Harry Reid

Mr. REID

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

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Madam President, today I want to address more directly the Republican leader's remarks that he gave yesterday regarding the Iran nuclear agreement. In short, no matter how Republicans misrepresent the Iran nuclear agreement, the agreement brought about the long-sought goal of preventing Iran from having a nuclear weapon. The agreement is nothing more, nothing less. It prevents Iran from having a nuclear weapon.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Madam President, as I mentioned yesterday morning, the Republican leader is right about a lot of what he talked about regarding the Military Construction-VA-HUD legislation, but the one thing he just glossed over is that as a result of our holding firm--we as a Democratic caucus holding firm--the veterans now have $2 billion more than they would have, had we followed the Republicans' lead--$2 billion more--allowing 70,000 veterans to be treated who wouldn't have been otherwise. So we are satisfied that this bill is a good bill, and it is a good bill because veterans are getting $2 billion more. There are other reasons, of course. I think the bipartisan support we got for the bill was important, but for our veterans, the most important part was $2 billion extra.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Madam President, the Fifth Circuit Court's decision yesterday was a political move that ignores past precedents on Executive action on immigration. The Republicans have spoken out against the President's action on what he has done on immigration. Why did he do it? Because he was trapped. He had to do it because the Republicans refused to legislate. And like every President before him, President Obama has a legal right to establish clear immigration enforcement priorities and allocate resources accordingly. But the attorney general of Texas and 25 other Republican Governors and attorneys general filed a lawsuit stating that the President had exceeded his authority. This decision affects millions of American families who are now subject to being torn apart, and as many as 5 million immigrants could be set for mass deportation. I expect the administration will swiftly appeal this decision to the Supreme Court and that the Court will find the actions lawful. It is sad that Republicans are wasting their time talking about mass deportation when they could be doing things to solve the problem, such as passing a bill that reforms our immigration system once and for all. The Republican Party has neglected the lessons of the 2012 elections and has plunged over a cliff following Donald Trump, Ben Carson, and the others. The Executive actions were neither a complete nor a permanent solution to the problems plaguing the immigration system, but they were a commonsense step in the face of inaction. As Judge Carolyn Dineen King stated in her dissent very clearly, ``a mistake has been made.'' So it is now up to the U.S. Supreme Court to correct this grave mistake--a mistake that sets not only a dangerous precedent but one that is bad for families, bad for our communities, and bad for the future prosperity of our country. Again, as Judge King said, ``a mistake has been made.''

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Madam President, later today the Republican leader and I will host Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, as we have done on many other occasions. It is always a pleasure to meet with Prime Minister Netanyahu and reaffirm America's longstanding commitment to the security of Israel. Israel knows it has an ally in the United States-- in fact, no greater ally in the world than our great country. While some Republicans in Congress are trying to drive a false narrative of acrimony between the United States and Israel, I choose to see the full picture, and the full picture is one of strengthened cooperation and shared interests. Israel has always and will always depend on the United States to be by its side. That is why the United States and Israel are negotiating right now a new 10-year memorandum of understanding on security assistance. Much of yesterday's meeting between the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Israel centered on the continued assistance we would provide Israel. Israel's interests have always been protected by the United States in matters that come before the United Nations, as Israel has always protected the interests of the United States before the United Nations. In recent years we have seen how resolutions before the United Nations General Assembly and the U.N. Human Rights Council have unfairly targeted the people of Israel. The administration has denounced such efforts, but we also stand against Palestinian attempts to use the United Nations to go around a negotiated peace process. Wherever, whenever, and however, the United States will always stand by Israel.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Madam President, I share the Republican leader's hope that we can conclude the Military Construction-VA bill later this morning. I commend the managers of that legislation for doing a good job. There is no Senator I admire more than Jon Tester from Montana, and he has been ably leading the direction of this bill. I join with the Republican leader as we honor our veterans tomorrow on Veterans Day. Madam President, I just want to take a brief minute to talk about a veteran, whom I look to with admiration. Today the chaplain gave a prayer saying that he prayed for veterans who have already left us and those veterans who are still alive. My town is Searchlight, NV, a little tiny town with not a lot of people in it. It has been that way for a long time. For a brief period Searchlight was bigger than Las Vegas. It had 3,000 people there. During World War II a young man who was already married and had children went to a movie with his wife in Las Vegas. He came out of the movies and told his wife: I think I have to join. He didn't have to, but he felt he had to. So this young man joined the U.S. Army Air Corps, which is now the U.S. Air Force. It was a huge sacrifice for him and his family. He traveled with his wife and children to Georgia where he did his training and then went to the European theater as a pilot. He served gallantly, bombing, strafing, and all the other things you did in the air in World War II. He had been through 68 different missions. He was through. But as happens sometimes in life, things develop that change your life. He volunteered for one more flight because one of the other pilots was unable to go. On his 69th flight, somewhere over Belgium, Bill Nellis, the boy from Searchlight, was shot down. He is still there. That is where