Harry Reid

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the 80th anniversary of the Culinary Workers Union Local 226. Since it was founded in 1935, the Culinary Workers Union Local 226 has successfully advocated on behalf of thousands of hospitality workers throughout Nevada. These workers include the housekeepers, kitchen staff, cooks, and food and beverage servers who play an indispensable role in our local and national economy. Along with local partners, the culinary union has effectively represented workers by advocating for competitive wages, affordable health insurance coverage, and enhanced working conditions. The culinary union is vital in the effort to provide real opportunities for working-class individuals and families. Over the past eight decades, workplace environments across the United States have been transformed to meet our country's changing needs. Throughout these changes, the culinary union has always been on the frontlines to ensure that workers continue to receive fair treatment and the benefits they have earned. In particular, the culinary union successfully mobilized casino workers on many occasions to ensure that they received adequate health care coverage, improved contract terms, and pension benefits. The organization has also had a positive impact on its members through the establishment of local services, such as the culinary health fund and the culinary pharmacy. The culinary health fund is a health plan that provides benefits to more than 130,000 participants, ensuring that union members and their families have access to essential health care services that keep them healthy. Additionally, in 2001, the culinary union launched a citizen project, which provides assistance for individuals and families navigating the citizenship process. I applaud the Culinary Workers Union Local 226 for their dedicated work and commitment to improving the lives of Nevadans. Their work is truly appreciated and admired, and I wish the organization continued success for years to come.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, yesterday the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Fisher v. University of Texas. In that case the plaintiff was challenging the affirmative action program the University of Texas has. During those oral arguments, conservative Justice Scalia asked whether affirmative action harms minority students by placing them in environments that are too academically challenging for them. Justice Scalia said the following about African-American students: ``There are those who contend that it does not benefit African Americans to get them into the University of Texas where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less advanced school, a slower-track school where they do well.'' Justice Scalia further argued that African-American students ``come from lesser schools where they do not feel that they're . . . being pushed ahead in . . . classes that are too . . . fast for them'' and that the University of Texas should not take really qualified African- American students because that means ``the number of . . . really competent blacks admitted to lesser schools turns out to be less.'' But that wasn't enough. This is what else he said: ``I don't think it stands to reason that it's a good thing for the University of Texas to admit as many blacks as possible.'' It is stunning that a man of his intellect--and I have always acknowledged his intellect, but these ideas that he pronounced yesterday are racist in application if not intent. I don't know about his intent, but it is deeply disturbing to hear a Supreme Court Justice endorse racist ideas from the bench of the Nation's highest Court. His endorsement of racist theories has frightening ramifications, not the least of which is to undermine the academic achievements of Americans, African Americans especially. Earlier this week I spoke about the Republican platform, which has a lot of hate in it. As we speak, Donald Trump is proposing to ban Muslim immigration. Other leading candidates are proposing religious tests, tossing around slurs on a daily basis. The top two Republican leaders in the United States have said they will support Donald Trump if he is nominated. And now a Republican- appointed Justice is endorsing racist ideas from the Supreme Court bench. The only difference between the ideas endorsed by Trump and Scalia is that Scalia has a robe and a lifetime appointment. Ideas such as these don't belong on the Internet, let alone the mouths of the Nation's leaders. The idea that African-American students are somehow inherently intellectually inferior to other students is despicable. It is a throwback to a time that America left behind half a century ago. The idea that we should be pushing well-qualified African-American students out of the top universities into lesser schools is unacceptable. That Justice Scalia could raise such an uninformed idea shows just how out of touch he is with the values of this Nation. It goes without saying that an African-American student has the same potential to succeed in an academically challenging environment as any other student. I firmly continue to believe the United States of America is the greatest Nation in the world because of our ability to embrace men and women of diverse backgrounds and provide them with the opportunity to succeed. Colleges and universities that welcome diversity provide their students with an opportunity many in the world can never hope to obtain. Learning with people from different backgrounds spurs creativity and innovation. Research has shown that increased racial diversity on campuses produces higher levels of academic achievement for all students, and Fortune 500 companies agree that embracing diversity is good for the bottom line. The Supreme Court previously has acknowledged that diversity provides a substantial and compelling contribution to our educational system. Yet Justice Scalia's comments paint a picture of two disturbing realities. Despite the progress our Nation has made on diversity and inclusion, there is still much work to do to ensure we are giving every American a fair shot regardless of race, ethnicity, or religion. As a nation, we still have the responsibility to direct adequate resources to our educational system to prepare all students for higher education. Generations of discrimination and legally sanctioned inequality have produced racial disparities in our educational system--sad but true. These disparities must be addressed by embracing diversity in our schools, workplaces, markets, and neighborhoods while investing in adequate resources for all students, from pre-K to higher education. Our Nation was founded on the values of liberty, justice, and equality. Justice Scalia's distressing comments are a reminder that we must remain vigilant to safeguard opportunity for all Americans. Embracing diversity is not only the right thing to do, it is the American way. Lyndon Johnson said: It is not enough just to open the gates of opportunity. All our citizens must have the ability to walk through those gates. It is our responsibility as a nation to open the gates of opportunity for all Americans, in spite of what Justice Scalia said yesterday. Mr. President, has the Chair announced the business of the day?

