Harry Reid

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, yesterday the Georgetown University Center for Children and Families released a stunning report detailing the sharp increase in the number of Nevada children who have health insurance. At one time, we were the most underinsured State in the country for health insurance. According to the Georgetown study, the number of Nevada children without health insurance fell by 35 percent in just 1 year. In 2013, 15 percent of children in Nevada lacked health insurance coverage. One year later, that number fell to 9.3 percent. Reading directly from that report: States with the sharpest declines in the rate of uninsured children were Nevada, Colorado, West Virginia, Mississippi, and Rhode Island. Nevada's decline was considerably larger than any other State. A 35-percent increase in the number of insured children in 1 year is remarkable. It means more children have access to the care they need to stay healthy. A number of these children will be able to go to the doctor for the first time in their lives. It is yet further proof that the Affordable Care Act is working in Nevada and across America. Again, I say to my friends, the Republicans: Let's start working together to improve health care. We want to work with you. If there is a problem you see with ObamaCare, let's work together. We have been able to make some improvements in this law, and we want to make more improvements. We just need cooperation from our Republican friends. The spike in the number of insured Nevada children is also due to the foresight of the Governor of the State of Nevada. Brian Sandoval is a Republican. He is a proud Republican who supported the State's Medicaid expansion option. He took on all the naysayers. Why did Brian Sandoval do this? Is he really one of ours? He did this because he thought it was the right thing to do for the State of Nevada, and it has been proven that, in fact, is true. By expanding Medicaid in Nevada, many, many more parents were able to secure affordable health care for their kids. Quite frankly, Governor Sandoval's courage stands in stark contrast to many of his fellow Republicans. Governors in a number of States dominated by Republican State legislatures have refused to expand coverage to the needy. These Republicans have blocked expanded coverage despite the fact that it means fewer Americans and their children have access to the health care they need. This means that people are dying as a result of this. Two States with the highest rates of uninsured children, Alaska and Texas, have rejected Medicare expansion, and others have done the same. There were many Republicans in Nevada who wanted to go the same route. The Republican State legislature within the Nevada congressional delegation opposed all efforts to increase access to health care. They have voted to repeal ObamaCare time and time again, but Governor Sandoval was not swayed by the cynics in his own party. He refused to let politics stand in the way of children's health, and today Nevada's children are better for it. I repeat, the Affordable Care Act is helping American families, it is helping Nevada families, and it is working especially well in States that are actually using the law as it was intended. I hope more Republicans will follow Governor Sandoval's examples, thus helping their States and their constituents by expanding access to quality health care. I am an admirer of Governor Sandoval, and that is saying a lot. His opponent in the last election was my son. But I have to say this: In spite of the fact that my son came in second, Brian Sandoval has done an outstanding job as Governor. I admire him and appreciate what he has done. I don't agree with everything he has done. I had some disagreements with what he did in the legislature. None of us are perfect, and he certainly isn't, but I appreciate what he has done for the betterment of the State of Nevada.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, our goals regarding the budget agreement were to make sure that we got rid of sequestration--we did that for 2 years--and that we had a treatment in this legislation where defense, which is so important to our country, is treated no better or no worse than nondefense. We accomplished that. We are months behind in the appropriations process because the Republican leader decided he was going to push forward and not take care of the middle class. I was stunned--I shouldn't say that. That is not appropriate. I was not surprised when the Republican leader laid out his goals for his budget agreement--not a single word about the middle class. I compliment the negotiators for coming up with something that is really good. It is a 2-year deal that allows more money to be spent for defense and nondefense, and it doesn't affect the deficit in any way. It is a good agreement. Before we start the backslapping and congratulations, let's make sure that we, first of all, pass the budget agreement. I think we will. I was happy to see the new Speaker-to-be came out for the budget agreement today. He complained about it yesterday, and when he was reminded that it was the same pattern he and Senator Murray came up with 2 years ago, I guess he changed his mind. He said now he is in favor of this. I think that is good, that Congressman Ryan said that. After we pass the budget framework by December 11, we have to make sure the appropriators are able to move forward on legislation that takes into consideration the budget agreement we have. I am certain that can be done, but it is not a given based on all of the finger- pointing by the Republicans. This is a significant agreement. I repeat: We have relief from the vexatious sequestration. We have dollar-for-dollar help for the middle class as well as defense. There are no destructive riders in this. When we work together, as we are supposed to do--as the Republican leader just mentioned--on legislation, it works out well. I would suggest this. We had the House of Representatives yesterday, after years of refusing to move forward on an important piece of legislation--that is, to reestablish the Import-Export Bank. It only came about as a result of courageous Republicans saying: We have had enough of this. This is one of the most important business-directed initiatives we have here, and it has been held up for years in the House of Representatives. It was because of these courageous Republicans who said: We have had enough of this. And they joined with Democrats to do what is rarely done in the House of Representatives. They signed a discharge petition--getting more than 218 votes--to say: We have had enough of this stalling; we want to move forward. And they did. Yesterday, that passed by a vote of 313 votes. That is a tremendous push. I hope that over here the Republican leader will move forward on this now. There are stories coming out every day about American companies that are moving their businesses overseas because the Export-Import Bank is gone. It creates 160,000 jobs for people to work in this industry. It is important to our country. Right now, businesses are moving out of the United States because this legislation never came forward. The Bank had to close. It is basically closed right now. I hope that we are not going to wait for some package deal with the highway bill. The highway bill should stand or fall on its own merits. We are pleading with the Republicans to allow us to have a vote on this. We have Republicans who will vote with us. Virtually every Democrat will vote for it. We should get it done this week. Every day it is held up is a bad day for the American business community. I ask the Chair to announce the business for today.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, Democrats have long called for bipartisan action to stop these devastating sequester cuts because they hurt our middle class and our military. With this agreement the Republican leader just mentioned, we have done just that. Democrats and Republicans have come to a responsible agreement that puts the needs of our Nation above the Republicans' partisan agenda. While this agreement is not perfect, it does address both investment in domestic priorities that benefit the middle class and defense spending. It helps us avoid a major threat to jobs and the general economy. The time to do away with the devastating sequester cuts that are harming our middle class and military is not in the future. It is right now. Democrats hope to end sequestration for the good of our great country. Our work is not done. I hope that we can continue to work together-- Democrats and Republicans--to pass this legislation and place the priorities of the American people ahead of partisan politics.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Madam President, I would ask that my remarks be under leader time.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, today my friend and colleague Pat Leahy has reached another milestone in an extraordinary career. He just cast his 15,000th vote. That is remarkable. He is only the sixth Senator in the history of this great body to have done that. In 226 years, he is one of 6. Today's momentous occasion should come as no surprise because his entire career in public service has been history in the making. He graduated from St. Michael's College, which is a Vermont institution. He graduated from Georgetown University Law Center. He was first appointed as the State's attorney when he was 26 years old. He was then reelected on two separate occasions. During that time, Pat Leahy was a nationally renowned prosecutor. In 1974--his last as a State's attorney--he was selected as one of the three most outstanding prosecutors in America. At age 34, Pat became the first Democrat in U.S. history to be elected to the Senate from Vermont. After he was elected, the Republican Senator he was to succeed, George Aiken, was asked by some to resign his seat a day early--which you could do in those days--to give Senator Leahy a head start in seniority among his fellow freshmen. Here is what Senator Aiken said: ``If Vermont is foolish enough to elect a Democrat, let him be number 100.'' Senator Leahy's career has proven that the people of Vermont were wise in selecting him. From No. 100, Senator Leahy over time ascended to the rank of President pro tempore of the Senate. Senator Leahy has spent four decades in the Senate fighting for justice and equality. As the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, he became a national leader for an independent judiciary, the promotion of equal rights, and the protection of our Constitution. His main focus, though, has always been Vermont. He carries with him a picture of what he calls his farmhouse, which is on lots of acres. It looks like a picture you would use if you were trying to get somebody to come and stay at your place--it is just beautiful. It doesn't remind me of