his grave is. I know his family. I know his son Gary and his Aunt Thelma, whom I knew in Searchlight. This good man was so gallant in the eyes of people from Nevada that a previous congressional delegation, in conjunction with the President of the United States, decided it would be appropriate to name the Las Vegas Gunnery School, as it was called at that time, Nellis Air Force Base. Today Nellis Air Force Base, named after this man from Searchlight, is the finest Air Force fighter training facility in the world. Thousands and thousands of people serve there. It was originally on the outskirts of Las Vegas. Now it is in Las Vegas in a very populated area. No one complains about it. We are so proud of that Air Force base. It is a huge facility that has the finest gunnery range for Air Force pilots in the world. We have exercises there every year where pilots from all over the world bring their own aircraft from Australia, Great Britain, and other places to train there. We in Nevada are very proud of Nellis Air Force Base, as is the entire military complex in the United States. It is a wonderful facility. Tomorrow is the day we honor Bill Nellis and the other gallant people who have served and are serving in the U.S. military. Would the Chair announce the business this morning.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate passed several lists for more than 600 career promotions in the Foreign Service. I spoke earlier this week about these promotions, and I am pleased that Senator Grassley has allowed these lists to pass this evening. Regardless of which party controlled the Senate, Foreign Service promotion lists have moved without political interference. That is until recently. In August, Senator Grassley decided to block the promotions of more than 20 career officials in order to pursue the same agenda we saw the Republicans go after with the Benghazi committee. I have spoken with Senator Grassley about this issue. Holding back the promotions of career Foreign Service officers is not the way the Senate should be operating. The 20 officials that are still being blocked include officers stationed in Cambodia, Kenya, Rwanda, Ethiopia, and other nations. Although I am pleased about the Senate passing more than 600 promotions this evening, the senior Senator from Iowa should drop his holds on career diplomats and give these 20 officials the promotions they have earned.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Madam President, I look forward to meeting with the Prime Minister of Israel tomorrow, and I will have more to say about that in the morning.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Madam President, for more than 3 months, the senior Senator from Iowa has been blocking the confirmation, the promotion of more than 20 career Foreign Service officers. These Foreign Service officers are career diplomats. They are some of the finest people in our government. They are brave. They work in some of the most remote, difficult, and crime-ridden war zones in the world. Many of these Foreign Service officers are always ready to serve at a moment's notice in hotspots throughout the world--hot spots like Iraq and Afghanistan. These diplomats are not partisan; they are diplomats. They are not political appointments. That is why it is troubling to see the senior Senator from Iowa politicize their promotions. He admits that he is blocking the promotion of these Foreign Service officers until he gets answers about Secretary Hillary Clinton's emails and her aide, a woman by the name of Huma Abedin. I have told Senator Grassley he is making a mistake by targeting these fine public servants. They have worked all over the world. With rare exception, they know multiple languages. But instead of changing course and doing what is right by these diplomats, Senator Grassley seems to be doubling down on his obstruction. As the Senator from Iowa digs in on this failed policy, more innocent people--these diplomats--are being caught in the resulting backlog. Last month, the Senate received several letters containing more than 600 Foreign Service promotions. In years past, it didn't matter if Democrats controlled the Senate or Republicans, they would have passed that list quickly in a matter of a day or two, with no opposition, of course. Times have changed, and these lists of 600 career Foreign Service officers sit unpassed before this body. Among the 600 individuals on this promotion list are two people from Iowa. These Iowans--that is right, two of the constituents of the senior Senator from Iowa are being denied a promotion. Why are nonpartisan public servants being used as political pawns, especially if they are being blocked just because Senator Grassley doesn't want Hillary Clinton to be the next President of the United States. I haven't heard who he is supporting--Trump, Carson, Cruz, Rubio, Bush, Christie, or a long list of others. But, obviously, he doesn't want Hillary Clinton to be elected. So I ask the senior Senator from Iowa: Is he blocking two of his own constituents? Why? Should Senator Grassley allow all of the Foreign Service lists to be confirmed by the Senate without further delay? Of course he should. We could confirm them right now. It is time for my friend from Iowa to end these foolish campaigns to undermine Secretary Clinton. Under Senator Grassley's leadership, the Judiciary Committee continues to hound the State Department for information about Secretary Clinton and her staffers. He and his fellow Republicans want emails. He wants to see timesheets for State Department employees, as do some other Republicans. Committee staff wants transcribed interviews with email vendors, and they want maternity leave records for one of Secretary Clinton's closest aides, Huma Abedin. Think about that: Republicans want to know how long a member of Secretary Clinton's staff took for her maternity leave. Is that ludicrous? Of course it is. Those who know Ms. Abedin best can vouch for her integrity and her work ethic as a close aide to Senator Clinton for decades. When her reputation was attacked in the past--that is Ms. Abedin's--Republicans, including Senator John McCain, defended her. Here is what Senator McCain said: ``an intelligent, upstanding, hard- working, loyal servant of our country . . . the daughter of immigrants who has risen to the highest levels of our government on her substantial personal merit.'' Can my colleagues imagine wanting to know if she took off too much time to have a baby? Let's remember that she is a staff member, not a principal. It is one thing to level charges at an elected Member of Congress or the administration. It is a completely different matter to target a staff member, especially someone who Senator McCain says ``represents the best about America.'' How