Harry Reid

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Pastor Clinton House and Dr. Mary L. House and their 25 years of pastoral service with Mountaintop Faith Ministries. Pastor Clinton House and Dr. Mary House began their ministry work at a small church in North Las Vegas with 13 members. Over the years, Mountaintop Faith Ministries outgrew its humble beginnings. In 1993, the church's congregation grew so much they had to open the doors of the church and put chairs in the lobby and out to the street. The church continued to grow, and eventually, they began holding services in the auditorium of Durango High School to accommodate churchgoers. Today, Mountaintop Faith Ministries has a church complex and upwards of 3,500 members. Mountaintop Faith Ministries has continuously given back to the Las Vegas community. The Sunday services have provided spiritual guidance for thousands, and the church also offers midweek Bible classes and business fairs, where owners can share their businesses with church members following services. One Resurrection Sunday, they held a ``dress down'' Sunday on the football field at Durango High School. This community event brought buses of homeless to worship with them. After the service, church members provided food for the homeless, as well. For the past 25 years, Pastor Clinton House and Dr. Mary House have touched the Las Vegas community through their dedicated work. I congratulate them on their many successes and wish them the best in their future endeavors.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, in one week Congress will host one of the world's great faith leaders, His Holiness Pope Francis. Every Member of Congress is looking forward to the Pope's historic address. Since beginning his papacy, Pope Francis has been admired for his humility and honesty. Rather than shirk responsibility from important and controversial global challenges, he has confronted them. While he and I don't agree on everything, his statements on climate change, immigration reform, and income inequality have challenged world leaders, and that is an understatement. Yesterday His Holiness and the Vatican stated their support for the nuclear agreement with Iran. A spokesperson for His Holiness told the International Atomic Energy Agency that this agreement ``will be a definitive step toward greater stability and security in the region.'' That is certainly the truth. Supporting the nuclear agreement between the permanent five members of the U.N. Security Council, Germany, and Iran is the best way to ensure that Iran does not get a nuclear weapon. That is what the agreement is all about. That is why last week the Senate clearly stated the agreement will stand. No matter how you talk about all these other things, the agreement is to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. That is what it is all about. Last night the Senate again rejected the Republican attempt to derail the nuclear agreement. Now for the second time, the Republican leader is refusing to accept the reality that, in fact, it is going to go forward. He is doubling down and committing the Senate to vote on other issues. We have seen this strategy before. It never works, whether it was with homeland security, ObamaCare or all the other issues. All it does is waste time that we cannot afford. When the Republican leader tried this approach on homeland security, remember what John McCain, the Senator from Arizona, said: It was the ``definition of insanity.'' What he was talking about was what Albert Einstein said, that if you keep doing the same thing over and over, knowing you will get the same result, it is insanity. Today a news report described the Republican leader's strategy as ``the second kick of a mule,'' and said ``it's not working.'' It is unbelievable what the Republican leader is trying to do. We have 7 working days before a shutdown of the government. Why? Because we won't have any money. The Senate will take no votes today. If the Republican leader has his way, all the Senate will do this week is take yet another failed vote on Iran. At this rate the Senate will end this week with nothing to show for our time but two failed votes--nothing dealing with the most important issue facing this country, and that is, how to fund the government. We have seen Republicans manufacture crises before. This one truly is embarrassing. The government runs out of money in a matter of days. Republicans have no plans to avoid a shutdown, and we have almost twoscore of Republicans in the House who said they will vote for nothing unless it defunds women's health care. We have a number of Senators saying if there is nothing in this to stop the funding of Planned Parenthood, they will vote against it. The government runs out of money in just a few days. To do nothing, with no plans to avoid a shutdown, when we are standing around waiting for something to be done on the budget is unwise and wrong, and it is an insult to the American people. Last Thursday's vote is not going to change. Last night's vote will not change. The Republicans lost those votes. What are their future plans? They will not prevent President Obama and his administration from implementing the Iran agreement. There is precious little time left before a government shutdown. It is time for the Republican leader to get serious about keeping the Federal Government open and funded. Are we just talking about something that is nonexistent as a problem? Two years ago the government was shut down for almost a month. I think it was 21 days that the government was shut down. It is very disturbing. In 1 week, as I have indicated, the Pope will be here, and it is time that we make sure that we follow some of the advice and counsel that he has given us.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, the goodwill and humanitarian efforts of the United States are needed all across the world. Victims of civil wars, disease outbreaks, and natural disasters depend on the aid and compassion of the American people. To our credit, we try our best to help as much as possible. Take one example. The Syrian refugee crisis is the worst humanitarian crisis since World War II. Four million Syrians are now refugees because of the country's civil war, and thousands and thousands are fleeing to any place they can go. Most of them are winding up in Europe to escape the violence. There are almost another 8 million who are internally displaced within war-ravaged Syria. A lot of them are in cities and can't go anyplace. If they try to leave, they get killed. Tragically, 5\1/2\ million of these poor individuals are children. The United States is trying to help. We are the single largest donor of humanitarian aid to the Syrian crisis. There is not a close second. The U.S. Agency