place for it in our great country. Mr. President, I apologize to my friend the chairman of the committee for taking so much time.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, we hear the phrase ``manufactured crisis'' used a lot here lately. Why? The Republican leader gives people plenty of reason to use the term. He has singlehandedly turned the entire appropriations process into a charade designed to manufacture yet another crisis. Look no further than what Republicans are doing in the interior, environment appropriations bill. The Republican leader bragged yesterday--today is Thursday, so on Wednesday--that he and his colleagues have ``lined the interior appropriations bill with every rider you can think of to push back against them.'' They have filled that legislation with so-called riders. What is a rider? It is an extraneous provision that has nothing to do with the purpose of the bill--in this instance, a funding bill. So they have filled that legislation, the interior appropriations bill, and other bills that have nothing to do with funding the government with things that are harmful to our country. For example, in the appropriations bill dealing with the interior, Republicans have included language to permanently dismantle efforts to address climate change by blocking Federal enforcement of a nationwide policy to reduce carbon pollution from existing powerplants. Climate change is very hurtful to our economy and hurtful to our country. I was at an event at the White House two nights ago. The President said that if we don't do something about climate change by the year 2100, the seas will have increased by 16 feet. The State of Florida will basically be half underwater. Prior to 2100, it is already getting bad. Talk to the two Senators from Virginia. Areas that are military installations are now covered with water most of the time. Talk to my friend the senior Senator from Florida, and he will tell you what is happening in Florida now. Talk to the Governor of New York, and he will tell you what happened with Sandy, the hurricane. It is going to happen again because we are doing nothing to prevent climate change from devastating our country. The Presiding Officer is from the State of Nevada, as am I. He knows that bears--not all bears but many bears are not even hibernating in the Sierras anymore because it is not cold enough. Talk to one of the Senators from New Hampshire. The moose are being devastated. Why? Because the cold weather is not killing the gnats, the fleas on the moose, and they are dying. About a third of them are dead. So climate change is not serious? It is a serious issue. Of course it is. Republicans have riders in this bill dealing with clean water. They have stuck in language to permanently block implementation of protections for streams and wetlands that have the greatest impact on our Nation's water quality. Ozone pollution is another rider they slipped in there. They slipped in language to delay efforts to protect people from lung diseases and asthma, among other things. Hazardous waste cleanup--now, this is unique. They stuck language in this bill affecting Superfund sites. This has been a great program. It has been a great program because people who devastate and pollute the land are asked to pay to clean it up. Republicans have stuck language in here to have the taxpayers clean this up and pay for it. That is stunning to me. This is a perfect example of Republicans manufacturing a crisis. They have loaded up a necessary funding measure with dangerous provisions that have doomed these bills. Then when Democrats oppose it, the Republican leader will feign outrage and blame Democrats for its failure, hoping to score some type of political victory. Republicans know an appropriations bill full of riders that roll back environmental protections will be stopped by us and vetoed by the President. This scripted performance is the definition of a manufactured crisis. And the Republican leader said as much last year in an interview with the Hill newspaper Politico. Here is what he said: Obama needs to be challenged, and the best way to do that is through the funding process. He would have to make a decision on a given bill, whether there's more in it that he likes than dislikes. A good example is adding restrictions to regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency. Adding riders to spending bills would change the behavior of the bureaucracy. He promised that last year, and he is a man of his word. He is ruining every one of these appropriations bills with these riders, in spite of more asthma, more heart disease, more cancer. Instead of passing appropriations bills that keep our government open and funded, the Republican leader is more interested in making Democrats and Republicans not work together and having the President and Democrats very uncomfortable. Sadly, this is how Republicans are governing. This is how they pretend to lead our country. It is embarrassing. I believe it is. Look at the poll numbers to see what is happening. The Republican leader's numbers are the lowest they have ever been recorded. It doesn't have to be this way. With the help of a handful of reasonable Republicans, we can sidestep this sham and pass meaningful legislation that averts another government shutdown. The first one was promoted and engineered by the Republicans. I said yesterday and I repeat, Mr. President, to show how shameful that was, two-thirds of the Republicans in the House voted to keep the government closed. I mentioned yesterday how the Republican chairman of the House Committee on Appropriations, Congressman Hal Rogers--whom people call the Dean of the Kentucky delegation--is calling on his party to work with us Democrats on a long-term solution that avoids a government shutdown. We need Republicans like him here in the Senate. In just a few months, the government will run out of money. It will have no more money on October 1. Unless we can reach a bipartisan budget agreement, our Nation will face another ridiculous and damaging government shutdown. So I urge my Republican friends--especially Republican leaders in both Houses--to listen to Chairman Rogers and those other members of the Committee on Appropriations and work together. Put aside these nonserious games and get serious about keeping our government open. It is the only way Congress will avoid another manufactured crisis the Republican leader seems so desperately to desire.