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

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, today we are taking a long, overdue step in moving beyond the Bush No Child Left Behind law. The Every Student Succeeds Act will reduce the focus on testing while still ensuring that all students are making progress. This reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act also includes new investments for early childhood education--a priority for Democrats. The senior Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray, and the chairman of the HELP Committee, Senator Alexander, did good work in getting this bill passed. But while we pat ourselves on the back for passing this legislation, we shouldn't forget that we could have done this a long time ago. It was not long after the bill passed that we knew it was full of flaws, and we tried valiantly to change it for a number of years. Why didn't we change it? Because there were Republican filibusters. We couldn't bring the bill to the floor. In fact, nearly every major bipartisan bill we passed this year could have become law in years past if Republicans had not blocked them, obstructed them, and filibustered them. What are we talking about? We are talking about the bill we are going to vote on at 10:45 a.m., the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and the so-called doc fix. My friend referred to that, the SGR. For years, because of something the Bush administration had done to fix it on paper to make the budget look good, we could not get past that. It was terrible for Medicare patients and very bad for Medicare physicians. We tried to change it not once, not twice, not three times, but numerous times. Every time we couldn't do it because of Republican obstructionism. We passed the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act. Why didn't we do it earlier? Because the Republicans filibustered it, blocked it, and obstructed it. The Department of Homeland Security funding that nearly shut down the government--we tried to do it earlier. We couldn't because of obstruction by Republicans. The Suicide Prevention for American Veterans Act, also called the Clay Hunt Suicide Prevention for American Veterans Act--why didn't we do that earlier? Because they wouldn't let us. They filibustered it, they blocked it. For the Shaheen-Portman energy efficiency bill it was the same thing; the USA FREEDOM Act, the same thing. As to cyber security legislation, my friend comes and boasts about all the good things done, and it includes cyber security. It takes a lot of gall to come here and boast about that. It was filibustered time and again by the Republicans. My friend also talks about how great the Senate is operating. When he signed up for this job, he said that, as Republicans, they would take all bills through the committee of jurisdiction--absolute falsehood. They have not done that. What am I talking about? Well, S. 534, the Immigration Rule of Law Act of 2015, went directly to the floor. DHS, Department of Homeland Security appropriations, directly bypassed the committee. For the Keystone Pipeline it was the same thing; Iran nuclear agreement, same thing; vehicle for the Trade Act, same thing; Trade Preferences Extension Act, same thing. H.R. 644, Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act, same thing, went directly to the floor and skipped the committee. Patriot Act extension, same thing--it skipped the committee. Highway bill, same thing--it skipped the committee. Defund Planned Parenthood skipped the committee and came right here. The vehicle for the Iran bill skipped the committee and came directly to the floor. The pain-capable bill, same thing--it skipped the committee and came here. And there are many other instances. The bills I have talked about, with some exception, were good bills in the last Congress, and they were good bills this Congress. The only difference between then and now is that Republicans no longer blocked them. I am not amused. I know that some may think this is amusing, but it is not. It is too serious. When my Republican colleagues take victory laps on legislation they filibustered last Congress, that is not a laughing matter. I say to my Republican friends: You get no credit for passing legislation now that Republicans blocked then. It doesn't work that way. We have not obstructed; we have been constructive. If Republicans are intent on claiming credit for moving forward bills they have blocked in the past, I hope they will change course this coming year and finally start to do something for the middle class. Where have we done anything for the middle class during the first year of this Congress? I don't see a place. We are halfway through the 114th Congress, and I have seen little hope that they are planning on doing anything in the next few months. Let's see what happens next year. This Congress so far has been a failure for middle-class Americans. We can change that next year. We can do something about the minimum wage that has been filibustered numerous times by the Republicans. Increasing the minimum wage is good for American workers, businesses, and the economy. Under Senator Murray's proposal, 38 million Americans stand to benefit from an increase in the minimum wage. In Nevada, almost 400,000 workers will get a raise. That is almost one-third of our State's workforce. Next year we can finally address unfair wage disparity that takes money out of American women's paychecks. On average, women make about 77 cents for every dollar their male colleague makes for doing the same work. For women of color, the disparity is even worse. African-American women make 64 cents for every dollar their male colleagues make for doing the same work. Latino women make 53 cents for every dollar doing the same work that a man does. That is really