the desert, but it is beautiful. Over the years, he has done everything he can to protect the State's natural beauty, the resources, land and water, through conservation efforts. When people visit Vermont, they see these beautiful green vistas, pristine lakes and rivers, and picturesque farms. Senator Leahy has worked hard to keep Vermont that way. Senator Leahy has done everything in his power to promote agriculture in his home State. As former chair of the agriculture committee, I can remember what he has done to protect the dairy industry. It is legend what he has done to protect the dairy industry. We all remember holding up the Senate for periods of time until he got what he wanted for dairy. He wrote the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990, which helped foster Vermont and America's growing organic food industry. Today, organic foods are a $40 billion industry. Many of those organic farms and businesses are based in Vermont. After Tropical Storm Irene, I remember, graphically, his fighting for the State of Vermont. That storm devastated parts of Vermont. Roads were underwater for weeks. He helped secure $500 million in assistance for the people of Vermont to overcome a brutal natural disaster. I am fortunate to be able to serve with Pat Leahy here in the Senate. He is more than a colleague; he really is a dear friend, as is his wife of 52 years, Marcelle, whom Landra and I know well. We have helped each other through our times of joy and our times of travail. Senator Leahy and his wife Marcelle have three wonderful children and five grandchildren. Give Pat a minute alone and he will start telling you about them. Senator Leahy, congratulations on your 15,000th vote in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, it was 3 years ago this month that then- Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta warned the United States of a potential ``cyber Pearl Harbor.'' A cyber Pearl Harbor would be crippling, and it would be a cyber attack on our Nation's banks, power grid, government, and communications network. If it sounds scary, that is because it is scary. Cyber terrorists could potentially bring the United States to its knees. This potentiality is upon us. A catastrophic cyber attack is not farfetched. Ted Koppel, the renowned journalist, has written another book, and the author reveals that our Nation's power grid is extremely vulnerable to cyber terrorism. Imagine the toll of these attacks: massive power blackouts, no telephone, no Internet capability--that is on your cell phones or whatever phones exist--overwhelmed first responders and an infrastructure system reduced to chaos. How vulnerable is our Nation to a cyber attack of this magnitude? Former Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, in the book that was written, as I indicated, by Ted Koppel, stated that the likelihood of an attack on our Nation's power grid is 80 to 90 percent--80 percent to 90 percent. Craig Fugate, the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, has had to think about a potential cyber attack. It is his job. Listen to his assessment: We're not a country that can go without power for a long period of time without loss of life. Our systems, from water treatment to hospitals to traffic control to all these things that we expect every day, our ability to operate without electricity is minimal. A number of years ago we had, at the direction of Senator Mikulski--a long-time member of the Intelligence Committee--a meeting where such an attack was discussed and the implications of it. That was years ago. It was frightening then, and it is even more frightening now. But as Mr. Fugate indicated, that is the scale of threat the United States faces with cyber terrorism. We as a country must do more to protect ourselves against this cyber terrorism. It can be done if Republicans will work with us. Democrats tried to pass comprehensive cyber security legislation years ago. What happened? It was filibustered by the Republicans. They wouldn't even let us on this legislation. They wouldn't even allow us to debate the bill. Whatever their reasoning, I am glad the Republicans have finally changed course in this decision and allowed this simple bill to move forward. We support this legislative effort, but we recognize that it is far, far too weak. Cyber terrorism and cyber attacks are part of today's world. But Republicans are denying the seriousness of this, as they are denying something clear to everyone in the world except my Republican Senate and House Members. We have climate change taking place that is really hurting everybody, with rare, rare exception. Cyber terrorism and cyber attacks are part of today's world, just like climate change. To not move forward with more comprehensive cyber security legislation and to ignore what is happening in our world dealing with climate change will in the years to come be considered legislative malpractice. I am sorry to say that legislative malpractice is not on our shoulders. We wanted for years to do something with climate change. We can't. It is not even something that the Republicans will allow us to discuss. We wanted for years to do something with cyber security. They refused to do so. We have a bill before us that is better than nothing, and we support it. But it is far, far too weak. Mr. President, I see the assistant Democratic leader on the floor. Would the Chair announce before he talks to us what we are going to do here today.

Mr. REID

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

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Madam President, as the Republican leader mentioned, we continue to work toward a budget agreement. Negotiations are ongoing. I hope Democrats and Republicans will come to a resolution that is good for our economy and our country. It is imperative that we avoid yet another manufactured crisis that threatens the American economy and jobs. There is no reason to have a crisis. We must do it in a responsible manner. As I have been saying for a long time, it is past time that we do away with the harmful, draconian sequester cuts. We must also ensure that there are equal defense and nondefense cuts or increases. They need to be equal. Madam President, I see no one on the floor wishing to speak. I ask the Chair to announce the business of the rest of the day.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, Congressional Republicans continue to govern destructively during this 114th Congress. After nearly a year in control of the Senate, what do Republicans have to show for it? Shutdown threats, lapsed laws, vital programs expired, and an abiding sense of uncertainty. Instead of looking for opportunities to govern constructively, Republicans appear to be bent on mayhem. They are doing everything they can to appeal to their extreme rightwing without regard to the consequences. It seems that every day that is a bad day for government, we have a large segment of the Republican caucus cheering that it is great. Anything that is bad for government is a good day for us, is what they are saying. Instead of looking for opportunities to govern constructively, they are doing everything they can to not do things constructively. They are doing everything they can to appeal to, I guess, the extreme rightwing, to phrase it, without regard to the consequences, but consequences are very significant. This afternoon we are finally confirming Ambassadors for several African nations, but to view the confirmation of four individuals a success would be a mistake, when we consider that Senate Republicans are doing everything they can to stop these nominees. Just 2 weeks ago, the junior Senator from Arkansas announced his intention to hold up our Ambassadors to Sweden, Norway, and the Bahamas. At a time when American leadership is needed abroad, these posts sit empty because the junior Senator from Arkansas is blocking them. Why is Senator Cotton blocking these nominees? He has admitted his hold has nothing to do with the nominees' qualifications--nothing. Indeed, all were reported out of the Foreign Relations Committee with bipartisan support months ago. Instead, the junior Senator from Arkansas is holding these nominees hostage until he gets information from the Department of Homeland Security. That is right. He is holding up State Department nominations to get a response from Homeland Security. Blocking important Ambassadors to get information from a completely different agency makes zero sense. That is akin to having two fighters in a ring and one fighter is going for the referee instead of the other boxer. That is about what we have here. The sad part about this is that the junior Senator from Arkansas is not alone in blocking qualified nominees. The Republican caucus is obviously supporting him. Why? I have spoken before about the crucial need to confirm Gayle Smith as Ambassador to the U.S. Agency for International Development. She would be a good Administrator. I talked to one of my staff yesterday who has a relative who works for this Agency. It is terrible. There is nobody leading the Agency. It has affected the whole department. That is wrong. Why is this nomination important? The Agency for International Development, better known as USAID, plays a central role in our Nation's foreign policy. How? By administering humanitarian and development aid to nations of people in need. A person only needs to watch the nightly news to see that help is needed across the globe--the pictures of the huddled masses of men, women, and children now with the weather turning in Europe. There are millions of people trying to get out of Syria, trying to get out of the Middle East because of what is going on there, with blankets--wet blankets--over their bodies. Little kids are being protected by their mothers, as much as they can be, and by their dads. Victims of civil wars, disease outbreaks, and natural disasters depend on the aid and compassion of the American people. To our credit, we try our best to help as much as possible. Let's take one example: the Syrian refugee crisis. It is the worst humanitarian crisis since World War II. That says a lot. Millions--not thousands, millions--of Syrians have been displaced because of the country's civil war. Thousands are fleeing to Europe to escape the violence. Because of that civil war, it is estimated that there are 4 million displaced people in Syria alone. Millions have been displaced in Iraq. The whole Middle East is in turmoil. The United States has an obligation to assist--a humanitarian obligation to assist. We are the single largest donor of humanitarian aid for the Syrian crisis. But how can we help if Senate Republicans are hamstringing this Agency? They are doing that. Gayle Smith, an experienced public servant, has been nominated to lead this Agency. This good woman can't even get a vote in the Senate. Senator Cruz has been blocking