for International Development, known as USAID, is one of the principal organizations by which the United States administers civilian foreign aid. This Agency plays an essential role in administering our Nation's foreign policy. Yet, while all these events continue to unfold before the world's eyes, Senate Republicans are blocking the next Administrator from taking her place. Gayle Smith was nominated by President Obama 5 months ago. We had hearings weeks and weeks ago--now into months. It was right to nominate her. She is an experienced leader in administering international humanitarian assistance and global development, serving on the National Security Council at the White House. During her time at the White House, Gayle Smith has worked on major typhoons in Asia, the Ebola outbreak in West Africa, and ongoing conflicts in Syria and Iraq. She has extensive experience in African affairs, both from her time at the National Security Council and from her work as a journalist covering international affairs for more than two decades. During her time as a journalist, she spent time in active war zones and other conflicts. Gayle Smith's credentials are impeccable, and her hearing in the Foreign Relations Committee in June reflected that. In September she was voted out unanimously in a voice vote. Yet here we are post-June-- that is an understatement. Her nomination was reported favorably, and we still have no confirmed Administrator. With all the news accounts we watch every day of these thousands and thousands of lost people, the United States is being hampered in its ability to help because we don't have anyone running the Agency. It is just the latest example of Republican obstruction for obstruction's sake. According to the Congressional Research Service, the current Republican Congress has confirmed far fewer nominees than any Congress in memory. Why? What are Republicans accomplishing by preventing a qualified nominee such as Gayle Smith from leading the U.S. Agency for International Development? They are doing it, and in so doing they are undermining U.S. foreign policy. They are undoing decades of admirable American humanitarian efforts. But even more unsettling is that Republicans are impeding our ability to assist those around the world who need help. It is time for the Republican leader and his Senators to change course and stop this blockade of the President's nominations. I look forward to the Senate Republicans releasing their obstruction on the Gayle Smith nomination and working with Democrats to confirm her as the next Administrator of USAID immediately. All the Republican leader has to do is bring it to the floor. We will vote on it. If someone doesn't want to vote for her, don't vote for her. But it is really wrong to have our great country at a time of this huge humanitarian crisis having no one leading the Agency that does more to alleviate the problems these people face than anyone we have in our government. Would the chair announce the business of the day.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be charged equally.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is hard for me to comprehend how my Republican colleagues with a straight face can talk about ``Let's have an up-or-down vote on this.'' We agreed to allow Republicans to have an up-or-down vote. I asked consent on this floor on two separate occasions, and I make the same request now. We are willing to have a 60-vote threshold. That is an agreement we made, and we are happy to do it. But for my friends now to say ``We want an up- or-down vote,'' up-or-down votes on the magical number of 60 is what they created. We didn't draft this legislation. It was brought through committee to this floor. They thought they had--they, the Republicans, thought everything was fine until they realized they didn't have enough votes and suddenly they changed direction dramatically. Fifty votes wasn't good enough for trying to raise the minimum wage. Certainly a simple majority wasn't enough to do anything about the overwhelming debt that faces the American people. It is not credit cards, it is student debt. No, we couldn't debate that; we had to have 60 votes. Equal pay for men and women? No, we are not going to allow that to happen; what we want is to have 60 votes. That is the reason we had to file cloture more than 600 times, because the rule had been established by my Republican friend, the Republican leader, during the entire Obama administration that that is the rule. Here is what he said--and I have read on this floor all the multitude of statements he has given saying it would be 60 votes: We are not interesting in using floor time for get-well efforts. We only have so much time on the Senate floor. If this isn't a get-well issue, I don't know what would be. We had debate that took place over a long period of time with this issue. It was debated during the August recess, it was debated all last week on the floor, and the decision was made that the measures brought before this body did not get enough votes. It didn't get 60 votes. That is the threshold. We have agreed to have that vote, and suddenly the rules are suddenly attempting to be changed here, and they are not going to be changed. It is a situation where I wonder if the Republican leader has bothered to look at the calendar. We have 8 days now until we are at the end of the fiscal year--8 days. We have 32 Republicans who have written to the Speaker saying: We are not going to allow a bill to pass unless we get rid of Planned Parenthood--health care for women. We have had statements of people running for President over here who are saying there will be nothing done on paying the government's bills unless we do something about Planned Parenthood. Other people have made statements that they want riders dealing with EPA and on and on. Now, it would be different--maybe we wouldn't be as concerned, except you did it once. You did it once. They closed the government for almost 3 weeks. Two years ago, the government was actually shut down for almost 3 weeks. We have staring us in the face the debt ceiling, which is going to be upon us quickly. But, no, we are told that what we are going to deal with next after this: We are going to do something that everyone knows has no chance of passing, and that is something dealing with abortion. I guess they want to do that before the Pope gets here. But it is not going to change the Pope, how he feels about the fact that Republicans have ignored poor people in America. It is not going to change the Pope, how he feels about what is happening to our great world that we live in, that we know, dealing with climate change. Republicans have denied that climate change exists. So they can have a fake vote on abortion. It is not going