much money would a Republican Congress waste to try to bring down Hillary Clinton? We don't know by the numbers. We have already seen that the so-called House Select Committee on Benghazi has wasted 18 months and more than $5 million. Numerous other committees have conducted similar investigations. We don't know how much they have cost, but it is millions. How much taxpayer money is Senator Grassley and the Judiciary Committee wasting on its anti-Clinton campaign? We know how much money and staff are being devoted to investigating Secretary Clinton in the House--$8,000 to $10,000 a day, and that is low-balling. How many millions of dollars are the American people paying for the Judiciary Committee to duplicate the House's wasteful political attacks? The senior Senator from Iowa is always talking on the floor about the proper use of taxpayer resources. He should walk into his bathroom, look into the mirror, and find out what he is doing about the proper use of taxpayer resources. He should be willing to tell us about the resources his committee has used to investigate Secretary Clinton. The American people deserve to know how much money is being spent on these investigations, especially if 600 honorable Foreign Service officers are going to be used as political pawns in a crusade to keep Hillary Clinton from being elected President. I hope he will drop his opposition to career diplomats and other important nominations so we can give these good people the promotions they have earned. As I travel the world through these many years, Madam President, I always go to the embassies, and I always ask them to see as many of the staff there as possible. I tell them there is no finer group of people representing America today than our Foreign Service corps, and I stand by that. It is a shame that I have to come to the floor and talk about this. We should pass these nominations tonight with no further delay. Would the Chair tell us the schedule of today's business in the Senate.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Madam President, today the Senate continues its consideration of the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill. This appropriations bill is a modest step in the right direction. It provides resources and will address the veteran care backlog, including 770 new claims processors and 200 new appeals adjudicators. It expands medical treatment for veterans, and it provides State grants for extended care homes in rural areas, which is extremely important. I want to make sure one thing is understood and is very clear. If it had been up to Republicans, this legislation would have shortchanged America's veterans. Let's remember that Republicans' original appropriations bill for the VA was a far cry from this funding measure today. They ranted and raved, but in the process, would have cost the veterans $2 billion. The Republicans' bill included devastating sequester caps that would have underfunded the Veterans' Administration by billions of dollars. If Republicans had passed their bill, 70,000 vets would not receive the care they deserve--70,000. The reason the Senate is considering this much improved appropriations legislation is because Democrats refused to go along with Republican efforts to underfund veterans and our middle class. Instead, Democrats held firm to stop devastating sequester cuts from hitting America's domestic priorities. Because we refused to let Republicans undermine care for our veterans, funding for the Veterans' Administration is more than $2 billion over what it would have been. Democrats refused to let congressional Republicans do what they always do: disregard the needs of the middle class--in this case middle class veterans--those people at home we so try to protect. In the aftermath of President Bush's two unpaid-for wars, Republicans have made little effort to meet the Nation's obligations to its veterans. The work that has been done in recent years to do a better job for our veterans, including wounded warriors legislation and on and on, are things that we on this side of the aisle proposed and passed. This is symptomatic of today's Republicans. They want to start and fund wars overseas, but when the bill comes--when the time comes to make good on the promises to our servicemembers, many Republicans are nowhere to be found. Taking care of our veterans is one of the prices of war. It is one of the costs of a robust defense that keeps America safe. To neglect that responsibility is callous, and some say immoral. We can do better by our Nation's veterans. This appropriations bill is a start. We still have a long way to go in meeting our commitments to the brave men and women who defend our country and have defended our country.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, ObamaCare is working, as the New York Times indicated in a strong column this week showing how dramatically the rates of uninsurance have dropped since this bill passed. The initial posting of premiums doesn't tell the whole story. The law requires the Department of Health and Human Services to post only the proposed increases that exceed 10 percent. Many of those proposed rates have gone through a review process at the State level, and after that review, States will reduce many of those rates. Remember, we are talking only about the States that had an increase of more than 10 percent. Almost all the States had increases that were far less than that. The health reform law caps 85 percent of exchange enrollees' premiums as a share of their income, and because of the health law, insurance companies must spend at least 80 cents of every dollar on health services. Prior to this law passing, these health insurance companies spent huge amounts of their money on salaries and other things that didn't relate to the health of their enrollees, and now 80 percent of every dollar must be spent on the enrollees. This has resulted in rebates totaling $9 billion paid to consumers since 2011. Eighty cents of every dollar is spent on health services rather than administrative costs and profits. Addressing insurance premium increases in the individual market was a key reason we enacted the health reform bill in the first place. Before the health reform law, patients were subject to premium increases, cancellations, denials for preexisting conditions, and arbitrary limits on how much care insurance would cover. Thanks to this health reform law, proposed premium increases are seeing the light of day and are subject to scrutiny, which wasn't the way it was before. Under the health reform law, insurance companies cannot deny coverage or charge more because of a preexisting condition or for simply being a woman. Insurance companies cannot arbitrarily cut off benefits when you really need them.