unconscionable. I encourage the Republican leader to take up Senator Mikulski's Paycheck Fairness Act, which would help close the wage-gap disparity for American women. Next year we could pass legislation to ease the burden of student loans, which are so costly. Americans now owe more than $1 trillion in student loan debt. Student loans are the second largest source of personal debt in the United States--even more than credit cards or auto loans. I hope Republicans will work with us to do something about this next year. Americans with student loans need the help. These are just a few of the important matters I urge Republicans to undertake in the coming year. There are many things we can do to help the middle class. So instead of telling us how the Senate is working, why not work with Democrats? Instead of telling us how productive this year has been in spite of all the empirical data that proves otherwise, why not make this coming year productive for America's working families? If we do that, then we can honestly tell the American people that the Senate is working again--not obstructing--because they would be working with us. We have worked with Republicans to pass legislation outlined by the Republican leader and previously filibustered by them.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, Donald Trump is standing on the platform of hate--I am sorry to say hate that the Republican Party has built for him. It was just last week that I came to the floor of the Senate and said the Republican Party is running on a platform of hate. Yesterday Donald Trump provided the strongest evidence yet that it is true. Trump's proposal to bar Muslims from entering this country is hateful, despicable, and really vile. We are a country founded on religious liberty, not a country that imposes religious tests. Trump's statement is a slap in the face to the millions of peace-loving Muslims living here and to those who want to travel and live here. We welcome them all, and to them I say: Donald Trump is not America. Sadly, however, Donald Trump has become the Republican Party, because it is just not him--many of the leading candidates for the Republican nomination have said the same hateful things, especially about Muslims. Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz proposed religious tests for refugees. You can't condemn Trump when you want to impose a religious test on women and children fleeing death and persecution. Ben Carson has called Muslims ``rabid dogs.'' Chris Christie said they should be tracked. Today, Donald Trump offered the only true statement he has made for some time, referring to some of his fellow Republicans, those running against him for President. He said: They have been condemning almost everything I say and then they come to my side. That is disturbing, but it is true. Republican candidates condemn Trump's remarks and then adopt his racist policies as their own. We shouldn't try to fool ourselves: This sort of racism has been prevalent in Republican politics for decades. Trump is just saying out loud what other Republicans merely suggest. Political leaders must condemn these hateful, un-American statements with their words and their actions. Silence only empowers bigots.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, as the year draws to an end, Republicans are doing high fives and celebrating as if they hit a home run when they haven't even singled. Republicans are seeing a distorted image of reality. All their talk of productivity and progress overlooks many facts and ignores their constitutional duty to provide advice and consent on President Obama's nominations--any President's nominations. Republicans are balking at fulfilling their constitutional role. The job of Congress is to pass laws and to confirm nominations. By that measure, this Congress has been the least productive ever. The total number of bills passed and nominations confirmed this Congress is lower than any Congress in decades. This Republican majority has confirmed fewer nominations than any Congress in decades. Because of Republicans' obstruction, qualified nominees are prevented from serving the American people. Yesterday the Senate skipped over the confirmation of Judge Luis Felipe Restrepo and confirmed just the 11th judge this session. There are 18 more judicial emergencies than when the Republicans took control of the Senate. What is a judicial emergency? It means they have more work than the judge can do. Instead of making progress in judicial backlogs across the Nation, we are falling even further behind and creating more emergencies. One of those judicial emergencies is Judge Restrepo. He is a talented Federal district judge from the State of Pennsylvania, and he is a talented Latino nominated for the Third Circuit. The junior Senator from Pennsylvania--who is responsible for delaying this good man for more than 6 months in the committee--finally engaged on the nomination. On Monday the junior Senator said: I am sending a letter to Senator McConnell requesting a vote on his confirmation. I don't know why he couldn't say to the Republican leader: Will you bring this up for a vote? Why the letter? Where has Senator Toomey been since July when this nomination was first reported out of the committee 5 months ago? Why has this nomination been pending for more than a year? I wonder if it is because election time is here. Senate Democrats have waited months to confirm this good man. He should be confirmed now, today. Sadly, though, Republicans are blocking every Latino judicial nominee currently being considered. Here is a partial list: Judge Restrepo--I already talked about him; Armando Bonilla, who is the first Latino ever nominated to the Court of Federal Claims; John Michael Vazquez, nominated to the District of New Jersey; Dax Eric Lopez, nominated to