Harry Reid

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I appreciate the good work, the exemplary work done on the Energy and Water appropriations bill by Senators Feinstein and Alexander. I managed that legislation for many years. Most of the time, it was with Pete Domenici from New Mexico. I was the chair most of the time but not all of the time. But it didn't matter-- our job was to move the bill forward. What people don't realize about this most important bill is that most of the funding is not for energy and water as we look at it, it is defense related--making sure our nuclear weapons are safe and reliable and things of that nature, making sure our National Labs are funded. So I appreciate their good work. It has been very good. I appreciate it. Last night the Republican leader filed cloture. Cloture was filed not because of any problems on our side. We should finish the work on the bill tomorrow or maybe Thursday. But I am glad we are going to get it done. It is an extremely important piece of legislation. I am glad we started here. I am glad to hear my friend the Republican leader talk about the appropriations process moving forward. But we have to understand that we have a lot more bills to go. This is only one--one out of many, one out of a dozen.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I want to be clear about something else, something that is vitally important, something that is imperative. The Senate must do something now to address the outbreak of the Zika virus. We are not going to interfere with the Energy and Water appropriations bill, but we must do something to confront this scourge that is facing our country and the western part of the world. Anyone who has followed the news over the past few months has undoubtedly heard about the spread of Zika. Zika is a virus spread by mosquitos in warmer tropical areas. We have warmer areas in the United States--not tropical but warm--and they breed mosquitos. Zika has been linked to many health problems, but most notable is a terrible birth defect called microencephaly. We have all seen pictures of these babies with these small heads, caused by a mosquito bite. Dr. Anthony Fauci from the National Institutes of Health--he is the leader of the institute dealing with infectious disease--came to the Capitol last Thursday. He briefed us about this thing called Zika. He described how dangerous it is. He was accompanied by people from the Centers for Disease Control. He is, of course, representing the National Institutes of Health. We also had the Secretary of Health and Human Services. They were here to tell us how serious the situation is, how dangerous it is. There are a number of problems as a result of this virus, but the one that has been most illustrated is the fact that in infants the skull does not fully form. So the skull never completely pushes out to form around the brain. So when they are born, these babies have tiny, undeveloped skulls. Sometimes the skulls collapse. Aside from the damaged brains and skulls, these babies also have, of course, developmental delays. Earlier this year a baby in Hawaii was born with this disease, but, sadly, the worst is on its way. We have seen cases of this virus all over the continental United States. These have been linked to travel or transmitted from someone who has traveled to Zika-affected areas. Most Americans are afraid to travel abroad--and, I am sorry to say, rightfully so--for fear of mosquitos carrying Zika, that Zika will infect them. But Zika is already upon us in Puerto Rico and in Florida, and it is going to spread to other places. These mosquitos can breed in something smaller than a bottle cap of water. Puerto Rico is battling the local transmission of the virus as we speak. As of last Friday, the island already had more than 500 confirmed cases of Zika, and they are concerned that 1 in 5 Puerto Ricans could have been infected. Our fellow American citizens in Puerto Rico have limited funding to fight this growing epidemic. We have heard about the financial problems they are having. The Puerto Rican government doesn't even have enough money to pay contractors to empty the septic tanks in schools, which are breeding grounds for mosquito larvae, capable of producing billions of mosquitos--not millions but billions. Experts tell us it won't be long before the mosquitos carrying Zika are infecting people here in the continental United States. We can't wait for that before we act. This is an emergency situation, if anything ever were. The Senate must do something now to counter the spread of this virus. The White House has taken money--they asked for money 2 months ago, but during that period of time, they took money from Ebola funding, which is also vitally important. We are doing pretty well stopping the spread of that. But taking that money away, we are going to be right back with the problem with Ebola if it is not replaced. We have a bill ready to go. Senator Nelson of Florida, who is going to feel this as much as any Senator in the country, has provided a bill to give the President the money he has asked for: $1.9 billion in emergency supplemental appropriations. Democrats believe this $1.9 billion is a good start. Our Nation's public health and infectious disease experts say this is roughly how much money they need to fight this virus. We would be irresponsible not to provide this money and do it now. Senator Nelson's bill will bolster our defense against Zika by funding the development of vaccines, mosquito control methods, and testing and services to those who are infected. So I say to my Republican colleagues, I say to the Republican leader: Do we want to wait until more babies are born with these permanent disabilities--disabilities caused by a virus that the vaccine could help prevent, if not for all children, then for many? Do we want to wait until people in the United States start to suffer from paralysis caused by Guillain-Barre syndrome, which is also linked to Zika? It has already been more than 2 months since the President requested this emergency funding. The longer we wait, the worse it will be. States are already scrambling to address Zika. A story in the Washington Post highlighted the danger of inaction. I quote: Cities and states preparing for possible Zika outbreaks this spring and summer are losing millions of federal dollars that local officials say they were counting on, not only for on-the-ground efforts to track and contain the spread of the mosquito-borne virus but also to respond to other emergencies that threaten public health. Los Angeles County, for example, says it won't be able to fill 17 vacancies at its public health laboratory or buy equipment to upgrade its capability for Zika testing. Michigan is concerned about providing resources to help Flint contend with its ongoing water-contamination crisis. Minnesota plans to reduce its stockpile of certain medications needed to treat first responders during emergencies. The across-the-board funding cuts are part of a complicated shift of resources that the Obama administration blames on Congress for its refusal to