to change how Pope Francis feels about what is happening, and it is all being directed towards the Republicans, and he doesn't need--everyone knows what the problems are. So we can be threatened all we need to be threatened. The Republican leader has threatened us: We lost, and we are going to make you suffer. Just like we lost ObamaCare. We had over 600 votes to get rid of that. We may have more than that to get rid of this agreement. They have magnified this agreement. They have this agreement--oh, it is doing all kinds of things. The purpose of this agreement, everyone knows, is to stop Iran from having a nuclear weapon, and that is what it does. That is the sole purpose of this agreement. And it is an agreement that is so important. It is so important that we got Russia, we got China, and the others, our allies--Germany, France--to sign off on this, and Great Britain. To think, after all the years of negotiating this through all of our friends and allies, including the good work that has been done in this regarding Russia and China, to think that suddenly it is going to be back the way it was. Every one of these countries said: If you don't move forward on this agreement, we are through. Sanctions are gone. So this is not an intelligent debate because my friend the Republican leader is trying to change the rules he developed. He created these rules. He created the 60-vote threshold. We tried to change that hundreds of times, but no. Let's also remind everybody that we did not filibuster this bill. We let the Republicans go to this bill. We let them go to the bill. We let them go to the bill. There was no motion to proceed. And people watching may say: What is that? Well, what the Republicans did time and time again, even on measures they wanted passed, they would make us file a motion to proceed and have cloture on that. That ate up a week's period of time. In their mind, that was really tasty because it was good, because it stopped Obama from moving his program ahead. Anything to stall for time. Well, the 60-vote threshold was created by the Republicans. That is the rule of this body, and we are sticking by the rules of this body. It was created by the Republicans. So we can be--I repeat--threatened all my friend the Republican leader wants to threaten us. Whatever he wants to do, he has a right do that. We are not going to be stalling for time. If he wants to tear down a tree--remember the tree? Remember, Reid was the bad guy; he filled the tree. I can't number the times my friend the Republican leader has filled the tree--something he said would never happen. He said bills wouldn't come to this body unless there were hearings and they were reported out of committee. Of course, that is not true. Being majority leader is not as easy as giving speeches. What is going on tonight is a charade by the Republicans to try to change the rules in the middle of the game. The Republicans have lost. They have lost this measure. We should move on to something else. It should be the budget. It shouldn't be abortion.

Mr. REID. Could I ask my friend a question?

Mr. REID. Do you think this Iran issue is a major issue?

Mr. REID. You answered your own question.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, my friend the Republican leader, among other things, said he wanted an intellectual argument. The outline he just gave has nothing to do with intellectual credibility. The agreement that was finalized last week dealt with one subject and one subject only: whether Iran should have a nuclear weapon, and that answer was resoundingly no. That is what it was all about. All the other rhetoric my Republican friend talked about is not in keeping with what the agreement is all about. He tried to make the agreement that was finalized into something it isn't. I would suggest in the future, realistically, the Republican leader should be factual on what the agreement is between Iran and China, Russia, Great Britain, Germany, France, and the United States because what he just outlined has nothing to do with what the actual facts are.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, it comes as no surprise to anyone watching the Senate that the Republican leader and I disagree on many things, but I was very glad to hear the Republican leader say last week that he believes any government funding bill must be clean and that using the appropriations process as a vehicle to attack women's health is, as he said, ``an exercise in futility.'' I am sure not everyone on his side of the aisle agrees with him, but there is no doubt it is the right thing to do. I agree that any budget deal must be clean; that is, no riders--nothing with Planned Parenthood, nothing with repealing what the Environmental Protection Agency has done, no repealing what the Dodd-Frank bill put into effect to stop us from having another Wall Street meltdown, no riders dealing with immigration--just a clean continuing resolution for a short period of time to allow us to do a more full and more complete deal in the very near future. I agree any budget bill must be clean. I say that again. I am glad to see the Republican leader coming around to that. Democrats will not support a continuing resolution that has all these riders on it and especially a Planned Parenthood rider that was talked about so much in the House. I read in the paper today that there are 32 Republicans in the House who have signed a letter to the Speaker saying they are not going to vote for anything unless it defunds Planned Parenthood. That is a nonstarter and the Republican leader rightly has acknowledged that. I am glad the Republican leader wants a clean continuing resolution instead of one that attacks women's health. I am disappointed by his refusal at this stage to negotiate with the White House or any Democrats in the House or in the Senate dealing with the budget. We have a looming government shutdown. It is right before our eyes. The Republican leader has already wasted far too much time dithering and doing nothing on that. We know from experience 2 years ago that the Republicans actually did shut down the government for almost 3 weeks. For months, we have overheard them calling for bipartisan budget negotiations. We have 9 session days left before the government shuts down. Now is the time to sit down--Democrats, Republicans, getting the White House involved--and negotiate a bipartisan funding measure for the rest of the year, but by the look of this week's schedule, the Republican leader doesn't seem to be in any hurry to avoid a shutdown. That is truly unfortunate. The Republican leader has not scheduled any budget votes today. Instead, the Senate will waste precious time on another failed vote. And then what comes next? What is the Republican leader's plan for the rest of the week? Political show votes on abortion that have nothing to do with keeping the Federal Government open. There is no reason why we can't pass a bipartisan funding measure as soon as possible--this week, even. But that depends on the Republican leader's willingness to sit down and negotiate, and sooner rather than later. Then, Congress can move on to our next budget priority: reversing sequestration and its harmful cuts.