the Northern District of Georgia, who would make history as the first Hispanic appointed Federal judge in that State. Georgia has a large number of Hispanics in that State. Because of this obstruction, last night the Senate skipped over Judge Restrepo--I mentioned that earlier--leaving another judicial emergency. Instead, the Senate confirmed Travis Randall McDonough as district judge for the Eastern District of Tennessee. After confirming Judge McDonough, 19 judicial nominees remain on the Executive Calendar who were all voted out of committee unanimously. Yesterday's confirmation marks only the 11th judicial confirmation this entire Congress. At this point in 2007, Democrats worked with President Bush to confirm 36 judicial nominees--11 compared to 36. It is obvious why they are doing it; they hope Donald Trump will be elected President and Hillary Clinton will not be. Yesterday's confirmation marks the 11th judicial confirmation of this Congress. If the Republican Senate keeps up this pace, many of their recommendations--from Tennessee, Iowa, Georgia, and many other States-- are at risk of not being confirmed. These are Republican selections. The American people are paying the price. Since the Republicans took control of the Senate, the number of judicial emergencies around the country has more than doubled. During this session of Congress, we have only confirmed one circuit judge. Because of the Republicans slow-walking, the Senate is currently on pace to confirm the lowest number of judges in a comparable session in half a century. As William Gladstone said, ``Justice delayed is justice denied.'' That is true. More than 30,000 people across the country have been waiting for more than 3 years for a resolution to their court case. Judge Lawrence O'Neill, who was nominated by President George W. Bush to the Eastern District of California, is fed up with the staggering delays in his court. Here is what he said: Over the years I've received several letters from people indicating, ``Even if I win this case now, my business has failed because of the delay. How is this justice?'' And the simple answer, which I cannot give them, is this: It is not justice. We know it. The judge is right. What is happening with our judiciary is damaging our country and the litigants depending on a way to get to court to go to trial. The Republican leader has the power to alter the destructive path Senate Republicans have charted. Before we leave for the holidays, the Senate should act to schedule votes on the dozens of judges who have been denied a vote. Where we have the judicial emergencies, the criminal cases are allowed to go forward but not the civil cases, involving people's businesses. They can't have their day in court. There are too few judges who have to take care of all of the criminal cases first. The civil cases wait--damaging to our economy and certainly damaging to people's lives. Thousands of Americans waiting for years deserve their day in court without further delay by Republicans, which is outrageous. Mr. President, I see no one on the floor. Will the Presiding Officer announce to the Senate the work of the day.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Is the time divided equally on quorums?

Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that during all quorum calls this morning, the time be equally divided between the two sides.

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

Mr. REID

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

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have heard reports that the Speaker has announced that Congress will be in session next week. I don't know if that is valid. I haven't heard from him myself, but the December 11 deadline was a deadline that the Republicans set and we didn't. If the Congress fails to finish our business by December 11, it will be because Republicans continue to insist on extraneous poison pill riders in the government funding bill. These are Republican riders, Republican earmarks, and as long as they are there, there can be no legislation. Without legislation, the government shuts down again--as it did a couple of years ago--because of Republicans.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, last night, President Obama spoke in stark terms about the threat terrorism poses to the United States. He detailed the extraordinary efforts our government is taking to protect Americans. He also outlined a strong plan for continuing to combat terrorism at home and abroad. President Obama is right to say the first thing Congress should do is close the loophole that lets the FBI terror suspects buy assault weapons such as those used in the San Bernardino shooting. Senate Democrats support President Obama's plan to fight ISIS and protect America. President Obama has made it clear that Democrats do not believe we should put thousands of troops on the ground in the middle of another civil war in the Middle East. But we do support the President's strategy of continuing to go after ISIS in the air with our coalition partners, targeting their leadership, oil infrastructure, and heavy weapons. We know that it must be the local forces on the ground that ultimately fight for and hold their ground because it is their land. Senate Democrats understand that the Syrian war will only be resolved diplomatically, with all parties supporting the removal of Assad. We also know that we can do more to address the threats from terrorists. That is why beginning today Senate Democrats will unveil a series of proposals to take the fight to ISIS while enhancing our protection of Americans at home. There are a few important steps we must take in order to combat ISIS's terrorism. The Democratic plan would create a new ISIS czar, one person who is fully empowered and unifies the Federal Government's