her nomination for months. Why? Is there anything that is wrong about her? Of course not. The word is it is because he doesn't like the Iran nuclear agreement. Remember what the Iran nuclear agreement was? It was an effort by the international community, including Russia and China, to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. That is what it was all about. I guess Mr. Cruz, in his attempt to become President--1 of 15 Republicans running for President--thinks this would be a good issue for him, blocking the person this government has chosen to lead this Agency. Gayle Smith has extensive experience in African affairs. She worked at this Agency during the Clinton administration. She is exactly the type of leader our country needs to confront this crisis in Europe. Even the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, the junior Senator from Tennessee, said he was ``glad the executive branch has nominated someone who has the kind of experience [Smith] has.'' Her nomination has won support from prominent Republicans, including Bill Frist who was one of my predecessors as the majority leader in the Senate, and from Richard Lugar, the distinguished Republican, former chair of the Foreign Relations Committee in the Senate, a man who has expertise in foreign relations. They both see her as the person to do the job. But that does not affect the junior Senator from Texas. We know how others feel about him. Former President Bush gave his opinion of the junior Senator from Texas 2 days ago. There is widespread support for her nomination--if only the Republican leader would bring it to the floor. Yet Republicans continue to hold Ms. Smith and other important foreign policy nominations as ransom to exact political prices from the White House while our diplomacy suffers. I am disappointed that the junior Senators from Arkansas and Texas would hold up these proud Americans who only want to serve their country. But I am far more disheartened by the actions of Republicans who should know better. Why do other Republicans support these callous actions? Republicans have blocked nominees to other ambassadorships for years. Now they are even blocking career Foreign Service officers. These are people who simply receive a promotion they have earned and serve our Nation regardless of the President. Foreign Service officers are not Democrats. They are not Republicans. They do our country so much good. I have had the good fortune to travel the world. When I travel I always meet with the Foreign Service officers, not just the Ambassadors. I get everybody together. I tell them what a wonderful job they do for our country. They go to the most remote outposts in the world, representing the interests of America. They are career people. I also try to visit with the Peace Corps volunteers. But I am so disappointed--and I have talked to him--in the senior Senator from Iowa for holding up a list of 20 career Foreign Service officers. He has held them up for months until he gets answers from Secretary Hillary Clinton's aide Huma Abedin. What does this have to do with these Foreign Service career officers? Nothing. He sent nine letters to the State Department demanding things regarding this woman and some emails from Hillary Clinton. Haven't we heard enough about emails for Hillary Clinton? As we talk, she is over there before this great committee of the House that even the majority leader of the House said is nothing more than--I am paraphrasing--a political witch hunt. The Republican Congressman from New York said basically the same thing. A person who works over there in that committee was fired because he thought it was wrong that they were going after Hillary Clinton when the purpose of the whole hearing was supposed to be to find out what happened in Libya. There has been a concerted effort for more than 2 years to try to embarrass Hillary Clinton. Huge amounts of money have been spent on outside groups, and the House of Representatives, which is supposedly so frugal--the Republican House of Representatives--doesn't want to spend any money that shouldn't be spent--$5 million on this worthless committee wasting time. Listen to these people who are being held up, being denied a well- deserved promotion and rank by the senior Senator from Iowa. This is important. These people serve for decades. They work hard, and they get a promotion once in a while--not with the help of the senior Senator from Iowa. He will hold them up because he wants to try to embarrass Hillary Clinton, who is running for President of the United States. Here is who he is holding up: the Deputy Director for East Africa Operations in Kenya, an education officer in Honduras, a deputy controller in El Salvador, a regional Food for Peace officer in Ethiopia, the Director of the Food for Peace Program in South Sudan, the Democracy and Governance Director in El Salvador. There are others. What could the senior Senator from Iowa possibly have against the Deputy Director for East Africa Operations in Kenya? Or an education officer in Honduras? Or the regional Food for Peace officer in Ethiopia? They have absolutely nothing to do with Senator Grassley's concerns, and these individuals have no ability to respond to any of his requests. I have spoken with him. I told him I think it is a mistake to target these career people. Career diplomats are some of the finest people who work for our government. They are not partisans. They have committed their lives to public service under Democratic and Republican administrations. The Foreign Relations Committee reported these nominations unanimously. They hail from Texas, Florida, Michigan, Arizona, Virginia, New Mexico, and a few other States. Like other Foreign Service officers across this great world, these fine individuals wake up tomorrow ready to serve on the frontlines of American diplomacy in hotspots throughout the world--places such as Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, where we lost four. Denying them a promotion they have earned will affect their career advancement and retirement, and it has real consequences for the families. This is not anything that is going to hurt President Obama. It affects our country. These are people who have families. They have children. They are being held up, stopped for this little promotion they get once in a while. We shouldn't be singling out these nonpartisan officers and putting their careers on hold because the senior Senator from Iowa is not getting the answer to nine of his letters that have nothing to do with these people. Promotions for military officers and our Foreign Service Officer Corps have traditionally moved through the Senate without political interference. They shouldn't now be subjected to political gamesmanship because people are concerned that Hillary Clinton may be elected President. Senators Grassley and Cotton have also placed holds on a man named Brian Egan to serve as the State Department's Legal Adviser, a lawyer--a position that has been vacant for 2\1/2\ years. The senior Senator from Iowa stated that his hold is not intended to question the credentials of Brian Egan in any way, but is instead related to Clinton aide Huma Abedin. That says it all. He continues to hound the State Department. He sent nine different letters, including requesting Ms. Abedin's sensitive private employment information. Not only does Senator Grassley want emails and timesheets, but he wants access to any and all information related to her maternity leave. She had a baby. I wonder if he thinks she faked that. This is nothing more than a transparent attempt to drag this good woman through the mud. For what? Let's be clear. This isn't about her. This is about Hillary Clinton's Presidential campaign. Congressional Republicans are desperate to find something--anything--to embarrass this good woman--a woman who served as First Lady of this country, served as a Senator from the State of New York, and served with distinction as our Secretary of State. They will do anything they can to embarrass her. They are in the process of doing it across the Capitol Complex now. They have told her to be ready: We have 8 hours of questioning. Remember, their questions are dealing with issues that have nothing to do with what happened in Libya. This is their frantic attempt to damage her politically. I say to my friend from Iowa: Stop this nonsense. Have some dignity. Stop this obstruction for politics' sake. For whatever sake, it is wrong. She is no longer Secretary of State. She hasn't been for a long time. John Kerry is. Secretary Kerry has been there a long time now. Stop trying to undermine the State Department, and instead give it the resources and people it needs to work for the American people. I suggest to my Republican colleagues, if they seek expedited responses to their inquiries, it would make more sense to confirm the Legal Adviser, who can advise on these issues and respond to their questions--they don't have a lawyer down there--rather than to block these nominations so that he can't assist anyone. Senate Republicans are holding Ambassadors captive over an issue that has absolutely nothing to do with the State Department. They are holding up career Foreign Service officers. The Senate Republicans are blocking promotions for a group of career people over an issue that has nothing to do with them, that they possibly can't resolve. They can't do anything about it. They are blocking the person who would be running our Agency for International Aid because they don't like the Iran agreement--an issue that the nominee does not handle. Finally, Senate Republicans are blocking the nomination of the Legal Adviser of the State Department, the person who would be best able to answer their legal questions if he were confirmed. Thanks to the Republicans' failure to govern--now I am not making this up. It has been determined by political scientists in our country that this Congress is the most unproductive Congress in the history of the country. Thanks to the Republicans' failure to govern, we are still far behind recent historic norms in confirming nominees, and innocent public servants are caught in the middle of this do-nothing Congress led by the Republicans. It is not right, and it is not fair. I hope adult voices in the Republican caucus will say enough is enough. Sometimes enough is enough. People have to rise up against these people who are giving Republicans such a name. The brand is not so good. I hope the Presiding Officer understands that. Partisanship should not extend beyond the borders of our Nation. It is time for Republicans to start acting like a governing party and stop playing these games with our national security based on the fact that they don't like the person who is President of the United States and the one who is going to become President of the United States. Will the Chair announce what our business is today?