approve the White House's $1.9 billion emergency request to combat Zika. The President is right. He is pointing the finger where it belongs-- right here at Congress. So I implore my Republican colleagues, I implore my friend the Republican leader: Let's act now. We have done the work. We have a bill to provide what experts need to fight this devastating virus. Let's get it done. For more than a week, we have heard about Republicans and the appropriations folks working toward an agreement. I have yet to see it. I have heard about it. If the Republican leader and Appropriations have an alternative, they should bring it to the floor now. Democrats are happy to work toward a solution, but we have to get started. We need to get the experts the resources they need to prevent the spread of Zika. It is not acceptable to do nothing. The Senate should not leave this week without addressing legislation that fights Zika. We cannot go on break without taking care of this emergency. When the Senate finishes the work on Energy and Water, we must move to the Zika legislation. The National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control, the entire Health and Human Services Cabinet office--they need Congress to send them the funding necessary to start working on a solution to Zika.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, Benjamin Franklin said: ``When the well is dry, we know the worth of water.'' The drought is here. It has been going on for 15 to 20 years in the western part of the United States. All over the West, we are perilously close to running dry. The water situation is as dangerous as it has been in our lifetime. The States of California, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming don't have these huge rivers like we see west of the Mississippi. We have, basically, the little Colorado River. It is a tiny little river. In the past, it has become mighty, but for very short periods of time. That little river is called upon to respond to everything. One of the things that is happening is that Lake Powell, the largest manmade lake in America, is going dry. There is no end in sight. This drought has dropped Lake Mead, which is the resource for water that goes everyplace in the West. Most of the water in California they get out of the Colorado. It all comes out of Lake Mead. Lake Mead levels have dropped to levels not seen since the Great Depression. That is, of course, when the lake was born. It hasn't been full in over three decades. To make matters worse, El Nino is supposed to ease the pain, but it hasn't--only a little bit more. Some say up to 50 million people rely on the Colorado River. We know the State of California, with almost 40 million people, depends on it as much as any other source of water. We have to work to reverse current trends or face a future where water shortages become the new normal. The Federal Government can and should work with States on solutions that make our precious water supplies more sustainable. We need to work together, as the States of California, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and even Wyoming, which is a long way away, have worked to solve the issues. Today the Senate continues deliberation on the Energy and Water bill. Later this morning we will consider three amendments. One is a Reid- Heller amendment, which seeks to address drought conditions throughout the West. Our amendment would build on that spirit of collaboration by trying to address the fact that we need to stretch every drop of water as far as it will go. This legislation isn't for any one city or region. It will help every State that relies upon the water in the Colorado River system: Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. I hope this amendment will be adopted. I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. President, will the Chair announce the business of the day.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Madam President, I commented to my able assistant who is at my desk with me, Bill Dauster--I have always--whenever the Presiding Officer says the Pledge of Allegiance, I am amazed at how she stands at attention. It brings back her old military mind, I am sure. Very impressive.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Madam President, as each day passes, the senior Senator from Iowa further distinguishes himself as the most political and partisan Judiciary Committee chairman in history. Last Friday, Senator Grassley took his political partisanship to a new low when he encouraged the FBI to join the political crusade against Secretary Hillary Clinton. The Senator from Iowa is confused about the role of the FBI. By law, the FBI is obligated to do its job and conduct an independent review for everything it has to work on free from political interference. It is wrong for any Senator, especially the chairman of the Judiciary Committee who deals with these issues day after day, to urge the selective leaking of any Federal investigation. The FBI is not in the business of disclosing information to appease political operatives, but according to press reports, that is just the sort of thing the Republican Judiciary Committee has done. Remember, there has been a lot of speculation that under Chairman Grassley's leadership the personal information of a Clinton staffer was leaked to the press, including payroll records and a Social Security number, but urging a leak of the FBI investigation for political purposes was not the only thing Senator Grassley said. The Senator from Iowa was asked what he thought was the worst change in Congress during his tenure. He responded that the increasing partisanship was disappointing to him. The audacity and even the hypocrisy of that statement is staggering. Senator Grassley decries partisanship, while he denies a hearing and a vote to an eminently qualified Supreme Court nominee. For what? No one has a good answer on that. The Senator from Iowa complains of partisanship, even as he uses the Judiciary Committee to wage a political war against Secretary Clinton and her staff. Under the guise of oversight, Senator Grassley has been wasting taxpayer dollars trying to besmirch Hillary Clinton's good name. This has been going on for years. The Senator's singular focus on Secretary Clinton borders on an obsession. Senator Grassley has written dozens of letters containing hundreds of requests. He has held hearings. He has issued press releases. What have he and his committee achieved? Nothing. All the chairman has done is waste taxpayer dollars. The Judiciary Committee chairman is so desperate to legitimize his attacks against Hillary Clinton he is willing to encourage a selective leak of a Federal investigation by, of all people, the FBI. All this in an effort to award the Presidential nomination to Donald Trump. I agree in one respect with Senator Grassley. Partisanship in this Chamber is awful. It is paralyzing the Senate and is preventing us from doing our constitutional duties, but much of this is the handiwork of the Judiciary Committee and Senator Grassley. I ask the Chair to announce the business of the day.