efforts in fighting ISIS. We did it with Ebola. We certainly can do it with this scourge that is facing our country, ISIS. I am pleased that President Obama has taken a first step in that direction. To continue targeted airstrikes on ISIS strongholds and oil supplies and to increase support for anti-ISIS local fighters on the ground are part of the plan. We must also cut off ISIS money through new sanctions. ISIS runs its reign of terror in Iraq and Syria through extortion, oil sales, and theft. Senate Democrats' legislation imposes new sanctions--and they are tough--including a cutoff from the U.S. and international financial systems if people knowingly facilitate financial transactions with ISIS. One of the things that would help is that we have a person who has been waiting for hundreds of days to be confirmed. What is his job? He works in the Treasury Department with the State Department to stop financing of terrorism. The Republicans--for reasons totally not understood by anyone--are blocking voting on this person. The job is vacant. We also believe that we should improve intelligence training between the United States and our allies in the fight against ISIS. Some of that has started, of course. We believe we must screen and support migrants in Europe and the Middle East. Europe is facing an unprecedented number of migrants landing on their shores, almost 1 million this year. Their screening systems have been overwhelmed by the large number of migrants. Our bill would respond to Europeans' request to provide them with technical assistance to screen migrants and improve their own border security and our security as well. In the Middle East, the Democrats' plan will help Jordan, a strong U.S. ally at the forefront of the migrant crisis. Four million people are displaced in the region, creating instability in Jordan, our ally, and also harming the neighboring countries. Democrats' legislation includes a new stabilization fund for Jordan and Lebanon, helping those fleeing the conflict in Syria stay in the region, closer to home. These are just a few of the components of our plan to degrade and destroy ISIS, but we are equally committed to thwarting terrorism here at home. The Democratic plan would close the terrorist's gun loophole. As of today, there is a legal loophole that prevents law enforcement from verifying that potential gun buyers are not FBI terror suspects. That means if a person has pledged allegiance to ISIS online and is barred from flying due to the threat they pose, that man or woman can still walk into any gunshop and purchase weapons and ammunition. They can do that today, right now. That is wrong. Last Thursday Democrats tried to pass legislation to give law enforcement the tools needed to prevent the sale of guns to suspected terrorists. Republicans blocked our commonsense measure. We are not finished. We will bring this vote to the floor as often as we can. That is the way it should be. We need to strengthen the Visa Waiver Program. It was amazing to see the Republicans running for President waffle and weasel out of why someone who is on a flight-risk status, someone who cannot fly, should be able to buy a gun. It was interesting to see on the Sunday shows the Republicans waffle and weasel through answers on this subject. We need to strengthen the Visa Waiver Program so ISIS fighters cannot access the program and travel to our country. This includes requiring visa waiver travelers to use machine-readable passports, requiring information sharing rules with visa waiver countries and requiring visa waiver countries to enter into agreements regarding the air marshal program and to comply with U.S. aviation and airport security standards. We must improve aviation security. We must work to secure our airports. We saw all the news when ISIS brought down a Russian plane with hundreds of passengers aboard. A recent report from the Homeland Security inspector general found that 73 workers with access to secure areas in airports had links to terrorism--stunning. Our legislation authorizes new vetting for aviation workers and new security measures for the most important areas of our airports. We must lock down radiological materials to stop a dirty bomb. With both ISIS and Al Qaeda saying they want to get their hands on weapons of mass destruction, it is disturbing that there are 2,300 sites around the United States with radiological material. Our legislation requires a new plan for locking down those materials at the places where they are held, such as universities and hospitals, so we can reduce the threat of a dirty bomb. Our legislation is concerned--and we are going to do everything we can--with preventing homegrown terrorists by creating an office within the Department of Homeland Security tasked with countering extremism. We must address encryption by directing the National Academy of Sciences, the intelligence community, and the private sector to work together to identify new encryption technology and how it is used to make sure that our national security needs and technology policies are not working at cross purposes. Finally, Senate Democrats are proposing legislation to provide law enforcement agencies with grant money to help prepare for active shooter situations. We know how critical first responders are to containing and ending active shooter attacks. So we should ensure they have all the tools necessary. This is the plan that we, Senate Democrats, are putting forward. It is comprehensive. It addresses international and domestic concerns. The consequences of inaction are too grave for us to waste time seeking political gain. The security of our Nation and the decimation of ISIS depend on the steps we take now. So I hope Republicans will join us to implement these logical reforms that place the security of Americans first and address the threat of ISIS around the world. Mr. President, I see no one on the floor wishing to speak. Would the Chair announce the program for the day.