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, the day before yesterday I surprised some by saying nice things about Congressman Paul Ryan, and they said nice things about him. Since then, a handful of people have demanded to know why we would ever say nice things about a man who has attacked Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, as he has done in recent history. The answer is very simple. Democrats need, our country needs, responsible Republican negotiating partners if Congress is to avoid twin challenges facing us in the coming weeks: avoiding the first-ever default in the full faith and credit of the United States and preventing another government shutdown. We need someone to deal with. We must avoid the self-inflicted wounds that have typified the rule of House Republicans and certainly Senate Republicans. In spite of our ideological differences, in my view, Congressman Ryan is the only House Republican, whom I am aware of, with real potential to impose a basic modicum of order in the House of Representatives and work with us to avoid default and another government shutdown. He has helped in the past, and I am confident he could in the future if he chooses to. To my allies, rest assured that I will continue to oppose Congressman Ryan's plans to privatize Medicare and slash Social Security. I have said the Ryan budget would lead to a ``Kochtopia,'' and I believe that to be truer now than ever before. Congressman Ryan also coauthored the Murray-Ryan budget compromise. That was good work. House Chairman Ryan and Senate Chair Murray, Budget chairs, did a very good job. He appears to be supportive of comprehensive immigration reform, and he joined Democrats in saying America's auto industry and financial system should be saved. Maybe the problems are too deep to resolve any time soon. I hope not. I am concerned that we have already seen Congressman Ryan prove incapable of reining in members of the so-called Freedom Caucus. I hope that is not a sign of things to come, but with the stakes as high as they are, we owe it to the American people to pursue the most responsible path, and that will be it. Now is the time to rebuild a system where ``compromise'' is no longer considered a dirty word and where Republicans and Democrats work side-by-side to address the challenges our government faces. However, one of the conditions Congressman Ryan has given House Republicans is that he doesn't want to work weekends. Well, if he gets the job, I hope he will not take weekends off until we do something to solve the debt crisis and to fund the government.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, former First Lady, U.S. Senator of the State of New York, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will testify before the so-called Benghazi Select Committee tomorrow. In recent weeks, it has become absolutely clear that this committee is nothing more than a political hit job on Hillary Clinton. I remember a program, ``Queen for a Day.'' I guess this is ``Speaker for the Day.'' Republican Majority Leader of the House of Representatives McCarthy--here is what he said on a TV show, radio show, or whatever it was: Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Well, that is one reason he was Speaker for the day. There were other reasons, of course. But he told the truth. He told the truth. Congressman McCarthy isn't the only Republican to speak the truth about this so-called committee. Last week Republican Congressman Richard Hanna of New York said: Sometimes the biggest sin you can commit in D.C. is to tell the truth. This may not be politically correct, but I think that there was a big part of this investigation that was designed to go after people and an individual, Hillary Clinton. After what Kevin McCarthy said, it's difficult to accept at least a part of it was not true. I think that's the way Washington works. But you'd like to expect more from a committee that's spent millions of dollars and tons of time. That is an understatement--about $5 million just for this one select committee. There have been other hearings that have cost huge amounts of taxpayer dollars. They are going again tomorrow, and they said be ready for 8 hours--8 hours of interrogation. And that is what it is, an interrogation. These two quotes are from two House Republicans. Hanna from New York is not a Democrat, he is a Republican. The message is clear: The Benghazi Committee is a political calculation meant to influence Presidential elections. And there is more. Now we have found out that one of the Republican staffers on the committee claims that he--the staffer--was unfairly fired because he refused to unfairly target Secretary Clinton. But what else could be expected from a committee whose sole purpose is to drag a Presidential hopeful through the mud? It is no secret that for the last 2 years, numerous Republican- directed organizations with huge amounts of money have been targeting Hillary Clinton--for more than 2 years--because they knew she would likely run for President and they wanted to soften her up, just as McCarthy said. Look at the committee's record. In 17 months, committee Republicans have held a whopping three hearings--in 17 months. Tomorrow's hearing will be the first public hearing since January. It is October. October is winding down. Instead, Republican Chairman Trey Gowdy and his committee have focused millions of dollars and thousands of staff hours on Hillary Clinton--and Hillary Clinton only. The committee has interviewed or deposed eight Clinton campaign staffers. Yet Chairman Gowdy has held only one hearing with an expert from the intelligence community and not a single hearing with anyone from the Department of Defense, which is clearly a key entity responding to attacks on our diplomatic post. And what have they learned in all that time? Nothing. A recent report by the Democrats on the Benghazi Select Committee confirms that none of the witnesses they interviewed supported any of the wild conspiracy theories regarding those attacks. Contrast the Benghazi Committee with the work of the legally required investigation of these attacks, the Accountability Review Board. This independent review was overseen by respected leaders, Ambassador Thomas Pickering, who is one of the great diplomats of our time, and ADM Michael Mullen. They completed their work in less than 3 months, not 17 months. The review board immediately put out a hard-hitting report with a series of recommendations to make sure an attack like this doesn't happen someplace else around the world. And what was Secretary Clinton's reaction to that report? She took responsibility immediately and began to implement the recommendations from the Accountability Review Board. In summary, Republicans spent at least $5 million to attack Secretary Clinton. On this one committee, this one select committee, they have spent $4.7 or $4.8 million. Republicans have done little to investigate the Benghazi attacks. And what little work House Republicans actually did only reconfirmed the basic findings of all three of these previous investigations. House Republicans sadly have used the tragic deaths of four innocent Americans and turned it into an appalling political farce. The very notion that an official House committee was used as a political tool is inexcusable. I would suggest that the chairman of that committee should be ashamed of himself. It is even more disgraceful when nearly 5 million taxpayer dollars were spent on this political hit job. Senate Democrats will continue to fight to get this sham of a committee disbanded. Weeks ago, we sent a letter to Speaker Boehner urging him to bring this disgraceful committee to an end, but, no, they are plodding forward. Today, Senate Democrats sent a letter to the Republican National Committee requesting that it reimburse the American people for the Benghazi Committee's expenses. Why did we do that? It is only fair since the so-called committee is clearly a Republican political organization.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. I withdraw that. The reason we were going to have a quorum call--I know other people want to have a chance to speak, but Senator McConnell is on his way.