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Amy Griffin, a fellow in Senator Franken's office, be granted floor privileges during the remainder of this Congress.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, one of the legendary Senators who recently retired from the Senate after many years in the House and the Senate, Tom Harkin, if he were here, would be on the floor taking issue with what the Republican leader just said. Tom Harkin tried very hard to have a reauthorization of the elementary and secondary education bill. Why didn't he get it? Because Republicans blocked us from doing it. So it is nice that my friend the Republican leader comes and talks about all the great things being done in Congress now, but the fact is it could have been done many years ago had we had a little bit of cooperation from the Republicans. The new Republican majority has ignored upcoming deadlines and neglected to address urgent problems facing our great country. I am saying that--and that is just an understatement. Instead, they have governed through a series of last-minute, manufactured crises that increase uncertainty and impose unnecessary and wasteful costs on our country. In just a few minutes, we are going to debate the education matter, as we should. But as important as that is, it is extremely important we don't take our eye off the prize. And what is that? Because in just a few months, the government is going to run out of money. Unless we can reach a bipartisan budget agreement, our Nation will be faced with yet another ridiculous and damaging government shutdown. Now, my Republican colleagues understand what I just said because they are the ones who created the last government shutdown. It was a crushing blow to our economy. Sadly, the only reason we were able to reopen the government is because Democrats voted almost unanimously to reopen the government. Sadly, to just take one example, well over half of the Republicans, about two-thirds of the Republicans in the House, voted to keep the government closed. How about that. So another government shutdown would be unacceptable. But remember, it has been done before--with joy--by my Republican colleagues. Sequestration is another thing they seem to like. So having had that as a historical background, we ought to be able to get together, compromise, and reach a bipartisan solution for our country in a timely, responsible way. You would think so. As happened here before we left for the July 4th recess, there was an effort made to move to the Defense appropriations bill, and that was stopped because we believe that what we need to fund more than defense is we need to fund the whole government. We stand ready to work with Republicans to reach a bipartisan solution. Unfortunately, it seems as if Republican leadership shows no interest in compromise. Democrats have urged them to come to the table now, and they have refused. Unless we act now, we will be faced with another Republican-imposed crisis at the end of this fiscal year. This should be avoided, and it can be avoided. Don't just take my word for it. There are Republicans in the House who believe the time for games and brinkmanship should be over. The New York Times today reports that high-ranking Republicans in the House are calling for negotiations again now: Senior House Appropriations Committee members, including the panel's chairman, Representative Harold Rogers of Kentucky, have already told Republican leaders that the time to negotiate a way out of the impasse is now, not in the shadow of a papal visit or a government shutdown on October 1. There is also in this same article, in the last paragraph, something that is quite important. ``The reality is we still live in a divided government,'' Mr. Cole said. He is one of the senior Members of the House Republican caucus. ``It's not as if the Democrats can be shut out. . . .'' And we proved that with a vote on the Democratic response to the efforts to move to Defense appropriations. Continuing: ``It's not as if the Democrats can be shut out, but they can't dictate to us any more than we can dictate to them. It's time to sit down and see if we can make a deal.'' We can reach a deal. So I urge Republicans to follow the leadership of Chairman Rogers and long-time Representative Cole and work to get this process going now. Let's not wait yet another week. Certainly we shouldn't wait any longer. Let's move forward. Let's not wait until the last minute. Let's not risk another shutdown. Let's sit down and talk to each other and reach a bipartisan budget agreement on behalf of the American people. The President and his people would be happy to be engaged any time on this. I certainly hope we can move forward and not have another repeat of what the Republicans did to this country just a short time ago and close it down.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I appreciate the Republican leader for taking credit for passage of bills they filibustered. He led the filibusters on these the last 4 years. It is unfortunate, but any one of those, with rare exception, would have been passed had we not had filibusters by the Republicans--the SGRs, and we could go through the whole list. But I appreciate we are doing some things that are important because we are not filibustering. Remember, every one that we tried to do was stopped dead in its tracks and, as a result of that, we had to file hundreds of motions to invoke cloture. So my friend the Republican leader should be very happy we are not doing the same thing to him that was done to us.