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, the true test of leadership is whether one leaves behind the conviction that others will carry on. Yesterday Wade Henderson, one of the fathers of the civil rights movement, announced that he will retire from the position as president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and the Leadership Conference Education Fund to make room for future leaders. Wade Henderson has inspired a new generation to hold our country to its most sacred values: liberty and justice for all. Wade has been a true leader. For the past 20 years he has been a tireless advocate for justice and equality. His conviction, skill, and expertise can be found in every major civil rights victory over the past two decades. Wade has led the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights through the successful passage of the Help America Vote Act of 2002; the Voting Rights Act reauthorization of 2006; the ADA Amendments Act in 2008; Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act in 2009; Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009; Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010; and the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. From the passage of the hate crimes laws in the early 1990s to efforts to end racial profiling and pass comprehensive immigration reform, Wade Henderson has carried the weight and responsibility of the modern civil rights movement on his shoulders. As Wade transforms and transitions into the next stage of his life, I have no doubt he will continue to be a champion of people of color, women, children, organized labor, persons with disabilities, seniors, the LGBT community, and faith communities. Today I congratulate Wade Henderson for his years of service to our Nation and the world. I wish him continued success in all of his future endeavors. Will the Chair announce the business of the day.

Mr. REID

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

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I had the pleasure of listening to the Republican leader's speech a few minutes ago. I understand he has two- thirds of his caucus who voted against the budget agreement and he has to kind of play to his audience. I think the words he used were: We are the party of dysfunction. All you have to do is read the newspaper to find out that is not the case. The fact is, it has been shown time and time again in recent years the party that is not working is the Republican Party. There is no more evidence of that when you see who is running for President. All you have to do is look and see what happened in recent weeks in the House of Representatives, where the Speaker of the House of Representatives, when asked a week before he resigned: How do you put up with those people over there, and he said: If you are around garbage long enough, you can't smell it. So let's not talk about us being the party of dysfunction. The Republican leader has complained about delay. I don't know what kind of glasses he is wearing, we were ready to negotiate in June. We kept saying that over and over again. Right now we don't have anything we can move forward on. Let's sit down and talk. They refused to talk time and time again. We asked for consent agreements. They refused to do that. Time was marching on. The debt ceiling was fast approaching where, if we had not advanced that, this country would have basically shut down and it would have had a dramatic negative effect on the world economy. Please, I say to my Republican colleagues, don't talk about delay. We haven't delayed anything. These bills that are going to be in the form of an omnibus, they should have been done one at a time, but you couldn't do it because they were spending everything for defense and nothing for nondefense. So with the budget agreement, as we have said, we wanted to make sure sequestration was taken care of--and it was. Drastic cuts in sequestration are gone for 2 years. We wanted to make sure if there was any increase in defense the middle class got equal parity, and they did. We are satisfied where we are, but the time for casting blame is gone and my friend the Republican leader should stop trying to blame it on us. We didn't do it. We are not the party of dysfunction. From the very beginning we sought funding levels that were fair to the middle class and to the military. The military is going to get their money. Everybody knows that. The Presiding Officer knows it. Everybody knows it, but it is not a bad deal that the middle class also gets enough to take care of them. Republicans seem compelled, as they did this morning, to once again fund one part of the government they like--the Pentagon--without doing anything for the needs of the rest of the country: the middle class, those people here at home. We can give a speech just as patriotic as my Republican friend. We believe in the military. They have made great sacrifices for all of us, but we don't need to give great speeches about how patriotic we are. What we need to do is get the business of the country done, and that has not happened. Hopefully, with this step forward and being on this Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill, we can do that. Democrats opposed the motion to invoke cloture on the Defense bill this morning because Republicans again were compelled to do everything they could for the Pentagon and ignore the rest of the country, but this afternoon we have been willing to move ahead the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs bill. It is the right thing to do. That bill has both defense and domestic matters contained in it. It is a noncontroversial bill, and it will give us an opportunity to start the appropriations process. It doesn't seem fair to us that we would rush forward and do the Defense bill, which is more than 50 percent of all the money this country spends in a year--more than 50 percent of the discretionary spending that we have to appropriate. Now we have a December 11 deadline and we have to fund all the government to avoid a shutdown. So I hope we are considering this Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill. The Appropriations Committee will be working together to put together funding--likely in an omnibus--for the rest of the government. Dealing with the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill is a small step to rebuild trust and experience in working together. Democrats are willing partners to carry out the budget agreement Congress passed last week, but we will continue to fight for the needs of the middle class while we continue to fight and make sure the military is taken care of and also continue to fight poison pill riders. Mr. President, we have a number of people on the floor. Is anyone seeking recognition?