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I appreciate very much the direction we are going, but I would hope that we would have, really, 10-minute votes. One way to enforce that is to have people miss a couple of these votes, OK? Because people come strolling in thinking they are going to be protected, so I would hope it would be 10-minute votes.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I could interrupt and apologize for that, I ask unanimous consent that the time in quorums called by the Chair be divided equally between the majority and minority.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have great respect for the senior Senator from Texas, a former member of the Texas Supreme Court. How he could make an argument like this is beyond my ability to comprehend. This Republican amendment ties the hands of law enforcement. This amendment doesn't keep terrorists from getting guns. It simply delays their efforts for up to 72 hours. This amendment means that all a lawyer needs to do is gum up the works for a short time and an FBI terrorist suspect can walk away with a firearm--a legal firearm. That would be relatively easy to do. There are a lot of lawyers in this Chamber. Courts can't do virtually anything in 72 hours. How long does it take to shoot up a school, a mall, someone's home? Fifteen minutes? Five minutes? You could be on the terrorist watch list, go buy a gun, and let the time go by. This is outrageous that people would try to run from this amendment. If you are on a terrorist watch list, you shouldn't be able to buy a gun. This would allow a terrorist to not only buy a gun but keep it for up to 72 hours. The second aspect of this amendment is equally alarming. It takes money away from law enforcement. Here again, we are voting on something again and again. We already voted down this Vitter amendment, sanctuary cities bill, last month, which strips all local law enforcement from vital Federal community policing grants. I am using a little bit of my leader time right now. This strips local law enforcement from vital Federal community policing grants, targeted public safety and to build community trust. It cuts community development block grants, and the purpose of this is to ensure affordable housing and provide services to the most vulnerable in our communities. Very quickly, this amendment takes the FBI out of the equation when it comes to keeping guns away from terrorists, and it takes away from local law enforcement agencies, threatening public safety. Is it any wonder that this is an anti-law enforcement amendment? The legislation is opposed by the Fraternal Order of Police, Major Cities Chiefs Association, United States Conference of Mayors, and many others. This is a dangerous amendment. First of all, to use Senator Kennedy, let him be on the watch list. He is not going to go buy a gun and hurt anybody. These ridiculous assertions are just that-- ridiculous. We are trying to say if you are on a watch list as being a terrorist, you shouldn't be able to buy a gun. It is as simple as that. My friend the Senator from California will lay this out. She has been the leader on guns in this Chamber for two decades. Mr. CORNYN addressed the Chair.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, there is nothing unconstitutional about keeping a terrorist from buying a gun. That is what this is all about. Do we want people on a terrorist watch list to go buy a gun? The answer is no. That is what this amendment is all about. The Senator from California will explain it. I raise a point of order against this ridiculous amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. REID

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

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

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I hope all Members of Congress--Democrats and Republicans, Members of the House and Senate--take a long, hard look this morning, maybe in the mirror, and ask themselves: Where do I stand? Yet again our country is faced with another sickening act of gun violence. Yesterday's shooting rampage took the lives of 14 people and wounded at least 17 more, a number of those grievously injured. That wasn't the only shooting yesterday; a gunman in Georgia killed a woman and injured three others. So where do we stand? We have an epidemic of gun violence in America, and it is nothing less than sickening. Fort Hood, 13 dead; Tucson, 6 dead; Carson City, 4 dead; Aurora, 12 dead; Newtown, 20 little children, 6 educators; the Navy Yard in Washington, DC, 12 dead; Las Vegas, 3 dead, two of whom were police officers. And I have heard this talk: Oh, it is so unusual, a husband and wife. These three people killed in Las Vegas were killed by a husband-and-wife team. In Charleston, nine dead; Moneta, VA, two dead-- on live television, he came to kill two people. At Umpqua Community College, nine dead; Colorado Springs, three dead. That tragic list is nowhere close to being comprehensive. The one in Georgia yesterday--one dead, two wounded. It hardly made the press. But the ones I just mentioned are a few that we picked up earlier this morning in my office. It would be very difficult to list all the mass killings that have taken place in recent years. Why? Because we are 337 days into 2015 and we have had at least 355 mass shootings--355 mass shootings in 337 days. We are averaging more than one a day. Two months ago I came to the floor very sad. I was here mourning the murder of innocent community college students attending class in Roseburg, OR. I said then that each time our Nation endures one of these mass killings, we go through the same routine. First we