Mr. REID

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

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is difficult for me to be here to talk about what I am going to talk about because I believe that the Senate operates only when there is trust among the Members of this body. A man whom I served with whom I have such great respect for, and that is former Republican Majority Leader Bob Dole, said: I knew that nothing else I did would matter very much if I ever forfeited the trust of my colleagues. As we all learn around here, if you don't keep your word, it doesn't make much difference what agenda you try to advance. The trust which Senator Dole spoke of has been broken. The Republican leader McConnell broke his word to me. In December of 2014, the Republican leader and the Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Thune, came to me on the floor, asking if I would agree to confirming a Republican Commissioner to the Federal Communications Commission. That man's name is Michael O'Rielly, and he had worked for Jon Kyl and John Cornyn. Of course, Cornyn is still here and Kyl left. I have great respect for Jon Kyl, being from my neighboring State of Arizona. So I said that this is kind of an unusual request, since everyone knows that two leaders, when we have a Commission we are going to staff with our selections, he and I have a right to do that, and we always pair them--a Democrat, a Republican, and a Democrat and a Republican. We pair them together. So I said to my friend from South Dakota and my friend from Kentucky that doesn't sound like the right thing to do for me, but they talked a while longer, and my heart said do it, my head said don't. My heart won, and I relented, after having made an arrangement, an agreement with them that we would go ahead and do O'Rielly right then; that I would agree to do that provided that when the new Congress convened in less than a month, we would take care of the Democrat. Her name is Jessica Rosenworcel. That was our agreement. That is how we would pair one Republican with a Democrat, as is our custom. But--and I repeat--I said: I agree, we will go ahead and do him now. He didn't have a job, so I was told, and so he could do that. They promised me they would confirm Rosenworcel the next Congress. I wasn't there alone. I had my staff with me. So it is not me saying one thing. I don't think anyone denies the conversation. I didn't have to agree to this. I did it because the Republican leader said he would do his part and get her confirmed. I am sorry to report to the world, to the Senate, I was wrong. Over the last 16 months, the Republican leader has refused to fulfill his commitment. He hasn't kept his word. Republicans assumed control of the Senate in January 2015. I waited patiently for the Republican leader and Senator Thune to keep their word regarding Rosenworcel's nomination. To his credit--John Thune and I have served here a long time. I know him well. I worked against him once and was successful. I worked against him a second time and wasn't successful. He beat my dear friend Tom Daschle, but he is a fine man. He and I used the gym together in the House. To his credit, Senator Thune did everything he could to fulfill the commitment. He was having pressure not to do anything, I am sure, but he called his committee together. He is the chairman of the Commerce Committee. He reported Rosenworcel out to the Senate floor. There his authority stops. He doesn't have any power to do any more. He did what he felt he was obligated to do, and I felt he was obligated to do. It is now Senator McConnell's problem, I guess. But a year went by. She still wasn't sent to the floor. That is when I talked to Senator Thune--the first of many times. He did what he said he would do and reported her out. A few months ago, in December of 2015, a year after we had made our agreement, I reminded Senator McConnell of his commitment to do what he said he would do to quickly advance the nomination. He told me that the Senate would confirm her when we returned in 2016. January 2016 passed with no action. Before we left for the President's Day recess, I spoke again with Senators McConnell and Thune about Rosenworcel's nomination. February passed with no movement. March passed. Here we are, 21 days into April, with no confirmation. I have waited. I have waited patiently for my friend to do the right thing. I have held off for months coming to the floor. What else would I do? What else could I do? I held off, hoping the Republican leader would deliver on the pledge that he gave to me. I spoke again with him yesterday on the telephone, urging him to move her forward. He said to me: We'll do it next year. Next year she is out of a job. Her term expires at the end of this year. Her career will basically be over because of my accepting my counterpart's word. I told the Republican leader and I told Senator Thune that I would not remain silent forever on this. I told both of them yesterday I was going to come to the floor. The Republican leader, I hope, was aware of the words of Bob Dole, which I talked about earlier in my remarks. Dole said: I knew that nothing else I did would matter very much if I ever forfeited the trust of my colleagues. As we all learn around here, if you don't keep your word, it doesn't make much difference what agenda you try to advance. That was Robert Dole. To say I am disappointed is an understatement. This is a commitment that was made to me about a year and a half ago. We have to keep our trust. This isn't an issue of my being offended. I have been offended. The Presiding Officer has been offended. We have all been offended. This isn't only personal with me, in taking the Republican leader's promise as a personal affront. It is not a personal affront to me. If it is, I will have to bear that. I think it is, but I can handle that. What I am concerned about is what it means for the Senate and what it means for a human being, a woman who works very hard every day, trying to do the right thing for a very important part of our country. I understand the Republican leader has a tough job. I know that. I had that job a lot longer than he has. Because of the dysfunction in his caucus, it is difficult, I am told and as we see, for him to get things done. But that is no excuse for someone not keeping their word. He could go into executive session. We would agree to that. He could file cloture. He could do this in many different ways. I still expect him to live up to his commitment and get Commissioner Rosenworcel confirmed. I don't want this to be a bad time for the Senate if it continues. It is a bad day for the Senate now because you have to keep your word. That is all we have around here. I see no one on the floor, and I will ask the Chair to announce what the Senate is going to do the rest of the day.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am happy to be here and have the Republican leader talk about the things he has been able to accomplish, but I would note--just to make sure the record is clear--the reason these things are happening is because we have a minority that is willing to work with the majority. The record should also be corrected to the effect that we have had over the last 7\1/2\ years lots of debates on energy--lots of them. The problem is that they have gone no place because of the obstruction of my Republican colleagues, with filibuster after filibuster on the bill that we are going to soon dispose of. I am glad. It is a really important piece of legislation. It was worked on for 5 years, led by Senator Shaheen, but it is really difficult to determine how many different times it was stopped because of obstruction--seven or eight times, that I can come up with. So we are glad to be able to get it done. Why? Because we wanted to get it done for years, and finally we are able to get it done. So we want to be here and work with the Republican leader and friends on the other side of the aisle to get things done. That is why we have been no obstacle to the FAA bill. It is too bad it is such a narrow version of what we wanted to do, but the Republican leader said we will finish the things that we wanted to do to deal with section 48(c) before the end of the year.