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, here is just a brief word on the Republican attack on the Clean Water Act. The bottom line is that the administration's clean water regulation will protect 117 million people. The cries about this legislation fly in the face of facts. As I said, 117 million Americans are being protected.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, the new mandatory minimum sentences this bill would create would have a crippling financial effect--that is an understatement--with no evidence that they would actually deter future violations of law. This legislation would require about 20,000 new prison beds--20,000--12 new prisons and cost over $3 billion. This is yet another attack on the immigrant. The reason this bill did not go through the Judiciary Committee is because Republican Senators objected to it going through the committee. In the House, Speaker Ryan said he cannot trust the President to do immigration reform. In the Senate, after passing a bipartisan bill in 2013, all we have seen from Republican leaders and their caucus are bills to attack immigrants and to tear families apart. So I object.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, yesterday the Republican leader once again filed a motion to invoke cloture on the Department of Defense appropriations bill. This is another example of the Republican leader wasting the Senate's time on repeated cloture votes that he knows will fail. Republicans have tried this piecemeal approach already, and it didn't work. We came within hours of defaulting and not extending the full faith and credit of the United States and came within days of shutting down the government. Even though two-thirds of Republicans in the House and Senate voted to close the government and default on our debt, we were able to craft a budget agreement that funds both the middle class and the Pentagon. Now it is time to move on and pass an omnibus appropriations bill that addresses both defense and the needs of the middle class in keeping with the budget agreement that passed last week. There is no reason we can't get an omnibus bill to fund all the government by December 11, which is the deadline. If the Republicans balk, the government will close. Again, remember, two-thirds of the Republicans in Congress already voted no. They voted to default on the debt of this country and to close the government. That should give everyone pause.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, over the last several months, the Koch brothers have been on a public relations campaign. This Koch propaganda campaign has accelerated over the past few weeks. Charles and David Koch have been going to great lengths to convince the American people that they are not just a couple of billionaires who are trying to dismantle Social Security and who closed the Export-Import Bank, putting 165,000 Americans out of work and costing the government billions of dollars. These two men fought a zoo in Ohio, and they fought a Republican mayor of Colorado Springs, CO, as he tried to fix the city's potholes. They stopped both from happening. The Kochs want everyone to believe they are not the ones rigging the system to benefit themselves and their wealthy friends. The Koch brothers are spending their vast wealth holding newspaper and television interviews on their propaganda campaign. In spite of all their efforts, this Koch media tour has failed to bury the one simple truth: The Koch brothers are trying to buy America. During an interview yesterday, the scales fell away once again and revealed the Koch brothers' true intentions. In justifying his and his brother's efforts to inject hundreds of millions of dollars into conservative political campaigns, Charles Koch said: ``I expect something in return.'' The Koch brothers are getting plenty in return. So far they have bought a Republican House, a Republican Senate, a government shutdown, an ousted Speaker of the House, a shuttered Export-Import Bank, and a Republican Presidential field where nearly every candidate kowtows to these billionaires. But that is not all. The Kochs have procured a media that is intimidated by their billions--too intimidated to hold them accountable. Consider yesterday's interview on MSNBC's ``Morning Joe'' show. This is classic. Here are some of the questions that Joe and Mika asked the Koch brothers. Joe Scarborough asked: ``It's hard to find people in New York, liberals, we were talking about this before, liberals or conservative alike, who haven't been touched by your graciousness, whether it is towards the arts or cancer research. Do you think you got that instinct from your mom?'' Mika asked: ``Sitting here in your childhood home''--they were doing this interview in Topeka, KS--``we have the Koch brothers. Which was the good brother?'' That was another tough question. Joe then asked: ``You guys both play rugby together, right?'' Sometimes--most of the time--they weren't even questions; they were just compliments. At one point, here is what he said: ``You sound like my dad. That's very diplomatic. That's very good.'' Wow. Those were some really tough questions asked by the host of ``Morning Joe.'' That is tough journalism. Those questions are so easy; they may even qualify them to moderate the next Republican Presidential debate. It seems that some journalists are determined not to get on the wrong side of the Koch brothers and their billions. After all, we have seen how the Koch empire targets people, cities, and States that do anything that conflicts with the Koch brothers' radical agenda. When the media rolls over for these modern-day robber barons, as it is doing now, our country is in trouble. As Charles Koch himself said, he and his brother are not spending this money for altruistic reasons; they are doing it for one reason and one reason only--for the profits of themselves and fellow billionaires who have rigged the system against the middle class. They said it themselves. They want