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, today, September 15, marks the beginning of Hispanic Heritage Month, a celebration that dates back to 1968. This month also includes the anniversary of independence for many Latin American countries. Hispanic Heritage Month is an opportunity for us as a nation to recognize, celebrate, and honor the history, culture, and contributions of America's Latino community. We see those contributions in all facets of our society, from the battlefields to the boardrooms and from the classrooms to the halls of government. Every segment of American life has been enriched by Latinos and their proud culture. Without the contributions made by generations of Latinos, Nevada and the United States would not be what we are today. In Nevada, Hispanic influence and history is everywhere. Consider the name of my State and the name of our most famous city. ``Nevada'' means snow covered. ``Las Vegas'' means the meadows. Las Vegas, one of the most famous cities in the world, has a Hispanic name. Today, more than one-quarter of Nevada's population is Hispanic. Nationally, Latino Americans number nearly 60 million and are expected to make up to 60 percent of the population growth in coming decades. America's future depends on a strong and prosperous Hispanic population. That is why Democrats have fought hard for policies to protect Hispanic families and strengthen Hispanic communities. We passed the Affordable Care Act, which allows millions of Latinos to have access to affordable health care. Because of the Affordable Care Act, 4.2 million previously uninsured Latinos now have health insurance. An estimated 8.8 million Latinos are newly covered for expanded preventive services, with no cost-sharing, including mammograms, colonoscopy screenings, and immunization vaccines under the Affordable Care Act. Democrats also passed the bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill out of the Senate a couple years ago. That legislation, which House Republicans refused to consider, even though it would have passed overwhelmingly--all Democrats would have voted for it and enough Republicans would have voted for it to be an overwhelming victory--but it didn't happen. The Republicans refused to consider something that protected families, reduced the deficit, and strengthened our national security. We also supported President Obama's Executive actions, which, as we speak, are protecting immigrant families from the threat of deportation and taking criminals off the streets. Meanwhile, Republicans are doing everything in their power to undermine Hispanic families. A person need only watch 5 minutes of a Republican Presidential debate to see how Republicans really feel about America's Latino communities. Republicans are clamoring to amend the Constitution to repeal birthright citizenship. Republicans want to roll back President Obama's Executive actions that are keeping families together and preventing DREAMers from being deported. Republicans are constantly attacking the Affordable Care Act, which has covered 4.2 million previously uninsured Latinos with health insurance. Republicans refuse to boost the minimum wage, blocking millions of Latino families from earning a livable wage. These are the priorities of the Republican Party--a Republican Party that has abandoned Latino families. We as Democrats will do everything in our power to stop the Republican attack on these families. Democrats will continue to fight for Latino families to help them tackle the challenges they face every day. Today, as we celebrate the first day of Hispanic Heritage Month, we honor the many incredible contributions Latino Americans make every day to our Nation. We also recommit ourselves to protecting Hispanic families and communities from the likes of Donald Trump and the Republican Party and treating them with dignity and respect because a prosperous America needs a strong and thriving Hispanic community.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. No objection.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I want to be as respectful of my friend as I need to be, but let's speak reality. We are in a Congress that is dominated by the Republicans. They control the House by a large margin, and they control the Senate by a large margin. The legislation that is before this body was proposed, legislated, and brought to us by Republican leadership. It is their legislation, not ours. I didn't spend all my time in my office visiting with people today; I watched the speeches. It was stunning--the nonreality that is facing my Republican friends. They dwelled, a number of them, on what is going on in the Middle East. Not once--not once--did anyone mention the worst foreign-policy decision ever made by our great country, the invasion of Iraq. It has destabilized that part of the world for a long, long time to come. For what? So my friends can blame all the problems in the Middle East on the President, but they are blaming the wrong person. We can't take what we have because they want to rewrite history. History is as it is, and people are writing history as it is. Now the part of history that they are trying to rewrite is history that is taking place in this body. We offered, on two separate occasions, publicly before the American people and in this body: Do you want a vote? We will let you have a vote. Both times it was objected to because in the convoluted reasoning, I guess, of my friend, he thinks that people who are watching all of this have no common sense and can't understand the English language. We offered to have a vote on this on two separate occasions. It was objected to both times. Now, the inane response is you are filibustering this. I know why there are filibusters because we have had to file cloture more than 600 times because of filibusters by the Republicans. Never in the history of the country has there ever been anything close to it. Now, what were most of those filibusters on? On motions to proceed. On this legislation that came before this body, we said we don't need a vote on a motion to proceed, go to the bill, go to it. We also said, as part of the agreement, let the leader offer the first amendment, and he did that. Now, a 60-vote threshold, my friend talks as if: Oh, wowee, where in the world did this come from? Why would they ever consider 