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, today the Senate turns its attention to the cybersecurity bill. It is way overdue. The bill, which is OK, is better than nothing--let's put it that way. The ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, Senator Feinstein, and the chairman of that committee, Senator Burr, have worked hard on this legislation, which addresses a serious national security issue. In fact, it is so serious that we should have addressed this topic long ago. We tried to. As Senate Democrats, we tried so very hard. We had a comprehensive cybersecurity bill on the floor 3 years ago which was much deeper and better than this one--3 years ago--but our Republican colleagues blocked us from even debating the bill. We couldn't even debate the bill. Why? They, the Republicans, were told the chamber of commerce didn't like it. At about the same time, the chamber of commerce's whole operation was hacked by the Chinese. The people who worked down there expected things to come out in English, but they came out in Chinese. But they didn't like the bill anyway, so they told the Republicans to oppose it, and they marched over here and opposed it. Democrats, however, realize cybersecurity is a serious issue. We know how important cybersecurity is for the national security of our country and the financial security of our economy. Even though this bill is not our perfect bill, we are going to cooperate with our Republican colleagues. Several months ago we reached an agreement with Republicans to begin debating this legislation, and now we can process it in an efficient and bipartisan manner. Would the Chair announce the business of the day.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have watched over the years my Republican colleagues who are supposedly concerned about States' rights wipe them out with a speech like the one we have just heard and the legislation before this body today. I am told and have always believed, Republicans think States and communities should have the ability to do the things they think are appropriate. Any one of these States that my friend refers to--any one of these communities--has a right at any time to change the law. This is not a Federal law they are trying to change; they are trying to change what is taking place in cities throughout the country. So they are States' rights, my Republican colleague's own words. It certainly doesn't belie the actions they have tried to take. The Republican leader tries to make the bill before this body a political issue. It is a Donald Trump-bashing-immigrants issue. This bill is opposed by the National Association of Chiefs of Police, it is opposed by the National Council of Mayors, and many different organizations that believe in States' rights. My friend, the Republican leader, would just make things a lot worse, and that is an understatement. With the provisions in this bill, it is estimated it would take 15 new huge prisons just to handle the people who would be arrested--huge prisons, costing billions of dollars. It is not smart police policy. It is not smart budget policy.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, over the last 10 months, congressional Republicans have proven they are incapable of governing--at least governing productively. Instead, Republicans are governing destructively. It is hard to understand or fathom, but this seems to be what they want: destruction. It is not a word I decided to bring into the conversation today. One Republican Congressman said very recently: ``We are looking for creative destruction in how the House operates.'' This Republican Congressman said, I repeat, ``We are looking for creative destruction in how the House operates,'' and they are as good as their word in the House and sadly also in the Senate. Time and time again, Republican leaders have brought the United States to the brink of unnecessary disaster, and sadly here we are again, facing another manufactured crisis courtesy of Republicans in Congress. This time it is a debt limit crisis. On November 3, just 2 weeks from today, our great country--the United States of America--will default on its debt unless Republicans start legislating more constructively to solve the problem. Let's be clear about what the debt limit does and doesn't mean. Adjusting the debt limit--when it is absolutely necessary, and it will be in 2 weeks--is necessary to pay this country's bills that are already due. What we face now with the debt ceiling isn't about a penny of new spending. It is not about a penny of new programs or a penny of new taxes. It is not about creating new obligations, only meeting existing ones. The debt limit is about paying what we already owe. What are these debts? A large, large, large chunk of these is what we owe as a result of an unpaid war, a second unpaid war, and tax breaks for the rich that were unpaid for. Remember, this great theory of President Bush was that these wars would bring a new democracy to the world. Well, the invasion of Iraq was the worst foreign policy decision probably in the history of the country. Look what it has done, and it has been done at the cost of trillions of dollars of taxpayers' money, and that is part of the debt that is due. These tax breaks for the rich. Why did the Bush administration push these tax breaks? Because it would be great for the economy. Well, it has been great for the rich people. They are getting richer, the poorer are getting poorer, and the middle class are getting squeezed. All these tax cuts were unpaid for. If we don't act, we allow the United States to default. The day of reckoning will be terrible. We will hurt American jobs, families, businesses, and the fallout will be felt around the world. If some Republicans in Congress get their way, the United States will default on this debt. What happens then? The short answer is economic catastrophe. The former Director of the Congressional Budget Office, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, described last week what will happen if the United States defaults: The first thing you'll see is a market reaction. Then you've got dramatic impacts on consumer confidence, the world's melting down again and they go into an economic fetal position . . . there's just no good news there. This wasn't some leftwing blogger; this is a man who did a good job representing this country on a bipartisan basis in the Congressional Budget Office--by the way, during a Republican administration. He said: The first thing you'll see is a market reaction. Then you've got dramatic impacts of consumer confidence, the world's melting down again and they go into an economic fetal position . . . there's just no good news there. The Republican chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, a reasonable Paul Ryan, said as much last week: If the United States missed a bond payment, it would shake the confidence of the world economy. All kinds of credit would dry up: loans for small businesses, mortgages for young families. We could even go into a recession. That is what we will face in 2 weeks if Republicans don't get their act together, and by all signs, it doesn't appear they are going to. All signs indicate that House and Senate Republicans are still not serious about dealing with the debt limit. If they were serious about paying our bills and keeping America on sound economic footing, they would not be proposing an absurd idea of having a ``partial default.'' You can't be partially pregnant; you can't have a partial default. House Republicans have engineered legislation to pick and choose which debts to pay and which to ignore. Listen to this: Their proposed legislation is going to pay foreign creditors first, such as China, but they don't want to meet our obligations to veterans, Medicare beneficiaries, and millions of middle-class Americans. No. They want to start paying down the debt we owe to China. Think about that. The truth is this pay-China-first approach is just default by another name. This approach would lead a middle-class family into financial ruin, and just imagine what it would do to world markets. I repeat: There is no such thing as a partial default. A partial default is a default. We can't allow the Federal Government to be delinquent in paying its debts. We have 2 weeks to get something done, and we can if the Republicans come to their senses. This unnecessary drama over paying our bills is already rattling the financial markets. The bond market has already been hurt, and we can see it. I say to my Republican friends, especially the leaders in the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate: Start governing in a way that is not an embarrassment to Congress and the American people. Mr. President, please announce what we will be doing here today.