something in return, and what they want is profit for their corporations. Their own publicist once explained why the Koch brothers are trying to buy a new government: ``It's because we can make more profit, OK?'' That is what this is all about for Charles and David Koch: bigger profits, more money because $100 billion or more isn't enough for them. By their own admission, the Kochs will spend and spend and spend until they get the government they want--a government that lets Koch Industries do what it wants, a government whose sole goal is to make these billionaires even richer. Unfortunately for the United States, the Supreme Court has constructed a political system that allows them to do just that. The Citizens United case, decided in January 2010, has effectively put the U.S. Government up for sale to the highest bidder, and right now the Koch brothers are the highest bidder. Right now our country has no real restrictions on how much money a billionaire or a millionaire can spend to buy the government they want. All the power is with the wealthy, and that puts middle-class Americans at a significant disadvantage. So we can't stand idly by while the government sits on an auction block and neither should any American sit idly by. Instead, we should be working to rid the system of the Koch brothers' dark money, but this cannot and will not happen if reporters and journalists refuse to ask Charles and David Koch questions--maybe even probing questions. Otherwise no one is holding these two oil barons accountable for their nefarious actions. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, for many decades the American people have heard that their elected officials and political hopefuls taught family values, but right now we need more than talk. We need Members of Congress to step up to the plate to help working families. Our country has fallen well behind the rest of the world when it comes to paid family leave. We are the only developed country in the world that does not mandate paid medical leave for workers. Think about that. The most industrialized and successful country in the history of the world mandates less paid and protected family leave than Malta, Slovakia, and Estonia. What does this mean for working American families? It means parents can't stay home and take care of their sick children. It means mothers need to rush back to work after giving birth to a child. It means working Americans have to choose between a paycheck and their family responsibilities. Right now the United States provides paid family leave for only 12 percent of its private sector workforce. We are one of three nations without paid maternity leave: Papua New Guinea, Oman, and the United States. Those are the three nations without paid maternity leave: America, Oman, and New Guinea. That is really unfair, and it doesn't qualify as family values. I was pleased recently to learn that the new Speaker, Paul Ryan, told House Republicans his family is off-limits. I don't know if that means Friday afternoons or just Saturday and Sunday. He wants to spend more time with his family, and I applaud him for that. There were some people who mocked Congressman Ryan for that, and they are wrong. All parents should work to protect that time with their families. Here is the problem. For millions of Americans, the concept of work- family life balance is nothing more than a fantasy. For far too many Americans, more time at work and less time with family is the only way to put food on the table and a roof over their heads. Still, these hard-working families are falling behind. An unpaid day off is out of the question. Contrast that with the Senate. The Republican-controlled Senate doesn't work 5-day weeks. Yet millions of Americans can't get a day off when a loved one dies or a child is confined to a hospital bed. If you play baseball, the average salary is more than $2 million a year. If your wife has a baby, you take off. But they make millions of dollars a year. Middle-class Americans don't make that. While Speaker Ryan insists on a family-friendly work schedule for himself, he is blocking legislation that would give the bare minimum in paid leave for hard-working Americans. Before we worry about ourselves, we should worry about the millions of Americans who can't get a day off work to care for a sick child--can't get a half day off work. That would be real family values.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, every year in the Senate we are sent to this distinguished body for one reason: to represent the people of our State and the people of this country. Our constituents expect us to legislate. They expect us to be here on the Senate floor voting and representing their interests. In the Senate, there is no one better at upholding that responsibility than the senior Senator from Iowa. Last Thursday, Charles Grassley cast his 12,000th vote as a U.S. Senator. As remarkable as that is, as my friend the senior Senator from Kentucky said, it is even more impressive that he has cast almost 7,500 consecutive votes on the Senate floor. He hasn't missed a vote since July 14, 1993. He holds the second longest consecutive vote streak in Senate history, behind our colleague Senator William Proxmire of Wisconsin. That is a lot of votes. Senator Grassley's constancy and unwavering work ethic comes as no surprise to those of us who have known him and are acquainted with his background. Chuck Grassley is a farmer. He is proud of that. He got started in politics when he was elected to the Iowa House in 1959. He served for 15 years. In 1974, he ran for Congress and served three terms in the House of Representatives. He was elected to the Senate in 1980. Thirty-six years, 12,000 votes--that is remarkable, as is 7,474 consecutive votes. So I say congratulations to my friend Chuck Grassley on those incredible milestones.