60 votes on this? First, I know it is late in the day. I didn't bring the subject up, but my friend the Republican leader is talking about a world that doesn't exist anymore. And who created this world that doesn't exist anymore? My Republican friends. This is July 30, 2011, from Senator McConnell: Now, look, we know that on controversial matters in the Senate, it has for quite some time required 60 votes. So I would say again to my friend, [that is me] it is pretty hard to make a credible case that denying a vote on your own proposal is anything other than a filibuster. A little while later: I wish to make clear to the American people Senate Republicans are ready to vote on cloture on the Reid proposal in 30 minutes, in an hour, as soon as we can get our colleagues over to the floor. We are ready to vote. By requiring 60 votes, particularly on a matter of this enormous importance, it is not at all unusual. It is the way the Senate operates. Another one, a few months later: Mr. President, I can only quote my good friend [that is me] the majority leader who has repeatedly said, most recently in early 2007, that in the Senate it has always been the case we need 60 votes. This is my good friend the majority leader when he was the leader of this majority in March of 2007, and he said it repeatedly both when he was in the minority or leader of the majority, that it requires 60 votes certainly on measures that are controversial. There is no question the measure before this body--using the words of my friend the Republican leader--is something that is important. There is no question that this measure has been controversial. Also, using his words, is this legislation of enormous importance? I think so. At least that is my mind. Quoting from a little while later: So who gets to decide who is wasting time around here? None of us have that authority to decide who is wasting time. But the way you make things happen is you get 60 votes at some point, and you move the matter to conclusion, and the best way to do that is to have an open amendment process. That is the way this place used to operate. And I say ``used to operate.'' That is my own editorial comment. Two or three months later: Madam President, reserving the right to object, what we are talking about is a perpetual debt ceiling grant, in effect, to the President. Matters of this level of controversy always require 60 votes. So I would ask my friend, the majority leader-- Referring to me as the majority leader-- if he would modify his consent request and set the threshold for this vote at 60? I am not going to be reading these forever, but I will read one more: Well, as we all know, it takes 60 votes to do everything except the budget process. We anticipate having a vote to proceed to the 20-week Pain-Capable bill sometime before the end of the year as well. That was just the early part of August of this year. So, Mr. President, my friend is in a dire situation, and I understand that. The House is in a terrible state of disarray. They do not know what they are going to do. On one hand, what they say they are going to do is--the President can't send the papers to them. So they want to have a vote on that. The papers didn't come to them. And then they turn right around and are going to vote on a resolution of approval. I guess they do not need the papers for that. Then they are going to vote on more sanctions. Then they don't know what they are going to do. It is very unusual, when one party controls both branches of the bicameral legislature, that they do not know how to work together, but obviously they are not working together here. So I understand my friend's frustration. This is a situation where he has lost the vote, and it is a situation where he is simply not in touch with reality as it exists. So I want to say to everyone within the sound of my voice that the Senate has spoken and has spoken with a clarion voice and declared that the historic agreement to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon will stand. That is what this agreement is all about. It is about whether Iran should have a nuclear weapon. And the countries you wouldn't think would be involved in supporting something such as this-- they know the importance of it themselves, and they agreed to go along with this agreement. They helped us negotiate it. China, Russia--they agreed to it. The Senate has spoken with a clarion voice and declared that this historic agreement to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon will stand. So I say, my fellow Americans--and I say that with all respect for everybody who is out there listening or will read about this--our allies and negotiating partners around the world should know that today's outcome was clear, decisive, and final. There is now no doubt whatsoever that the United States Congress will allow this historic agreement to proceed. Efforts by opponents to derail this agreement were soundly rejected by a margin much larger than anyone thought achievable even a few days ago. Any future attempts, as my friend is talking about, to relitigate this issue--I guess we will be in a position like with the Affordable Care Act. Are we going to try to repeal it 60 times? Are we going to try to break that record? Any future attempts to relitigate this issue in the Senate will meet the same outcome and will be nothing more than wasted time--time we can't afford to waste with a government shutdown looming in a matter of weeks, more of the disarray of my friends the Republicans. We are not making up closing government. The government was closed 2 years ago for almost 3 weeks. So we take those threats seriously. And I would hope we could get around to doing something about that rather than having wasted cloture motions on something on which we agreed to have a vote. Filibusters are an effort to stop debate. We said when I came in here Tuesday--Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday--if you want more time than that to debate, go ahead and do it. We are not in any way stopping debate, as was done by my Republican colleagues hundreds of times in years past. So this can be relitigated. Let's do it over 60 times to try to break the Affordable Care Act record, if you choose, but this matter is over with. It is something of such importance, but we should move on to something else. We have so much to do in this body--so much to do. We have our highway situation that is deteriorating. We have hundreds of thousands of bridges that are in a state of disrepair and need refurbishing and some of them need to be replaced. Today I met with the regional transportation authority, someone who represents 80 percent of the population in our State. We are in desperate shape all over Nevada as far as doing something about highways, but we are not doing anything about highways, we are fiddling around on that patching stuff. We had something done, and I was happy to get that done. We have cyber security issues. As we are here talking right now in this body, we have groups, individuals, and countries trying to hack us--they are not trying; they are doing it. We have not had the ability to get cyber security legislation before this body. It is something we have brought up as an afterthought. We have Senator Burr and Senator Feinstein and the bill they produced. It is not my favorite. I think we could do better than that. But I support their legislation. We have to do something. Let's start someplace doing something that is important for the American people. So I say to everyone here that it is time we move on to something else. This matter is over. You can continue to relitigate it, but it is going to have the same result.