are shocked. Then we ask questions about the killers, their motives, and how they got their hands on those guns. Then we wonder, what could we have done to prevent this terrible thing from happening? As I said, the disturbing part is that we don't do anything. We don't do anything. We, as the legislative body of this country, do nothing. So I have a question for every Member of this body: How can we live with ourselves for failing to do the things that we know will reduce gun violence? Will it get rid of all of it? Of course not. But will it reduce it? Yes. We are complicit through our inaction, and if we continue to fail to act, we will be complicit today and every day into the future. We will keep ending up right where we are, mourning innocent victims in San Bernardino, CA, or Charleston or Newtown. When victims turn to us for leadership and help, we will have nothing to show but empty hands and a few empty gestures. It is despicable. For far too long we have done nothing, even as the gun violence shakes our Nation to its core. We must do something. We can start by passing improved background check legislation. Is it asking too much that if someone is crazy or a criminal, they shouldn't be able to walk into any gun shop and buy a gun? Of course not. But that is the law in America. I know the thought of upsetting the National Rifle Association scares everybody--oh, especially my Republican colleagues. Do you know what scares the American people? Gun violence. These mass shootings at holiday parties frighten the American people. Is it unreasonable that they are frightened? Of course not. People are afraid to go to a movie theater or to a concert. The bill before the Senate today is to get rid of ObamaCare, and everybody knows it is just a gesture in futility. They have tried it 60 times or 48 times--I don't know; we lost track--in the House, and every time, the same answer: No. In the Senate, we have done it 14, 15 times--always the same answer. Einstein said the definition of ``insanity'' is when someone does the same thing over and over again knowing they are going to get the same result. So we are wasting our time today. Everyone knows the result. But we have the opportunity to cast a vote here today--or we will shortly--because we are focused on doing something. People on this side of the aisle are focused on doing something to stop this gun violence, and we are going to force amendments to that end today--not many but a few. We will try to do something, anything. Are we going to vote on expanded background checks? Shouldn't we do that at least? We are going to vote to prevent criminals convicted of harassing women's health clinics from buying a gun, owning a gun. Senators will have to decide where they stand on these amendments. Do they stand with babies who were killed in Connecticut, families who want to do nothing more than go about their day without the daily threat of shootings? My friends in Nevada, two police officers in uniform sitting down to have a lunch break, and two people walk in behind them and shoot them in the back of the head and kill them. They went over to Walmart and killed another person. People are afraid. There was a time in my legislative career that I tried to work with the National Rifle Association, but the NRA today is a far cry from the sportsmen's organization I once supported. The NRA once called mandatory background checks ``reasonable.'' That is what they said; I am not making this up. But now its leadership and organization have transformed into a quasi-militant wing of the Republican Party. They are being pushed more and more into the camp of guns for everybody anytime they want them, and they are being pushed by the--they have a competitor now: Gun Owners of America. Those who choose to do the NRA's bidding will be held accountable by our constituents. Their vote against these sensible measures will be a stain for all of the American people to see. Something has to be done. We must take a stand. The American people are desperately looking for help--some help, any help. It will never be possible to prevent every shooting. We know that. But we have a responsibility to try. There are certain things we can do. If someone is mentally deranged and a criminal, should they be able to walk in and buy a gun anyplace? Of course not. We have a responsibility as lawmakers to enact commonsense reforms that have been proven to stop attacks and save lives. I hope Republicans will find the courage to join with us and pass meaningful legislation to prevent further gun violence. I apologize for speaking before the Republican leader, but I was told he was going to be late.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, no matter how many times my friend--and we have served together in this body for a long, long time--comes here and talks about how wonderful this Senate is under Republican leadership, the facts aren't on his side. He talked about getting things done after years of inaction. The inaction was the result of Republican filibusters--recordbreaking filibusters. Bill after bill was blocked. Elementary and secondary education, cyber security, everything that he mentioned--everything, without exception--would have been done a long time ago except for Republican filibusters. To now come to the floor and claim: Isn't it wonderful we were able to get things done during this Congress, because we did not block things--no matter how many times he comes, we and the pundits have already said it is the most unproductive year in the Senate's history. We have had more revotes than at any time in the history of the country and less done than at any time in the country's history.