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, over the weekend, the people of Tennessee lost a member of their family. Senator Fred Thompson, whom my friend the Republican leader has talked about, died after a recurring battle with lymphoma. Those of us who served with him remember that wonderful voice. His voice was so good that many people said he should be an actor. Well, he was. He was an actor. He had a beautiful voice that projected so very well, but he was good wherever he was--the floor of the Senate, movie studio, the town square of his home. He was a statesman in every sense of the word. His dedication to responsible public service fueled his commitment to bipartisanship and compromise. Fred Thompson was known for his courageous heart and straightforward approach to public service. I will miss him a great deal. He was always very kind and thoughtful and friendly to me, and the Senate is a better place for having had him here.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, this week the Senate will vote on two pieces of legislation that will nullify drinking water protections for 117 million Americans. The Obama administration's clean water rule will restore important safeguards to protect American water sources from pollution and contamination. This landmark rule from the Obama administration will finally resolve years of confusion and provide regulatory certainty for businesses, farmers, local governments, and communities without creating any new permitting requirements and maintaining all previous exemptions and exclusions. The Republicans in Congress are intent on undermining these important protections. The Republican leader and his colleagues unfortunately are forcing the Senate to vote on legislation to roll back President Obama's clean water rule. This legislation will fail, of course, and Republicans know it will fail. Last week, the junior Senator from Texas said this: [N]ext week we will have a show vote on the waters of the United States. Leadership is very happy. We will have a show vote. We will get to vote, and it will fail. Perhaps the junior Senator is right; this is another Republican charade. I hope not. If these bills were to pass, President Obama will veto them. Yet Republicans are content to waste the Senate's time just so they can launch another attack on the environment. This is the first of a series of environmental attacks we expect this month from Republicans. They are also preparing to nullify the President's rules to address climate change. They have no solutions and no plan to keep our water clean or address climate change. They are wasting valuable Senate time on these show votes.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, last night the House of Representatives passed the bipartisan budget agreement that will keep our Government open, funded, and free from default. Now, 100 percent of the Democrats in the House of Representatives voted for this, and 68 percent of Republicans voted against it. Let's pause just a minute and understand what I said: 68 percent of the Republicans in the House of Representatives voted to default on the full faith and credit of our great country. So 68 percent of the Republicans voted to close our government. This legislation is now before the Senate. I urge all of my colleagues to support this responsible agreement. It is not perfect, as my friend the Republican leader said. No legislation is. But this budget agreement accomplishes two major priorities the Democrats have long supported. It promotes economic growth by providing relief from sequestration's damaging cuts for 2 years, and it ensures that we invest equally in the middle class and the Pentagon. The budget agreement is good for the middle class, good for the economy, and good for the country. I thank the people who worked so hard to make this agreement what it is today. The agreement was among President Obama, Speaker Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Leader Pelosi, and I helped. I applaud and commend the President of the United States. He was firm, he was resolute, and he was--as usual--very smart. I appreciate the good work that he did to help us get to the point where we are now. To reach these negotiations, each of us had discussions with each other. We also know that a lot of the work was done by our staffs--our respective staffs. My chief of staff, Drew Wilson, represented the Senate Democrats in these negotiations. The Senate Democratic caucus is aware of Drew's expertise, hard work, fairness, and openness. Drew was ably assisted by Gary Myrick--indispensable Gary Myrick, who is the Democratic Secretary, as well as a number of people on my team of senior policy analysts who helped a great deal. Kate Leone--I don't think there is anyone in the Senate who doesn't know who Kate Leon is. She is the expert on health care. Bruce King, Ellen Doneski, Ayesha Khanna, Trey Reffett, Tyler Moran, George Holman, Gavin Parke, Alex McDonough, and utility man Bill Dauster all worked literally night and day to get this to the point where we were able to be here on the floor today, seeking support for it. I am so grateful for the wonderful staff that I have, but there were others involved. Senator McConnell's negotiator in this was Hazen Marshall. Hazen Marshall is a good person. He was resolute. He carried forward what the Republican leader wanted, but, like my staff, you never get exactly what you want. Everybody enjoyed working with him. Dave Stewart was Speaker Boehner's negotiator on this. I care a great deal about Dave Stewart. David is a good man, and we all admire the work that he has done. I hope the new Speaker to be, Paul Ryan, will use his good offices. He is very good. He is a talented man. Dick Meltzer was Leader Pelosi's able negotiator. I have to commend Nancy Pelosi. I so admire this good woman. She is a stalwart in the House of Representatives. She will go down in history as one of the great leaders of that body. I admire her, appreciate her friendship, and extend to anyone within the sound of my voice my appreciation for the work that she did on this bill. As to the White