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, one last thing. I recognize my friend is going to be next, and I am going to be very short here. I am glad my friend brought up my vote on Iraq. I have stated on national TV, I have stated every chance I get that the biggest mistake I ever made in my public service was voting for that bill. And I learned it quickly. It was just a matter of a few short months after I voted that I realized I had been misled in voting for that. But that doesn't matter. I voted for it, and, as some say in some circles, I have repented publicly for having done that. So my feeling about the Iraq war has not changed, the mere fact I had voted for that. I would also say this in closing: I hope the one thing we can agree on here as Democrats and Republicans is that the ability of Iran for the next 15 years to build a nuclear weapon is pretty well taken care of. No one has to agree with that part of my statement, but the one thing I hope we can agree on--I would hope we would work together to make sure we continue, as indicated in the letter Senator Kerry wrote to everybody, all of us, and the Cardin legislation--I hope everyone will take a look at that because, as I said in a statement I gave on Tuesday morning, I have looked at what was suggested in the Kerry letter to make Israel more safe and more secure and some of the suggestions that Senator Cardin had in his outline. These are things on which I hope we can work together. Put this to one side for the time being. Let's hope in the future we can work together to make sure the only true democracy in that part of the world, this ally of ours, is safe and secure. And we will continue everything we can to make sure they are, I repeat, safe and secure.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. I object.

Mr. REID

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

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture motions with respect to the McConnell substitute amendment No. 2640 and H.J. Res. 61 be withdrawn; that the pending amendments and the motion to commit, with the exception of the McConnell substitute amendment, be withdrawn; that no other amendments, points of order, or motions be in order to the joint resolution or the McConnell substitute prior to the vote on the McConnell substitute amendment; that at 3:45 p.m. today, the Senate proceed to vote on the McConnell substitute amendment; that the amendment be subject to a 60-affirmative-vote threshold; further, that if the McConnell amendment is agreed to, H.J. Res. 61, as amended, be read a third time and passed.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I have a few brief remarks, and then I will respond to my friend. By the end of the day, the Senate will have spent 3 days debating one of the most critical national security issues of our time--and that is probably an understatement--whether to support the agreement to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. From the beginning of this process, Democrats have done everything within our power to support this debate. We allowed the Senate to begin important debate without any procedural hurdles--none whatsoever. Democrats understand the severity of the urgent national security issue that is before this body, and that is why we offered a consent agreement at the beginning of the week to eliminate all procedural hurdles and move straight to the final passage vote after the debate. I did that again this morning, but the Republican leader did not take that offer. Instead, he filed cloture on the debate. By rejecting our offer, the Republican leader has made the cloture vote the decisive and definitive vote on this issue. That is why I once again will put forward my consent to skip cloture and all procedural votes and move to a vote on final passage. Every Senator in this body should understand that if they are forced to vote on cloture, it is because Senator McConnell, not Democrats, wanted them to. The idea that Democrats are somehow trying to stop debate or keeping us from a final vote is foolish. It is simply untrue. Let's be clear. Let's be clear who is moving to end debate. It is the Republican leader who is moving to end debate, not me, not us. It is the Republican leader who filed a procedural motion last night and today. What Democrats are offering is an opportunity to continue debate and move straight to a vote on final passage. This is exactly what we have done on many policy issues in the past because of Republican demands. In fact, since 2007 the Senate has regularly held votes on passage at a 60-vote threshold on policy and national security issues--for example, on national security issues such as Iraq policy resolutions; the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA; United States-India nuclear cooperation; foreign aid prohibition for Pakistan, Egypt, Libya; FISA reauthorization; terrorism risk insurance, or TRIA. These are just a few of the many votes we have taken at the 60-vote threshold demanded by our Republican friends. Actions speak louder than words. Democrats acted to get this bill to the floor and debate it. Democrats are ready to vote on final passage. But if we are forced to vote on cloture, all Senators should understand that the cloture vote would then become the defining vote that determines whether the resolution of disapproval moves forward to the President's desk. A vote against cloture is a vote for the Iran agreement, plain and simple. Mr. President, may I have the consent agreement restated? I think I understand it, but basically we would have a cloture vote and move immediately to a vote? No, just a cloture vote. I am sorry. The question before the body--and they are waiting for me to respond--is, we would have a cloture vote on this matter because the leader has objected to my consent request, and we would have it at 3:45 p.m. today.