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I wonder what my Republican friends do when they are not here in Washington, DC. Do they bother to talk to their constituents? Do they sit down and meet them at townhall meetings or across a fence in someone's backyard? I have a hard time believing my Republican friends are spending much time listening to constituents' concerns. I already talked about guns today. It seems to me what we are doing is counter to the needs of constituents. This absurd--absurd--attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act through reconciliation is a perfect example. Every day the Republican leader comes to the floor and rails against ObamaCare, yet more than 10 percent of his constituents are benefiting from the Affordable Care Act--500,000 people. I can't believe those people in Kentucky are telling the Republican leader to take away their health care. Now, he is not alone in pushing the repeal that would expressly hurt people back home. He and the junior Senator from Wyoming both oppose the Affordable Care Act and the law's expansion of Medicaid, but their own Republican Governor--the Governor of Wyoming--is using ObamaCare to expand health coverage for the people of Wyoming. Wyoming Governor Matt Mead is proposing a Medicaid expansion that will help 17,000 people. Now, 17,000 people in the sparsely populated State of Wyoming is a lot of people. Governor Mead wrote this to the State legislature: This economic boost would stabilize services and inject tax dollars paid by Wyoming citizens back into Wyoming communities. The numbers are compelling. But apparently those facts are not compelling enough for the Senators from Wyoming, who are both voting for repeal. The Republican Senator from North Dakota has also been a critic of the Affordable Care Act. Once again, his opposition does not jibe with what North Dakota's Governor is saying. North Dakota Governor Dennis Daugaard is fighting in the State legislature to expand Medicaid access to residents. He is a Republican and served for 10 years as John Hoeven's Lieutenant Governor, but Senator Hoeven will vote for repeal. The junior Senator from Montana is opposed to Medicaid expansion. Earlier in the month he seemed supportive of Montana's expansion of Medicaid saying: I respect the decision of our Legislature and our governor on Medicaid expansion. I'm one who respects their rights and voices. But today, I am told, he will perform a breathtaking about-face and vote to do away with Montana's health care. There is a longer list. Republicans from Ohio, West Virginia, and the State of Nevada have all embraced Medicaid expansion. In Nevada, Governor Brian Sandoval is considered by many to be a star in the Republican Party. But notwithstanding his party's anti-ObamaCare ideology, he displayed courage by expanding health coverage for tens of thousands of Nevadans. I hope my friend and fellow Senator from Nevada will follow our Governor's example and stand for our constituents' health care. Too few Republicans will. If ObamaCare is so awful, why are Republicans from Kentucky, Wyoming, North Dakota, and New Hampshire so eager to use it? It is simple: The Affordable Care Act expands coverage and cuts costs. It is good for the States. That is why Arizona expanded Medicaid. It is insuring hundreds of thousands of Arizonans, as we talk now. I was disappointed with my friend. We served together, we came to the House together, we came to the Senate together, and he is the senior Senator from Arizona. He made it clear that he will vote for repeal, in spite of all the people benefiting from ObamaCare back home. This is what John McCain said: ``Obviously the Governor and Legislature in my state decided that they wanted that program and so it is going to trouble me in the vote.'' The senior Senator from Arizona acknowledged that he is casting a vote in direct opposition to the needs of the people of Arizona. So if Republicans aren't listening to their constituents or State leaders, to whom are they listening? As always, the answer is corporations. Billion-dollar companies have no trouble getting congressional Republicans to do their bidding. Even as they try to snatch health coverage from 17 million Americans, Republicans are throwing money at corporations. That is what they plan to do with the money saved by repealing the Affordable Care Act. They will hand it over to corporations in the form of tax breaks. I have news for my own Republican friends: These multibillion-dollar companies don't need your help. They are doing just fine on their own. The American middle class needs help, but this Republican Congress is doing nothing to aid working families. Why are we here if we are not here to help people back home? When Republican Presidential candidate John Kasich--somebody whom I came to the House with in 1982--was asked earlier this year why he chose to expand Medicaid in the State of Ohio, he gave this remarkable answer: When you die and get to the meeting with St. Peter, he's probably not going to ask you much about what you did about keeping government small. But he is going to ask you what you did for the poor. You better have a good answer. That is from John Kasich. He is right. This is an opportunity to help unfortunate Americans who lack quality health insurance. I only wish Governor Kasich could convince the junior Senator from Ohio of that simple truth. I say to my Republican friends: Do the right thing; stop this nonsense about repeal of ObamaCare. Everyone knows this repeal of the Affordable Care Act is going nowhere. Instead of wasting everyone's time and instead of ignoring the wishes of the people back home, let's work together to improve health care coverage. There are a lot of things we can do by working together to improve health care coverage for Americans. Let's move beyond repeal and start making the Affordable Care Act work even better for the American people. Would the Chair announce the business of the Senate today.