House, I have already indicated the President did a wonderful job on this, but he also assigned two really terrific, good, outstanding people. I can't say enough about them. Brian Deese was one of the White House negotiators, along with Katie Fallon. Katie is a woman whom we all know in the Senate. She worked for Senator Schumer for a number of years, and she worked for the Democratic Policy Committee. She was on the committee for a number of years. We admire her very much. She was so helpful with everything we did in this legislation. She was always easy to get ahold of. She was easy to reach. It is now time for this important legislation to pass the U.S. Senate. I have to say a few words about Speaker Boehner. I have to admit that I was skeptical when he said that he wanted to clean out the barn before he left, but he found a way to clean out the barn by passing a clean debt limit and a 2-year budget agreement, which should go a long way to returning the appropriations process to the way it should work. I will always consider him my friend, and I will miss him. I wish him the very best in everything he does in the future. I listened to his final remarks on the House floor, which were very moving. It wasn't only John Boehner who shed a tear over there today, but many Members of the House of Representatives and a number of us who watched his final speech shed a tear or two. There has been a lot of talk about the appropriations process. I have been an appropriator since I came to the Senate. I was very fortunate as a brand new Senator, which was many decades ago, to be on the Appropriations Committee. What an honor. The Appropriations Committee's work is not as it used to be. We have to get back to doing individual appropriations bills. I say to my Republican friends: Let's do the appropriations bills. Let's get rid of these foolish riders that they stick on appropriations bills. We need to understand that there is a time and place for doing that. There is authorization. Do the bills, authorize stuff, but don't mess up the appropriations process. Next year, we will be happy to support individual appropriations bills that come to the floor. We don't need motions to proceed. We will be happy to move to the bill as long as they get rid of those vexatious riders that have nothing to do with the bill brought before us. The Defense appropriations bill doesn't need something dealing with women's health in the sense of directly attacking Planned Parenthood. We don't need on Commerce, State, Justice something that basically does away with the Environmental Protection Agency. There are many examples that I could use. Let's get to doing appropriations bills the way we used to. I want to do them. We don't need to have a motion to proceed as long as my Republican colleagues get rid of these foolish, ideological amendments that have nothing to do with the bill before us.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, earlier this year we recognized Equal Pay Day--a day that highlights the disparaging wage gap between women and men in the United States. Equal Pay Day marks the day when women's wages finally catch up with men's wages from the previous year. On average, American women make about 77 cents for every $1 that their male colleagues make while doing the very same job. This unjust and immoral reality is even more pronounced for women of color. Tomorrow is Latina Equal Pay Day, the point at which wages of Latina women in America catch up to men's earnings from the previous year. It is today. They have had to work all of this time to catch up. The fact that a Hispanic woman must work a full year, plus 9 months and 30 days, just to make what her male co-workers make is certainly unacceptable. In Nevada, Latina women earn 53 cents for every $1 their fellow male workers make. It is not just a problem in Nevada; it is a problem nationwide. Nationwide they earn 55 cents for every $1 a man makes for doing the exact same work. All told, the wage gap that Latina women face results in a loss of over $25,000 a year for these women. That is $25,000 that could be used to help these women sustain their families. To make matters worse, the wage gaps that exist between Latina women and their male counterparts disproportionately affect Hispanic families. Why? Because Latina women are more likely to be the primary breadwinners for their families. Thirty percent of all Hispanic families in the United States are headed by a single mother, and 40 percent of married Latina women earn more than 50 percent of their family's income. As legislators, it is our duty to seek the well-being of all Americans. Democrats don't take that responsibility lightly. We understand that when wages of women do not reflect their hard work, it undermines the strength of families and communities throughout the Nation. That is why we have continually and consistently fought to secure equal pay for equal work. Five times in 5 years Republicans have stood in the way of equal pay for women. They have stood in the way of equal wages for their own sisters, daughters, and wives. Even Republican women--that is Republican Members of Congress--have refused to address this important issue. The proposal that Republicans have put forward falls short of ensuring real equal pay protections and ignores the realities women face in fighting for fair pay. In so doing, Republicans have proudly placed their stamp of approval on unequal paychecks across America. The wage gap Latina women endure is a disgrace to this Nation. No woman should make less than a man who does the exact same work. Latina women deserve the hard-earned wages for which they work. They also deserve elected officials who will advocate on their behalf. As we recognize Latina Equal Pay Day, I call on Republicans to support a pay equity bill that empowers women to receive equal pay they have so rightly earned, not just because it strengthens families and benefits our country but because it is the right thing to do.