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Also, Mr. President, as to the appropriations bills, I was a longtime member of the Appropriations Committee, and I am glad we are moving forward on the appropriations bills. Why didn't we do it before? Because we had objections from the Republicans, and we couldn't. But we are going to be as cooperative as we can and see if we can move some of these appropriations bills. I am happy to have the Republican leader talk about the accomplishments, but make sure there is a side note or a footnote that says this has been accomplished because of our cooperation.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, my friend also talked about the accomplishments of the various committees. My caucus knows how much I believe in the committee system. I think it is very important that committees work well. We know one committee that is not working well, led by the senior Senator from Iowa. The senior Senator from Iowa claims that he feels no pressure over blocking President Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland. If that is really true, Senator Grassley must not read the papers from Iowa. To date, there have been two dozen Iowa editorials condemning Senator Grassley's refusal to consider President Obama's Supreme Court nominee, and there are many more letters to the editor. This is only Iowa. Around the country there have been scores and scores of editorials talking about how wrong it is that the Judiciary Committee is taking a vacation. In Iowa there was a column published in the Des Moines Register over the weekend that was especially discerning. It was authored by veteran Iowa political journalist Kathie Obradovich. This is what she wrote: Senator Grassley keeps offering new reasons for refusing to give Judge Merrick Garland a hearing and a vote on his appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court. He may as well keep trying, as the explanations he's given so far for waiting until after the next presidential election are mostly nonsense. I am only going to mention a few of the excuses that the senior Senator from Iowa has invented in an effort to avoid his job. Senator Grassley won't consider Merrick Garland because he says he wants the American people to have a voice. The Senator either is ignoring or forgetting or doesn't know that the American people and fellow Iowans used their voice twice when they elected and re-elected-- both times overwhelmingly--President Obama. They gave President Obama the right to nominate individuals to the Supreme Court as well as all the other obligations a President has. Secondly, Senator Grassley won't consider Merrick Garland because he said he wants a Justice who abides by the law. Try that one on. If the senior Senator from Iowa wants a Justice who abides by precedent and sticks to the law, he need look no further than Merrick Garland, who has developed a reputation on the bench for respecting precedent. People who served with him--so-called liberal, conservative, and moderate judges--all agree that Merrick Garland is good. In fact, maybe there is somebody who can't stand him, but we haven't heard a peep from anybody saying what a bad judge he is--not from anyone. Senator Grassley says he won't consider Merrick Garland for a third reason, because the Supreme Court only needs eight Supreme Court Justices. The Supreme Court needs all nine. Yesterday they deadlocked on another question, and it appears that the chairman of the Judiciary Committee is willing to gridlock our Nation's highest Court just to keep Merrick Garland from being confirmed. That decision yesterday is a bad decision because what it does is to keep in place a lower court ruling that most all academics and people who follow the law believe is wrong. It allowed the State of California standing to sue another State--basically, the State of Nevada. Under their ruling, we are now going to have a free-for-all in the States suing each other. From the time we have been a country, that didn't take place. There was order in interstate commerce. Well, the fourth reason Senator Grassley gives is that it is all Chief Justice Roberts' fault. The very person who is blocking the Supreme Court nominee is accusing the Chief Justice of making the Court political. Finally--there are others, but this is enough for this morning--the senior Senator from Iowa says he is just doing what Chairman Biden said 20 years ago. Well, I would suggest--and I am sure his staff has done this, if he hasn't--to look at what Vice President Biden did, not a partial part of a speech that he gave, because if you looked at that, he was exemplary. He brought judges to the Senate floor. He even brought nominees to the floor who had been turned down by the committee because, as he said yesterday and he has said before: I believe we have an obligation for advice and consent that is not completed until it is brought to the floor. So Senator Grassley should follow Joe Biden's example and process more than part of a speech he gave. None of these examples makes sense, as the columnist from Iowa said, but yesterday the Judiciary Committee chair came up with another one. Listen to this one. This is classic. Senator Grassley said he will not consider Merrick Garland's nomination because the hearing would be a waste of taxpayer dollars. Well, we could have a hearing, we aren't going to have a hearing, but let's just suppose we did have a hearing. . . . So you have a hearing and you spend a lot of taxpayers' money gearing up for it, you spend a lot of time of members, a lot of research that has to be done by staff. That is kind of a strange comment. Staff is not paid by the hour. They are paid each day. I would hope they could squeeze into their busy schedules enough time to look at a Supreme Court nominee. Offering our advice and consent on the Supreme Court nomination is what the taxpayers want us to do. Look at polls all over America. That is our job. I find it ridiculous--there is probably a better description--but I find it ridiculous that the very Senator who continues to use the Judiciary Committee to wage a political war on former Secretary Hillary Clinton dares to claim he is trying to save taxpayer dollars. Where is he, where is his concern for misusing taxpayer funds while his committee continues to waste millions of dollars on partisan opposition research of a Presidential candidate? That is not their job. Where was the penny-pinching when the Judiciary Committee used Senate funds and Senate staff to investigate former Clinton staffers; for example, asking for maternity leave records--maternity leave records-- time sheets, anything they could to try to embarrass Secretary Clinton. Where is Senator Grassley's focus on government waste while the so- called Benghazi Select Committee continues to spend millions and millions of dollars on a political hit job with no end in sight? Every day the Judiciary Committee has a new excuse, a new justification for why it will not do its job. I think we all have news for the Senator from Iowa: No one is buying it. They are not buying it in Iowa. They are not buying it in Nevada. They are not buying it in New York. They are not buying it in Kentucky. They are not buying it anyplace. The American people are not buying it. His own constituents are leading the pack of people who are not buying this. His behavior reminds me of a Henry Wadsworth Longfellow poem: ``It takes less time to do the right thing than it does to explain why you did it wrong.'' So the senior Senator from Iowa has spent months trying to explain away the obstruction of a Supreme Court nominee. Wouldn't it be easier to give him a hearing and a vote? Wouldn't it be easier for him to just do his job? Wouldn't it be the right thing to do to just do his job? Mr. President, I ask the Chair to announce to everyone what the Senate is going to do the rest of the day.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I appreciate the Republican leader talking positively about the Energy bill, which we called the energy efficiency bill in the last two Congresses, when we tried so hard under the direction of Senator Shaheen from New Hampshire to get this done. We tried so very hard. We had many runs at it. There were promises from the Republicans; I don't need to mention names, but they know who they are: Let's get back on this bill. We will get it done. We have only three amendments. We have only two amendments. We did that time after time over 4 years. Every time, the obstruction would not go away, and we could not do the bill. I am grateful that we have a bill now dealing with energy efficiency. The name has been changed, but it is the same bill. I hope that Senator Shaheen from New Hampshire has some degree of pride over what she started a long time ago. Her name is not on the legislation anymore, and I appreciate the junior Senator from Washington and the senior Senator from Alaska working hard to bring it to the floor today. We brought it to the point where we are today as a result of a very long struggle. The Republican leader talks about the many years since we have had an Energy bill. The reason we didn't have one 4 years sooner is that they wouldn't let us. Gridlock, obstruction--the Republicans blocked Energy bills any chance they got. They insisted on offering amendments that weren't germane or relevant. We are not acting the way they did. We want to get it done also. It is important for our country, and it is a positive step forward. I want to make sure there is a full understanding of the history behind this.