Mr. REID. Please wait. Staff is conferring here. No objection.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, yesterday my friend, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Corker of Tennessee, said: ``I recognize, and have all along, that it takes 60 Senators to advance legislation and get to a final vote on a bill or resolution.'' No equivocation, no dancing around the issue--the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee established what we have known all along: It takes 60 votes. His counterpart, Senator Cardin of Maryland, also agrees that 60 votes was always the intention. One Senator at the hearings voted no on the resolution because he didn't want it to be 60 votes. Everybody else voted for that. Forty-seven Republican Senators sent a letter to the Ayatollah, explaining to them how the Senate works. In that letter, all 47 Republican Senators acknowledged that it takes three-fifths votes to get things done here in the Senate. So that is over and done with. The resolution before us will take 60 votes to pass. The direct quote from Senator Corker that I read is in black and white. There aren't any words of mine; those are his words. That is a direct quote from the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. So that is what we have. Republicans have clearly conceded that it takes 60 votes to advance a resolution of disapproval. Filibusters stop debate. We are willing to have all the debate the Republicans want--2 hours, 2 days, whatever they want. It has to be completed by next Thursday. That is the only deadline that I can see. The good news is that Senate Democrats, of course, on this side of the aisle, continue to propose that following ample debate, the Senate then proceed directly to a vote on final passage. Of course, it would have a 60-vote threshold, as the chairman of the committee said yesterday. There would be no need for any other procedural votes. We would just do that. There is no need for the Republican leader to continue wasting the Senate's time--and it is precious. Look at what we have this week. There is basically one more legislative day this week. Next week, we have two days, Monday and Tuesday, which are long-time celebrations by the entire Congress of a Jewish holiday. We have the deadline of September 17 for this matter dealing with Iran to be completed, as far as Senate floor action. Staring us in the face at the end of the month is that government funding will be gone. We have to do something about that. And we know, as we have heard all the threats by Republican Senators, that we are not going to fund the government unless something is done with Planned Parenthood. Those things take time. We have to get to that. Every day we waste here on the floor, trying to figure out what the Republicans want to do, is time that we should be spending on how we are going to fund the government. There is no question that the Republican leader now has a very real and important decision to make. We have a lot of work to do this month. We can't afford to waste time with unnecessary procedural votes. We also have some things we have to be involved in here that are going to slow up what we do. We have the President of China coming toward the end of the month. We have the Pope coming. We expect as many as 500,000 people here on both sides of the Capitol during the short time the Pope is here on Capitol Hill. We have so many things to do. We need to have a path forward, as I mentioned already, to keep the Federal Government from shutting down because of a lack of funding. We need to figure out a way to keep our highway trust fund solvent, which it is not now. We need to do something about cyber security, and we need to consider important tax extenders legislation, as well as how to avoid default on the debt limit. They are all going to converge at about the same time. Senate Democrats and Senate Republicans have very real deadlines that we must meet. We can't meet them because of the procedure in the Senate unless the Republican leader allows us to have some time on the floor. What we don't have is time to waste on Republican-contrived procedural fights that have no basis in fact or reality. It is time for Republicans to abandon their plans to slow down a vote on final passage of the Iran nuclear agreement resolution of disapproval and move on to other matters. Mr. President, would the Chair announce the business of the day.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that until 12:30 p.m. today, the time during quorum calls be equally divided.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, first of all, I am very happy to welcome everyone back from our long recess. I am sure everyone worked as hard as I did. I had a week off, and I enjoyed it very much. I also think it is important to recognize the new class of pages we have. I am always very happy to see these bright young men and women here who will devote the rest of the semester to us. They do so much and get so little recognition for it, so I appreciate all they do for us.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I gave a speech this morning at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and it is, I think, directly how I feel about this. I am glad it got some coverage this morning. I ask unanimous consent that the full remarks of the speech I made this morning at 10 o'clock be printed in the Record.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I note that there are a lot of things in this speech that I think are important, but the one thing certainly that is so vitally important is that no one has come up with an alternative. Any alternative is imaginary. It is fantasy land. I speak about that in my remarks. Today we face one of the most critical national security issues of our time: whether to support the Iran agreement which would stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. That is what the agreement is--to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. From the beginning, Senate Democrats have done everything possible to move the debate on the Iran agreement forward in the quickest way possible. We agreed to skip procedural votes and allow the Senate to begin debate on the resolution itself. And today I am proposing that the Senate move forward in the most efficient way possible. I am proposing that after the Senate concludes 3 days of serious debate on this issue, we then move to a vote on passage of the resolution, of course with a 60-vote threshold. But Republicans are insisting that the Senate go through all procedural steps, including cloture, on their own bill. As the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, has stated numerous times--not a few times, not many times, but numerous times--requiring 60 votes on matters of enormous importance is simply ``the way the Senate operates.'' Here are a few examples of the statements he has made. I could spend literally all afternoon talking about quotes that are very similar to what I am about to recite. July 30, 2011, Senator McConnell: Now, look, we know that on controversial matters in the Senate, it has for quite some time required 60 votes. So I would say again to my friend-- That is me-- it is pretty hard to make a credible case that denying a vote on your own proposal is anything other than a filibuster. Listen, everybody, that is