Mr. REID

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

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Madam President, in the coming days and weeks, we as a Congress face a series of real and important deadlines. First, we must address the debt ceiling. Last week, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew let the American people know that in 2 weeks--November 3--the United States faces the threat of being unable to pay its bills. Unless we act, the Federal Government will default on its accrued debt--default on its accrued debt. A huge percentage of this debt is the result of unpaid tax cuts for the wealthy and two unpaid wars during the last Bush Presidential administration. If we allow the United States to default on this debt, the consequences to world markets would be catastrophic, but that is not all. It is not all this leadership has ignored. Congress must reauthorize the Export-Import Bank, which has basically gone out of business, causing the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs in the United States and hurting our economy in more ways than one. It is also important that we pass a long-term surface transportation bill and again avert another potential Republican shutdown of our government by December 11. Yet as the Senate reconvenes today, we are considering none of those vitally important matters. Instead--just as he did as the shutdown loomed last month--the Republican leader is spending the Senate's time on a partisan, ideological bill to placate the radicals within his own party. The senior Senator from Louisiana is the architect of this bill before the Senate, which targets the so-called sanctuary cities. Senator Vitter's legislation fails to match the family values rhetoric he so frequently touts. This vile legislation might as well be called ``The Donald Trump Act.'' Similar to the disgusting and outrageous language championed by Donald Trump, this legislation paints all immigrants as criminals and rapists. At its core, Senator Vitter's bill undermines the ability of local law enforcement officials to police their own communities and ensure public safety. It is then no surprise that the Fraternal Order of Police and Major Cities Chiefs Police Association do not support the Vitter sanctuary cities legislation, and that is an understatement. If implemented, this bill would punish local jurisdictions by withholding Federal community grants that police departments use to enhance public safety and build community trust. Imagine that, holding hostage public safety funding for police as a result of this misguided, farfetched legislation that everyone knows will not pass. Senator Vitter's legislation would also withhold community development block grants that ensure affordable housing and provides services to the most vulnerable in our communities. The Donald Trump Act would establish new mandatory minimum sentences for those who enter the country illegally. Initial estimates show that new mandatory minimums in this bill would result in the need for nearly 20,000 new prison beds--20,000--requiring the construction of 12 or more huge new Federal prisons, costing billions and billions in taxpayer dollars. It seems Republicans don't care about the cost to public safety. They don't care about the cost of building new prisons. A few billion here, a few billion there of taxpayer dollars, that is OK. After all, Republicans are not proposing this bill to solve any problem within our immigration system; this Donald Trump Act was designed to demonize immigrants and spread the myth that they are criminals and threats to the public. It promotes discrimination and bias. Decades--decades--of research demonstrate that immigrants are less likely to commit serious crimes or be jailed than native-born individuals, and high rates of immigration are associated with lower rates of violent crime, not higher. So the notion that The Donald Trump Act is necessary to protect Americans from violent criminals is preposterous. Violent gun murders are a tragedy our Nation faces far too often. Every year--and it is getting worse, not better--32,000 people are killed by guns in this country. That is how many were killed last year. That is how many are going to be killed this year, but the number is going up. More Americans have been killed by guns since 1968 than in all the wars of our Nation's history--all the wars in our Nation's history. Republicans should direct their energy toward saving the lives of thousands through safer, smarter gun safety legislation instead of capitalizing on hateful political rhetoric to advance their radical agenda, even though almost 90 percent of the American public think there should be a background check for someone who is a criminal or has mental problems, even though over 50 percent of members of the National Rifle Association believe there should be background checks--but not congressional Republicans. No; they know better than 90 percent of the American people. Democrats believe local communities and local law enforcement are better judges of what will keep their communities safe than Donald Trump or Bill O'Reilly. The safety of our neighborhoods and local communities should not be a pawn for Republicans' latest gambit to hide their failure to act on comprehensive immigration reform. Local law enforcement officials, domestic violence groups, immigrants' rights groups, mayors, faith leaders, and labor groups all oppose The Donald Trump Act. This bill does nothing to keep Americans safe, and it certainly does nothing to address our broken immigration system. America is and always has been a nation of immigrants, and we are all the better for having hard-working immigrants as contributing members of our communities. This Nation deserves a commonsense immigration process that works, one that is tough on lawbreakers, fair to taxpayers, and practical to implement, but instead of joining Democrats in passing comprehensive immigration reform that unites families, strengthens communities, and boosts our economy, Republicans remain committed to their only approach to immigration policy: mass deportation. We all know this extreme rightwing approach would hurt our country and simply cannot work. The Donald Trump Act would shatter the trust between law enforcement and communities that keep our Nation safe. Republicans should abandon this shameless attempt to appease the base elements of their party. They should work with Democrats to pass comprehensive immigration reform, which is years overdue. Sadly, though, until Republicans get serious about immigration reform, the Republican leader shouldn't waste the Senate's time on legislation that he knows will not pass. This legislation is not going to pass. He knows it. We all know it. Instead, he is just treading water, waiting for time to go by. The Republican leader should focus the Senate's time and all of our efforts on the pressing matters we face--such as avoiding a catastrophic default and keeping our government open so we can do the people's business. Madam President, would the Chair announce the business before the Senate.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I wish to recognize two incredible entertainers and individuals in the Las Vegas community, Siegfried Fischbacher and Roy Horn, better known as Siegfried and Roy. For more than 35 years, this duo shared their captivating magic show with visitors and residents of Las Vegas. Their stage presence and the participation of their trained white tigers kept audiences coming back for performances unlike any other. Siegfried and Roy's award-winning show at the Mirage Hotel and Casino was enjoyed by children and adults, and it opened the door to family entertainment on the Las Vegas Strip. Through their celebrity and love of animals, Siegfried and Roy have been working to raise awareness for animal conservation and are educating others about endangered species. The white tiger, an animal that became an icon of Siegfried and Roy's performances, is among those listed as endangered and facing extinction. By establishing the Siegfried and Roy Masters of the Impossible Foundation, they are taking their efforts to educate, protect, and conserve animals that are endangered and threatened across the globe. For the first time in 5 years, Siegfried and Roy's Secret Garden at the Mirage is welcoming four tiger cubs, Hirah, Maharani, Liberty, and Justice. Siegfried and Roy are calling these cubs ``ambassadors of conservation,'' as they hope these animals will help them share the important message that we must continue to work together to protect endangered species. I appreciate Siegfried and Roy's dedication to the Las Vegas community and animal conservation. I wish them the best in their future endeavors.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, the bill before the Senate this afternoon, in spite of all the statements of my friend the Republican leader, is another piece of political theater. Everyone knows the President is going to veto this. Everyone knows this. The House, if they are called upon first to sustain the veto, will do it. If we are called upon first to sustain the veto, we will do it. Republicans are trying to paint Democrats as being soft on defense. Based on what we have heard from my friend today, I don't know where he doesn't want American troops--China, Iran, Russia, all over the Middle East. It is stunning to listen to what he has said. We have spent a lot of money training foreign troops. I was in Iraq. Who was training the troops then? General Petraeus. I don't know what my friend wants, but I do tell everyone the gimmick we have in this bill today; that is, having this funny money funding and that is what it is--I can't imagine my Republican friends who have in the past been so supportive of not doing things that deal with funny money, that their--Senator McCain, the chairman of the committee, has acknowledged that sequestration will destroy the military--that is my word--but will badly damage the military. He has said that many times. So we have a lot of problems here, but the gimmick my friend is so touting today does nothing to support the security we need at home: The FBI, homeland security, border protection. I say to my friend, the Presiding Officer, today: You voted the way I thought Republicans should vote when this matter came before the body yesterday. It has been a week since it happened, but the American people are still reeling from House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy's admission that the so-called Benghazi Select Committee is nothing more than a political hit job on Hillary Clinton. That is what he said. Speaking about this committee, he told FOX News: Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. It doesn't take much to figure out the point he was making; that this was nothing more than a hit job on Hillary Clinton. According to Mr. McCarthy, the so-called Benghazi Select Committee was orchestrated with one goal in mind--to weaken Hillary Clinton's Presidential campaign. Of course that is shameful. House Republicans have used the tragic deaths of four Americans as political fodder to win an election. Don't the victims deserve better? Don't their families deserve not to have their deceased loved ones pulled into a political inquisition? Even more shocking, this political farce continues now. House Republicans are showing no signs of bringing this charade to an end. Consider the facts. These are a number of the select committees that have been going on that we have had in the Congress in recent years: Hurricane Katrina, Pearl Harbor, Warren Commission, Iran-Contra, Watergate, and the Benghazi Committee. This big red line sitting here shows this committee has spent far more time than any committee except Watergate. Look at that. It is hard to believe. For 16 months now we have used the tragic deaths in a way that is not what we should be doing. They have spent almost $5 million of taxpayer money on this so- called select committee, and the number continues to climb as I speak. Not only do they have a select committee, they have had six other committees that have held hearings on this. What a waste of taxpayer dollars. The select committee has investigated Hillary Clinton for 17 months, 517 days--longer than the investigations that I mentioned: Pearl Harbor, the Kennedy assassination, and even, timewise, Watergate--close but still more time than on Watergate, and it is still going on. What have they accomplished? What have they achieved after all that time and money has been spent? What have they accomplished for the American people? Nothing. And they have held three hearings in 17 months. Not one American is safer today because of the select committee, not one terrorist attack has been thwarted because of the committee's work, and Republicans are fine with that. They hail the Benghazi committee as a success because it was never the panel's intention to get to the truth. This committee's only real objective was to hurt Hillary Clinton--exactly as Congressman McCarthy said. The evidence makes that clear. In 17 months, the committee has interviewed or deposed eight Clinton campaign staffers. They are obsessed with Hillary Clinton and her campaign status. Yet, stunningly, Chairman Gowdy and Republicans have little interest in questioning intelligence and defense experts. They have held only one hearing with an expert from the intelligence community. They have never held a single hearing with anyone from the Department of Defense. The Republican chairman and his colleagues have abandoned their plans to interview Defense officials and instead have gone after Secretary Clinton and her staff. The evidence is clear. The Benghazi Select Committee is a sham. Democrats have known this for 2 years, but now we have the man who is going to be--I understand after tomorrow at noon--running the House of Representatives come November 1. He has acknowledged it is a witch hunt. That is why the Democratic leadership of the Senate wrote to Speaker Boehner asking him to disband the select committee. That is why I will not stop reminding Republicans of Congressman McCarthy's admission. If it were up to me, the House Democrats on that panel would nail this quote on the committee room doors as a reminder to everyone that Republicans have manipulated a true American tragedy and turned it into a political circus: Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. He is so proud of himself. Until House Republicans do the right thing and disband this committee, I will continue to tell the American people about the disgrace that is the House Republicans' Benghazi committee. Mr. President, would the Chair announce what we are going to be doing today.