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, 21 years ago today, in Oklahoma City at 9:02 a.m. Oklahoma City time, Timothy McVeigh detonated a bomb at the Federal building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 innocent people, and 19 of them were children who were there with their parents on business the family had. This was a work day, and Timothy McVeigh detonated that huge explosion. People could see the smoke from miles and miles away. It was the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil before 9/11. I think we can all see--I know I can see in my mind's eye the images that were on television and the huge Federal building destroyed. It had been ripped in half. I recall, as I am sure people within the sound of my voice recall, the images of chaos: bloody, disoriented victims trying to determine if they were alive, if they had their arms, if they had their legs, if they had their mind, if they had their eyes. As soon as they got that straightened out, they started desperately trying to find and assist the injured. This was a heart-wrenching day for our Nation. People watched the aftermath and wanted to help in any way they could. One of those eager to help was a lawyer from the Department of Justice named Merrick Garland. His boss at the time was a well-known political figure, Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick. She explained Garland's desire to go to Oklahoma City and help with the investigation. She said: Both of us had kids about the ages of the kids in the day care center [in Washington]. We were just sick to our stomachs. And Merrick said, ``I need to go.'' Merrick Garland went home that evening knowing that he would be gone for a while. He kissed his wife and his children, and he arrived in Oklahoma City less than 48 hours later. At this time, Garland was a seasoned Federal prosecutor, having served as U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia prior to taking a senior role in the Department of Justice. Those who knew him recall how competent he was. Having done some criminal defense work in my past, I know how difficult it is for somebody trying to defend somebody when you come up against a prosecutor with the reputation of Garland. They have a way about them to make the case simple in the minds of a judge and jury, even though there could be a very complicated set of facts. Those who worked with him recall him as unwavering in his commitment to the law. He followed the law. He followed procedure. He was guided by an acute sense of fairness. The New York Times reported: Former colleagues also recalled that Mr. Garland insisted on doing the investigation by the book, like obtaining subpoenas even when phone and truck rental companies volunteered to simply hand over the evidence, to avoid any future trial problems. He also made sure there was a prosecutor responsible for keeping relatives and victims informed about the case as it developed. In speech after speech, the senior Senator from Iowa has insisted that a nominee to the Supreme Court should be ``supreme,'' should be someone who--and I quote him--``adheres to the Constitution and the rule of law and decides cases based on wherever the text takes him or her.'' Merrick Garland is the person the senior Senator from Iowa described. With an entire nation wanting justice served immediately to those responsible for the bombing, Garland and his team refused to take shortcuts. They did it the right way. They did it the Garland way. They adhered to the law every step of the way. So impressive was Mr. Garland throughout the investigation and prosecution, that Steven Jones, the attorney for Timothy McVeigh-- listen to this. Here is what the attorney for McVeigh said about Merrick Garland. Personally he's above reproach. He has integrity. He has the skills. Merrick Garland was also devoted to the victims and their families. Claudia Denny was the mother of children in the building's daycare center. Her children were critically injured, but they survived. They are alive. This is what she said of Merrick Garland: Early on we got invited to the U.S. attorney's office. They wanted all of our concerns, and I think Judge Garland set that up where we all got our voice heard. The Oklahoma City prosecution ended with convictions and guilty pleas for all who were involved. To this day, Oklahomans still revere Merrick Garland for his good work. Frank Keating, the Governor of Oklahoma at the time of the attack, has been outspoken in his praise of Judge Garland. He told NPR recently: People don't understand when they're eating a good dinner on Friday night, there is a chef in the kitchen that did it. And in the case of what we saw after April 19, there was a chef in the kitchen that did it, and it was Merrick Garland. The junior Senator from Oklahoma recently praised Judge Garland saying, ``I do plan to meet with Merrick Garland in my office in the weeks ahead to say thank you for what he did for Oklahoma during the bombing trial. But that is as far as Senator Lankford has said he will go. He has made it clear that he will do nothing to help Garland get a hearing or a vote. Following his work in the Oklahoma City case, Merrick Garland continued to work on other notable criminal cases. He oversaw the prosecution of the Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski, this evil man who is now in prison. Garland ran the investigation on the Atlanta Olympics bombing. He then went on to serve with distinction on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, where he now serves as the chief judge. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts once said of Garland's judicial expertise: ``Anytime Judge Garland disagrees, you know you are in a difficult area.'' It is time for Republicans to allow the American people to see Merrick Garland themselves, not have me talking about him but see him for themselves. This is a super star. This is somebody who should be on the Court. Republicans should allow the American people to see this man for what the people of Oklahoma and litigants in the courtrooms have known for many years: This is a special man. Last year, as part of the 20th anniversary of the Oklahoma City attack, Judge Garland and some of his fellow prosecutors were awarded the Reflections of Hope Award by the Oklahoma City National Memorial. The honor is awarded to those who exemplify the belief that ``hope can survive and blossom amidst the tragedy and chaos.'' That is the hope Merrick Garland brought to Oklahoma in the aftermath of that vicious day. We are reminded of Judge Garland's contributions in securing justice in Oklahoma City and wherever he has gone. He is a brilliant man. He is academically brilliant. He is a man who was not given anything on a silver platter. In my meeting with him, I asked him how he handled the situation at Harvard. It is an expensive place. He said: Well, among other things, I sold my comic book collection. Now, that does not sound like much to most people. But those coins, for example, that my little brother--we are separated by 22 months--has been collecting since he was a little boy mean a lot to him. Most of them are not worth too much. Some of them are. Merrick Garland collected comic books. One of my best friend's sons collects comic books. It is something they do. It meant a lot to him. He had to get rid of them to get through college. He has inspired those around him through his hard work and commitment and fairness always. That is why it is so disappointing that Republicans are denying this man the common decency of a hearing so the American people can see him. Why not let Merrick Garland speak for himself at a hearing? Why not let him make his own case to the American people and their elected Senators? There is no excuse to delay his nomination any longer. Senate Republicans should give Merrick Garland the hearings and the vote he deserves. Republicans need to simply do their job.