what Senator McConnell said. Again, just a few days later: I wish to make clear to the American people Senate Republicans are ready to vote on cloture on the Reid proposal in 30 minutes, in an hour, as soon as we can get our colleagues over to the floor. We are ready to vote. By requiring 60 votes, particularly on a matter of this enormous importance, is not at all unusual. It is the way the Senate operates. Again he came back a few months later: Mr. President, I can only quote my good friend the majority leader who repeatedly has said, most recently in 2007, that in the Senate it has always been the case we need 60 votes. This is my good friend the majority leader when he was the leader of this majority in March of 2007, and he said it repeatedly both when he was in the minority as leader of the minority or leader of the majority, that it requires 60 votes certainly on measures that are controversial. He also said a short time later: So who gets to decide who is wasting time around here? None of us. None of us have that authority to decide who is wasting time. But the way you make things happen is you get 60 votes at some point, and you move a matter to conclusion, and the best way to do that is to have an open amendment process. That is the way this place used to operate. So says Senator McConnell. A few months later: Madam President, reserving the right to object, what we are talking about is a perpetual debt ceiling grant, in effect, to the President. Matters of this level of controversy always require 60 votes. So I would ask my friend-- That is me-- if he would modify his consent request to set the threshold for this vote at 60? We could fill in month by month, but let's go to August 6 of this year, just a short time ago: Well, as we all know, it takes 60 votes to do everything except the budget process. We anticipate having a vote to proceed to the 20-week Pain-Capable bill sometime before the end of the year as well. Recently, the Republican leader told his own Senators and conservative news outlets that any attempts to defund Planned Parenthood or repeal ObamaCare would need at least 60 votes. So why is the Iran agreement any different? It isn't. Even more perplexing is that some would argue that because the Senate passed the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, all Senators would then be obligated to vote for any cloture vote. Voting for the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act was a vote to review the agreement, not a commitment to vote either for or against it. Voting for the Iran review act did not commit any Senator to take a particular position on the Iran agreement. Voting for the Iran review act was simply a vote to review the Iran agreement, and that is what we have done. It was a vote for three possible outcomes: a resolution of approval, a resolution of disapproval, or no action at all. It did not and does not obligate Senators to advance any one result. The Iran review act clearly included a 60-vote threshold for either a resolution of approval or disapproval. That is it. Every Senator knew that. For any Senator to suggest otherwise is absurd and factually wrong. Incorrect. No Senator who voted for the Iran review act voted to give up the 60- vote threshold. In fact, everyone who voted for it actually voted for the 60-vote threshold. In fact, one Republican Member, the junior Senator from Arkansas, said the reason he didn't vote for it is because it required a 60-vote threshold. If, however, we are forced to have a vote on cloture, it will be because the Republican leader has rejected Democrats' reasonable and responsible proposal. There is not on either side of this aisle a more respected U.S. Senator than the Senator from Virginia, Tim Kaine. He was coauthor of the Iran nuclear agreement, referred to properly as the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act. He said this morning: I was the co-author of the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act under which Congress is considering the international agreement to prohibit Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. The bipartisan bill--to give Congress a deliberate and constructive review of the final nuclear agreement with Iran--was drafted so that 60 votes would be required in the Senate to pass either a motion of approval or a motion of disapproval. Let me read this again. One of the people who helped write this bill, a respected Member of this body, said: I was the co-author of the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act under which Congress is considering the international agreement to prohibit Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. The bipartisan bill--to give Congress a deliberate and constructive review of the final nuclear agreement with Iran--was drafted so that 60 votes would be required in the Senate to pass either a motion of approval or a motion of disapproval. He continued: We should follow the procedure that was explicitly discussed and agreed to when we voted on this act, which passed the Senate 98 to 1. That is a direct quote from one of the authors of this legislation. It was never any Senator's intention to forgo the 60-vote threshold. Republicans are trying to pull a bait-and-switch that is born out of desperation. They haven't had a good August; let's face it. Are Republicans stalling on this issue so they don't have to work with Democrats to keep our government open and funded? There wasn't a day that went by during the recess that we didn't have some Republican Senator talk about closing the government. Every time that happened, the Republican leader would say: Well, we are not going to do that. So there is a lot of talk among Republican circles about the Republicans doing everything they can to force votes on things that have nothing to do with funding this government long term. So are Republicans stalling on this issue so they don't have to work with Democrats to keep our government open and funded? Do they want to wait until the last minute to jam us with something? Are Republicans stalling on this issue so they don't have to work with us on a bipartisan cyber security bill? Every day that goes by without legislation in this body is a day that bad guys are doing bad things to our businesses and to our country--stealing our names and addresses, trade secrets, everything they can, is what they are doing. Perhaps Republicans are stalling on this critical legislation so they don't have to address our distressed infrastructure, insolvent highway system, crumbling roads and bridges? I hope that instead of forcing the Senate to jump through unnecessary procedural hurdles, the Republicans will join with the Senate Democrats and agree to vote on final passage. It takes a lot of nerve for the Republican leader, after the numerous speeches he has given about the 60-vote threshold on everything important--is he suggesting this Iran agreement is not important? Let's hope that instead of forcing the Senate to jump through unnecessary procedural hurdles--in fact, the Republicans are filibustering their own resolution. I hope they will join with Senate Democrats and agree to vote on final passage.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, for all the reasons I have mentioned previously and the fact that I believe the Republican leader is way ahead of himself, I object.