Mr. REID

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

Mr. REID. Mr. President, the bill before us is not fiscally responsible. Our troops deserve real funding, not budget gimmickry. This bill does not do the job. My Republican friends like to talk about the deficit and the debt and the need to get our fiscal house in order, but their actions speak louder than their words. Now they are supporting legislation that increases deficit spending and increases the burden on our children and grandchildren. As a result, this bill violates the budget law. Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending measure violates section 3101 of S. Con. Res. 11, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2016.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, Charles and David Koch are trying to buy America. They have the money to try and do just that. Because of the Supreme Court's wrong and disastrous Citizens United ruling, the Koch brothers' dark political money has infected our democracy. One need only look at our national politics to see how the Kochs are influencing our government. Even now, these two billionaires are committed to spending $900 million to advance a radical agenda during this election cycle. It is no surprise, then, that virtually every Republican Presidential candidate kowtows to these two oil, tar sands, and coal barons from Kansas. Republican Presidential hopefuls all kiss the rings of the Kochs, hoping that some of their filthy money finds its way into their campaign coffers. It is disgusting, and it is wrong. But the Koch brothers aren't just trying to buy the highest office in the land. They are not just trying to help themselves at the Federal level. They are also trying to buy our democracy from the bottom up. In statehouses and city halls all across our great country, the Koch brothers and their vast spending network are turning local governments into agencies of the Koch empire. They are trying to turn America into a Koch-financed oligarchy. It seems there is no issue too local nor policy matter too small to escape the Koch brothers' wrath. They want to impose their radical agenda on the American people on every issue, no matter the cost to families and communities. Just look at what they are doing in Colorado Springs, CO. ``The Potholes of Colorado Springs draw the attention of Koch brothers' group.'' This is a headline from last weekend's Washington Post. The Koch brothers are fighting the city's efforts to fix its crumbling roads. Reading from the article: This much everyone can agree on: The streets of this large city on the Rocky Mountain Front Range are a wreck. Sixty percent are in disrepair, cracked and rutted; driving on them is often a game of vehicular Minesweeper. One local TV news channel runs a segment called ``Pothole Patrol.'' I continue to quote: But when this city's newly elected conservative mayor urged voters to approve an increase in the sales tax to pay to improve the roads, he drew fire from an unexpected source: a branch of Americans for Prosperity, a powerful conservative advocacy group backed by the billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch. The Koch brothers aren't interested in advancing solutions. They are interested in sending a message. They are willing to attack everyone, even conservative Republicans who cross their extreme agenda. This is the basic work of government the Koch brothers want to destroy. All Colorado Springs and its Republican mayor want to do is to determine their own fate, fund their own roads, and make their own laws. But in March, Americans for Prosperity, beholden to Charles and David Koch's pocketbook, simply shut down the entire process of local, community-based government. It is unbelievable they would do this. The Koch brothers don't want the people of Colorado Springs to find their own solutions to fix potholes in Colorado Springs, and they are willing to pay to make sure that doesn't happen. That is only one city, and I don't have time to mention all. The Kochs are doing this all over America. Here is another headline from the Nashville Tennessean. ``Koch brothers group works to stop Nashville Amp.'' Here is the quote: The movement to stop a Nashville mass transit plan has gotten an extra boost of horsepower from an unexpected source: the Koch brothers, out-of-state billionaires. But there are many more examples. ``Americans for Prosperity spent $62,795 to defeat zoo levy.'' Think about that. They are so focused on doing everything they can to run this great Nation not from the top down but the bottom up. This was the headline from the Columbus Dispatch last year. The Koch brothers' main political arm in Ohio fought against the Columbus Zoo and Aquarium tax levy. Why? Because the Kochs have a Georgia-Pacific plant nearby and they did not want to pay their fair share of taxes. Think about that. These are multibillionaires. It is estimated to be worth $150 to $200 billion. They are afraid their company, Georgia-Pacific, may have to pay a few extra dollars in taxes in Ohio. The Los Angeles Times: ``Koch brothers, big utilities attack solar, green energy policies.'' This is a headline from the L.A. Times, as we can see, and it reads: The Koch brothers, anti-tax activist Grover Norquist and some of the nation's largest power companies have backed efforts in recent months to roll back state policies that favor green energy. The conservative luminaries have pushed campaigns in Kansas, North Carolina and Arizona, with the battle rapidly spreading to other states. . . . Both sides say the fight is growing more intense as new states, including Ohio, South Carolina and Washington, enter the fray. Potholes in Colorado--they want to stop anything to do with renewable energy in Tennessee. They are going to stop a zoo and aquarium in Columbus, OH, or nearby. They want to stop any type of renewable energy because it slows down their tar sands business, their oil business, and their coal business. In Nevada, the Koch brothers and their foot soldiers are meddling in many issues--really, too many to count. They have been trying to upend Nevada's open primary process. They have encouraged young Nevadans to stay out of the State's health exchanges. They fought attempts to raise Nevada's cigarette tax. They have used the State legislature to undermine labor unions. These are only a few examples of the Kochs' ``Buy America'' plan. What the Koch brothers are doing in Nevada and all of the States that we talked about this morning is shameful. They are using their deep pockets and their shadowy organizations to try and buy a government that serves them, not the American people. They aren't even trying to hide it anymore. As one radical activist happily noted to the Washington Post, ``the Koch brothers, they may write a check'' to promote their ultraconservative ideology. They are writing more than a check or two. Charles and David and their allies are writing $900 million worth of checks--$900 million spent against rebuilding our Nation's roads and bridges, against a fair shot for all Americans, against raising the minimum wage, and against the hundreds of thousands of American jobs supported by the Export-Import Bank. The Kochs have a lot of money to spend. They are using a tiny bit of it, which is huge amounts of money--about $1 billion this election cycle--to do other kinds of things. They want to promote criminal justice reform. That is nice. I am glad they are on the right side of something--finally. That could be one reason they are interested in this--because they have been in the past prosecuted for doing things that have been illegal and criminal in the nature of prosecutors. They have fought back against these things. We have been talking about the criminal justice system long before the Kochs got involved. That is well and nice that they are embracing reform now, but it does not negate the many bad things they are doing to hurt American families. The Koch brothers' priorities are wrong for the middle class and they are wrong for all America. It is time that we let the Koch brothers know that our country isn't for sale. It is time that we let every power-hungry billionaire know they can't buy our government. Whether it is the city hall of Colorado Springs or the halls of Congress, you should not be able to buy America's democracy. The question is this: Are the Kochs going to buy America, because they are certainly trying to? It is up to every American to say no. Mr. President, I note that there is no one else on the floor. So would the Chair announce the business of the day.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, our ranking member on the Armed Services Committee is here on the floor. He has done an exemplary job working with Senator John McCain to move legislation forward. I have followed his lead, and I am not going to vote for this conference report, as he is not going to vote for this conference report. I would say that the House had a vote similar to this one a few days ago, where they had more than enough votes to sustain a veto if the President does veto this, which he says he is going to do. I want everyone to know that as to Democrats who voted for this in the past, not all of them will vote the same way they did last time. But our Democrats have stated, without any question, if it comes time to sustain a Presidential veto, that will be done.