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I want to say just a brief word on another subject. Last week marked another horrible anniversary, the 2-year anniversary since the terrorist group Boko Haram invaded a school in Nigeria and took away 300 little girls. They were girls. They were not young women. They were little girls. The world watched as parents of the girls pleaded for help. People all over the world, including First Lady Michelle Obama, rallied behind the campaign ``Bring Back Our Girls.'' Despite the global outcry, most of these girls--the vast majority of these girls--are still missing 2 years later. But here is the horrible part about this--the shocking fate of some of these girls. It has been a couple of years. They are older--teenagers. Boko Haram is weaponizing them, turning these little girls--they are now not so little--into suicide bombers. According to the United Nations Children's Emergency Fund, or UNICEF, in the 4 countries where Boko Haram operates, the number of children used in bombing attacks has sharply increased from 4 in 2014 to 44 last year. That record will be broken this year. Nearly one out of every five bombers where Boko Haram is active is a child. Seventy-five percent of the child bombers are girls. As a father and grandfather of 19 children, I am sickened by what has happened to those schoolgirls. Although 2 years has passed since the abduction, the world must not forget the evil of this organization. We must be as resolved as ever to fight terrorism wherever it rears its ugly head. Whether it is ISIS or Boko Haram, we cannot stop. We must be vigilant. Mr. President, the Chair announce the business that we are going to proceed with today.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I really have to smile when I hear the Republican leader with his ``Senate is Back to Work'' speeches. The Senate Republicans are like the guy who shows up only half the time for work and then asks for a raise. They go through the motions, but they fail to do their job. They failed to fund opioid legislation. They failed to do anything about the water in Flint, MI. They failed to fix what everyone agrees was an error on the renewable tax credits. They have failed to address the Zika virus and on and on. Republicans used to complain all the time about meeting deadlines for doing the budget resolution, but this year they just aren't doing one. Even district court nominations supported by Republicans seem too hard for this group to accomplish. It appears the Senate will fail even to have a hearing on the President's Supreme Court nomination. It seems that Senate Republicans still need to learn how to do their job.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, it has been almost 3 years since the Senate passed comprehensive immigration reform. Senate Democrats worked with a handful of Republicans to craft a good, fair, comprehensive immigration reform bill that passed with strong bipartisan support. Then we watched as Speaker Boehner capitulated to the tea party radicals and refused to allow a vote on the floor. It would have passed overwhelmingly. To his credit, President Obama saw Republicans' inertia on immigration reform and decided to act. He told us in his State of the Union Address that he was tired of waiting around for Republicans to do things, so he had to do it himself, and that is what he has done. Using his Executive authority under existing law, he worked to fix the system to prioritize enforcement resources on those who actually pose a threat to our national security and public safety. On November 20, 2014, President Obama ordered a series of Executive actions that increased border security and ensured greater accountability throughout our immigration system. One aspect of President Obama's Executive actions was the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents Program. The program provided temporary deportation relief for parents of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents, if they meet three basic requirements. No. 1, they have to be in the country for at least 5 years; No. 2, they must register with the government; and No. 3, they must pass a criminal background check. Today, there are over 5 million children--all U.S. citizens--who are eligible for this program. President Obama also expanded the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival Program, helping to protect DREAMers, the undocumented children who were brought to the United States at a very young age. To date, over 700,000 DREAMers have been protected--12,000 in Nevada alone. Not only were these Executive actions the right thing to do, they were also smart investments. Nevada will benefit from about a $3.5 million-a-year increase in State and local tax revenues. Nevadans will see an increase in earnings of more than $1 billion over 10 years. Together these programs will help grow America by $230 billion over the next 10 years, but now this progress is being threatened. Shortly after President Obama's announcement, a politically motivated lawsuit was filed by the Texas attorney general and joined by Republican Governors and attorneys--not all of them but a lot of them. The Texas attorney general won a preliminary injunction temporarily blocking both programs. This came from a single judge. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to consider the case and today it heard oral arguments. They were good. I thought it was an extremely sound, deliberate argument. I think the Justices--most of them--had questions that went to the heart of what the issues are, standing and other things. A decision to overturn the President's actions would put many families with U.S. citizen children at risk of deportation and prevent the Department of Homeland Security from doing its job of focusing on criminals and other threats to national security and public safety. In Nevada alone, President Obama's Executive actions stand to help 50,000 people. Those are 50,000 Nevadans who should not be separated from their families. The U.S. Supreme Court must do the right thing and recognize President Obama's authority. That is why I joined 38 other Senate Democrats and 186 House Democrats in filing an amicus brief with the Supreme Court, making clear that Congress granted the Department of Homeland Security broad discretion in enforcing our country's immigration laws. What the President did was both lawful and it was necessary. He helped target limited enforcement resources. It is also what every other President since Eisenhower has done, including Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Instead of litigating the President's lawful actions, Republicans should work to fix the immigration system in Congress. By working with Democrats to pass immigration reform, they would render the President's Executive actions unnecessary. I hope the Supreme Court decides in the administration's favor. I think they will, even though the Court is short a member. I hope these Executive orders are implemented to bring hard-working families out of the shadows, but our Nation would be far better off with a permanent solution. Our Nation would be far better off with a bipartisan, comprehensive overhaul of our Nation's immigration laws. My friend the assistant minority leader has been at the forefront of these immigration issues. The DREAM Act is something he put forward 15 years ago. I admire the work he has done on this. I think he has kept this issue alive, when a lot of Republicans wanted it to go away. He has been helpful to the people of Nevada--people who don't know his name and will never ever see him, but we have 12,000 DREAMers whose lives have been changed forever, and we hope the same will happen to their parents. Mr. President, would the Chair announce the business of the day.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Senate Republicans are making history but for all the wrong reasons. The Republicans' obstruction of President Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, is the first of its kind in Senate history. Never before has the Senate categorically refused to consider a Supreme Court nominee solely because the vacancy occurred during an election year. As each day passes, the Republicans set some new mark for gridlock. For example, in the post-World War II era, the average time between a Supreme Court nomination and the nominee's first hearing was 29 days. Today is the 33rd day since Merrick Garland's name was put forward by President Obama. Already we are 5 days past the average. The longest a nominee has been forced to wait for a hearing was 82 days. That was President Eisenhower's nominee, Potter Stewart, who was confirmed at a later time. Republicans vow every day that there will be no hearing. So they are well on their way to eclipsing the 82-day mark. While that achievement may earn the Republicans a slap on the back from the Koch brothers and Senator McConnell--who, by the way, is the proud ``guardian of gridlock,'' as he says--Americans take no pleasure in this record-setting obstruction. Instead, Americans want Republicans in the Senate to do their job and give Merrick Garland a hearing.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I agree with the Republican leader that the energy bill is a good bill. As I said yesterday, it is just 3 years behind time. We have tried many times to move forward on it, but filibusters took place by the Republicans, and we were unable to get it done. He is right that Senator Cantwell and Senator Murkowski never gave up and they worked through lots of problems. I wish we could have taken care of Flint in the process. That held things up for a little while but not long, and we are still looking at ways to take care of the people of Flint who have been really damaged by bad government. So we are glad that Flint will come up in the near future, and we think we have ways of getting that done. Maybe we will see it in the appropriations bills that we are doing. Energy is good, and I am glad we got it done. Now, we have allowed this to move forward. We have not been blocking the bill. We agreed, even though the bill is long overdue, and we are not going to treat people the way we were treated. So we are glad that is done. On the FAA bill, I am glad we are going to get something done. As we know, we missed an opportunity to take care of a lot of people who are desperate for help. People in the State of Nevada--geothermal--they need help. Fuel cells, biomass, and other energy initiatives were left out. By inadvertence in the drafting of the bill, they were left out. The Republican leader said he will take care of that, and I am confident that he will. It is a longer wait for people, and it makes it difficult for people to hang on to their businesses. I know that his job is hard. He has told me and he has told Leader Pelosi that he will get this done this year. So we are looking forward to that. Passing a Budget Resolution and Filling the Supreme Court Vacancy Mr. President, tomorrow is April 15. Under the Congressional Budget Act, that is the day by which Congress is supposed to have completed a budget resolution. This Republican Congress will not meet tomorrow's deadline. We have known that for some time. By all indications, they have no intention of doing anything to pass a budget resolution any time soon. As the Republican leader told reporters earlier this week, in the absence of a budget resolution, Republicans will simply use the top- line spending numbers that we agreed upon last year. Here is what he said: We're waiting to see if the House is able to do a budget. In the meantime I've already announced, and I'll announce again today that we're going to move to appropriations next week, probably starting with energy and water, and we'll mark these bills to the top line that we agreed to in the agreement last year. As we know, just a minute ago, he filed cloture on the energy and water bill. If this statement he made sounds familiar, it should, because that is what we did when we were in the majority. We used the top line numbers in the Murray-Ryan budget agreement as a basis for spending bills. Republicans will begin that same process today as the appropriations process gets under way with the first full committee markup of the year. But how did Republicans react when we did the same thing? They were falling all over themselves--speech after speech--to criticize us. They had charts and graphs and anything to focus on there being no budget. They came out endlessly to taunt us with over-the-top rhetoric. They shed crocodile tears by the bucket. They even threatened to withhold Members' pay as punishment. There was legislation produced to that effect, but it was all for show. Republicans promised voters that, once in power, they would pass a budget each and every year. That is what the Republican leader promised in 2012, saying: I don't think the law says, ``Pass a budget unless it's hard,'' so I think there's no question that we would take up our responsibility. . . . We will be passing a budget. . . . Every year. That was the Republican pledge: Give us the majority, and we will pass a budget every year. Well, it is pretty clear that they are going to break that promise. This is just the latest example of the Republicans refusing to meet their commitments--refusing to do their jobs--even according to their own terms. It is just like the refusal to consider Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland. We have years and years' worth of statements from the Republican leader and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee in which they said unequivocally that it is the Senate's duty to consider the President's Supreme Court nominees. I have read their quotes on this floor endlessly. These statements go back decades. The Republican leader wrote papers in law school demanding the Senate give Supreme Court nominees all due consideration. Well, all due consideration is not refusing to meet with a man, not holding hearings, and not allowing a vote. But now that he, the Republican leader, is in a position to do something about that article he wrote in law school and the other statements that have been made by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, he won't give Merrick Garland a hearing or a vote. He won't even meet with him, even though the chairman of the Judiciary Committee met with him in secret, not in his office but in the private dining room downstairs, and then went out the back door, described as stumbling over chairs to vacate the premises. So, basically, what I ask is this: Where are all the Republican Senators who came to the floor to bash Democrats for the lack of a budget resolution? They have gone silent. I am just asking: When are the Republicans going to do their job? Mr. President, I see no one on the floor wishing to speak, so I ask the Chair to announce the business of the day. Reservation Of Leader Time

Mr. REID

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

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, throughout his career in the Senate, the senior Senator from Iowa has styled himself as an advocate for transparency in government. A number of years ago he said: I believe in the principle of open government. Lack of transparency in the public policy process leads to cynicism and distrust of public officials. . . . As a matter of principle, the American people need to be made aware of any action that prevents a matter from being considered by their elected Senators. He reiterated his beliefs just a few days ago here in this Chamber, and here is what he said last week: The principle of government transparency is one that does not expire. . . . Open government is good government. And Americans have a right to a government that is accountable to its people. So Senator Grassley's commitment to transparency is as shallow as the shallowest puddle you could find. All it took was one phone call, obviously, from the Republican leader for Senator Grassley to abandon any pretense of transparency and shut the American people out of the Supreme Court nomination process--shut them out. This is the same Senator who once said, ``As a matter of principle, the American people need to be made aware of any action that prevents a matter from being considered by their elected Senators.'' Nothing that Senator Grassley has done with respect to the Supreme Court vacancy meets his own standard for transparency. There was no transparency when the Judiciary Committee chairman and his Republican committee members shut Democrats out and met with the Republican leader behind closed doors. There was no transparency when he twisted the arms of his own committee members to sign a loyalty oath, again behind closed doors. There was no transparency when he sought to move a public committee meeting behind closed doors just to avoid talking about the Supreme Court nomination. And there was certainly no transparency on Tuesday--yesterday--when at 8 o'clock in the morning he met downstairs with Judge Merrick Garland in the private Senate Dining Room moments before slipping out the back door to avoid reporters. This is how CNN reported it: ``The Iowa Senator left the high-profile but out-of-sight meeting via a backdoor that leads to his private `hideaway.' '' One television station in Iowa put it this way: ``Grassley evaded reporters.'' This is the same Senator who once supported cameras in Federal courtrooms, including the Supreme Court. Why? To increase transparency, so he said. But Senator Grassley only wants transparency to apply to others, I guess not to himself. When it comes to transparency, his attitude is strictly: ``Do as I say, not as I do.'' He won't even apply a degree of that same openness as he blocks a nominee to the highest Court in the land. There will be no transparency if Senator Grassley fails to call an open hearing where Chief Justice Garland can present himself to the American people. I have had people ask me: Why wouldn't there be a hearing? Well, it is obvious. They are all afraid. The chairman of the Judiciary Committee is afraid that this good man, if the American people see him, will understand why he is a nomination that couldn't be better. They are afraid to allow this man to be seen by the American public. Talking about transparency, there won't be any if the Republican Senators aren't going to be able to even have a vote on the nomination. All of this that has been going on is not like the Senator Grassley who I have served with for more than three decades. By carrying out the present leader's failed strategy to undermine this Court, the Senator from Iowa is undermining years of his own hard work in pushing for more open government. All that he has done talking about transparency is gone. Senator Grassley should take his own medicine and stop retreating behind closed doors with private conversations that shut the American people out of the important confirmation process. If the senior Senator from Iowa truly believes in transparency, he should simply do his job and give Merrick Garland a hearing and a vote. Mr. President, there appears to be no one seeking the floor. Will the Presiding Officer announce the business of the day.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, no matter what work or occupation one has, it is always good to have a diversion away from their duties of the day. I am very careful about never speaking for the Republican leader, but I will make an exception today and talk a little bit about my friend the Republican leader. We both find a diversion during baseball season. We can leave here-- it really doesn't matter what time; usually the games are at night--and we can watch the Nationals play baseball. The Republican leader and I have talked about this often--how much we enjoy the games--and we have enjoyed the games much more since this young man from Las Vegas, Bryce Harper, is on the baseball team, the Washington Nationals. He comes from a great family, a working family. His father was an ironworker. They are a close family. Prior to the Nationals even having a team here--I have been here a long time--I followed the Orioles, and just as a side note, I should mention how happy I am for Peter Angelos, the owner, that fine man, that his team is doing so well this year. They are 7 and 0. So Senator McConnell and I enjoy baseball season. It gives us an opportunity to focus on things other than what is going on in the Senate.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I join with the Republican leader today in honoring Christine Catucci on the occasion, which has already been mentioned, of her 40th anniversary of working for the U.S. Senate. In any given year, about 2\1/2\ million people visit this beautiful building. Bill Dauster, who is here with me and is with me virtually every day, every place I go, was just commenting before the prayer was given how fortunate we are to work in this magnificent building. And as the Republican leader mentioned in his comments about Ms. Catucci, people become starry-eyed looking at this building. We are here all the time, and we may not appreciate it as much as we should every day. It is a beautiful building. For those of us who are fortunate enough to venture over to the place where she works--down on the first floor is where she spends most of her day, and that is where most of the people come into that floor--you will see a great smile. That smile belongs to her. I first saw that smile many years ago. We had a Senate retreat. She was there to help staff us, and she played a vital role in making sure the retreat worked well. I have always remembered her from that one experience. She does have a disarming smile, for which we should all be grateful. I know I am. She has been here for 40 years. The only person who has been here as a Senator longer than Christine is Pat Leahy from Vermont. She has seniority over everybody except Senator Leahy. Her career began in the last year of Gerald Ford's Presidency. She worked as a tour guide, chaperoning people through the Capitol and giving people explanations as to what they were looking at at the time. In 1980 she moved to the Office of the Doorkeeper of the Senate and moved through a number of positions there for 11 years. In 1991, she arrived at the Senate Appointment Desk, where she has worked for the last 25 years. She is the director, overseeing a staff of nine. Over the years, she has developed a close relationship with Senators and staff, and she can recount with pleasure the times that Senator Robert Byrd--the legendary Robert Byrd from West Virginia--would invite her and some of her coworkers to have lunch with him in his Capitol office. He didn't eat much, if anything, but he talked all the time, telling stories. I was the recipient of a number of the stories of the late, great Senator Byrd. The Senate is her family, literally. Her father was a Senate doorkeeper from 1967 to 1977. Her daughter Nichole works in the cloakroom right behind us. That is three generations of Senate staffers. It was Nichole who summed up everything great about her mother for me when she said: ``My mom raised me all by herself and did an amazing job as a single mom while working full-time.'' So this is Christine Catucci. It is her work ethic and caring dedication that she has brought to the Senate every day for the last 40 years--four decades. Thank you very much for being a part of our Senate family.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am very happy we are at this point. This legislation has taken 3 years. It has been hard to get to where we are today. We can go back to a lot of hurdles that we have had to jump to get to where we are now, and we can affix blame to a lot of different people, but there is no need to do that today. We are where we are, and we should accept that with glee. I am gratified we are able to reach this agreement, and that is an understatement. It is an important piece of legislation. Is it perfect? Of course not. But nothing we do legislatively is. We are trying to work things out through compromise. This is a good opportunity for us to show we can do that. We have tried to move this legislation for 3 years, and I really appreciate the patience of Jeanne Shaheen from New Hampshire. She has worked on this and has been so disappointed so many times. I hope she feels as good as the rest of us. I also want to thank the ranking member of the Energy Committee. She has had other responsibilities before, but those of us who have worked with Senator Cantwell know how persistent she can be. She is tireless in advocating for what she thinks is appropriate. So I appreciate what she has done in the last few days to get us to this point. I am grateful that we are done with this and that we are going to finish this bill. We will have to work it out timewise. It will not be the easiest thing, but we should be able to do that. We have other things we need to do. We have an appropriations bill coming up. We are going to finish with the FAA, I hope, pretty soon. I hope nobody is going to be demanding a lot of postcloture time on that. So I would hope, Mr. President, we can use this as a pattern for what we can do in the future to get things done for the American people.

Mr. REID

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

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