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Madam President, at about a quarter to eleven this morning, one of my friends passed away. Her name was Janice Shelton. She was a fixture in the Senate. She worked in the Senate for more than three decades, but the reason I feel so bad this afternoon is that Janice worked for me. Janice Shelton worked for me for 25 years. She was such a good person. She ran my office, and that is an understatement. Janice was born in Virginia, in Warrenton. She graduated from Mt. Vernon High School in Alexandria and attended Northern Virginia Community College. She was married to Robert Shelton for 61 years. They have two daughters, Robin LeCroy and Laurie Nelson. They have eight grandchildren in total, two of whom I know well. Shelton Nelson worked for me. Well, I shouldn't say he worked for me. I got to know him very well. I read the papers every Sunday to find out how his football team had done. He was a huge offensive lineman. He weighed more than 300 pounds, all solid muscle. His brother Chris, who is 6 foot 4, was a stunningly good baseball pitcher, also at the college level. Rebecca and Holly worked in the Senate as Senate pages. And they have four great-grandchildren. Janice started her career working with the Department of the Army. She worked in the Carter White House in the Office of Domestic Policy. She worked in the Reagan White House. She then moved to the Senate in 1981, working as an executive assistant. She worked for Paula Hawkins of Florida for 6 years and worked for Senator Mikulski for 1 year and then worked for me for 25 years. She left maybe less than 3 years ago and moved to North Carolina to be near her two daughters, one of whom now lives in Atlanta. Janice spent her professional career creating order where chaos could easily have been. In my office everyone knew Janice Shelton. She ran that place so well and was so polite, yet so firm, in what she would allow to happen and not happen. There was no bad language. She had a little cup, and if people used bad language, they had to put money in it. She was so gracious and so kind, and she had unbelievable energy. It didn't matter what the job was, big or small, Janice could handle that job. She was a stenographer, but she was a person who could handle the most difficult administrative situation, and she was a woman of tremendous faith. Janice had a love affair with her husband Bobby for a long time. I remember Bobby, with that southern accent of his. When Bobby was still in business around here, he would bother his morning breakfast crowd by wearing T-shirts of mine. He ran with a kind of conservative crowd, and my T-shirt didn't fit in very well all the time. But she and Bobby were so loyal to me. Janice was good to my family. She knew every one of my children and knew my grandchildren. She suffered with the bad times that we had. I remember I was heavily involved in the final stages of the Obama health care bill when she walked into my office and said: I have to talk to you. She told me my wife had been in a very bad automobile accident. She, of course, was available anytime she was needed to help Landra or me with things--those personal things you can't have just anyone help you with; it had to be somebody like Janice. Janice's desk was right outside my office door. She was a fixture there. She was there all the time that I was. Whatever my hours were in the Senate, those were her hours. And I mean that without anything other than the truth. If I was there until 10 o'clock, she was there until 10 o'clock. Often, after I would go home at night, I would call back and say: Janice, why are you still there? And she would say: Well, I still have a few things to do. I have missed Janice now for almost 3 years. I talked to her as often as I could. I am going to truly miss her now. She will leave a tremendous void in my heart. I am going to call my kids later today--I haven't done it yet because I haven't had time for anything--and tell them about Janice's passing. I wish words could convey to everyone within the sound of my voice what a wonderful human being Janice Shelton was. I will miss her. The impact she has made in my life and my wife's life will be there forever. Two of my staff came into my office separately and broke down in tears about Janice no longer being with us. She created such loyalty, such admiration for her hard work and professionalism. I love Janice Shelton and always will.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Madam President, just a few days ago--last Thursday--our great Nation witnessed another tragedy. While preparing these remarks, we were trying to come up with what we should say, and ``tragedy'' doesn't quite convey how horrible that mass killing was in Oregon. Once again, a young man was able to obtain an arsenal of guns and end the lives of innocent people. Nine men and women woke up Thursday morning, all to attend a community college, but they were assaulted and killed in a demented, sadistic killing ritual. Lucero Alcaraz, age 19; Treven Taylor Anspach, age 20; Rebecka Ann Carnes, age 18; Quinn Glen Cooper, age 18; Kim Saltmarsh Dietz, 59 years old; Lucas Eibel, 18 years old; Jason Dale Johnson, 34; Lawrence Levine, 67; Sarena Dawn Moore, 44--all victims of a deranged gunman's murderous attack. Madam President, our hearts are broken for the families and loved ones of the victims and for this whole community of Roseburg, but a broken heart isn't enough, is it. This senseless act of gun violence is not an isolated tragedy. Communities all around our Nation are shattered daily by these cruel and undeserved acts of gun violence. The reality of gun violence in the United States is not only shocking; it is pathetic. Every day, gun violence claims the lives of 30 Americans. Tomorrow at this time, 4:15--24 hours from now--about 30 more Americans will be killed by guns. And 11,000 Americans are murdered with guns each year. This year alone, we have had 200 mass shootings--200. Anywhere else in the world these alarming facts would prompt action. Sadly, here in the United States we have become so desensitized to the lives taken every day by guns that our response is to do nothing--to do nothing. Each time gun violence claims a life in America, the Nation follows the same routine. Here is what it is. The same thing happens. We have shock and sorrow. Then we start asking questions. Who did that? Who was the killer? We usually have to wait a few hours to find out who it was. Why did they do this? Why did they carry out this horrible act? Then we wonder aloud, when the time allows it: What could we as a nation have done to prevent this terrible thing from happening? But we don't do anything. We don't act. It is within our power to reduce gun violence in this Nation and prevent mass shootings--not all of them but some of them, a few of them. We know these tragic events almost always occur in instances where somebody is unstable or they are terribly violent, and they are able to get a gun easily and use it to carry out these terrible attacks. We know this, yet we fail to pass improved Federal laws placing distance between mentally ill, violent people and guns. Instead of taking action, lawmakers all around this country pander to the extreme rightwing gun lobby and leave Americans vulnerable to these attacks. This year alone there have been more than 200 mass shootings-- this year. The United States is the global leader in mass shootings-- this great Nation. Can't we raise standards in this country for gun purchases? The answer of course is yes. We can do it while not infringing on the rights to restrict access to firearms but to keep Americans safe. Let's not mince words about who would stop us from passing background checks: Republicans who wage a rightwing ideological crusade fashioned by the National Rifle Association and Gun Owners of America. These two organizations are in a scramble of who can raise the most money. That is what it is all about. If one of them does something, the other will do better than that. Each request comes with ``Can you send some money?'' This rightwing ideological crusade, fashioned by the NRA and Gun Owners of America, is to prevent background checks to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists, criminals, and the mentally ill. The National Rifle Association is a far cry from the sportsmen's organization it once was. The NRA once called mandatory background checks ``reasonable.'' That is what they said. Now it uses its energies and its members' dues to fight against even the most sensible reforms. In opposition to this deadly agenda, Democrats have long sought to strengthen background checks. But instead of joining Democrats in finding ways to protect American lives, Republicans have pledged their loyalty to what was once a moderate sportsmen's organization. Times have changed. Now the NRA and its leadership are committed to a radical agenda that allows criminals and mentally ill Americans to access guns and commit these terrible acts. Is this what the American people elected us to do? I think not. Is this the protection they want or deserve? I think not. Americans are smarter than that. They deserve better than that. The majority of people who belong to the NRA believe there should be background checks to stop people who are mentally unstable and are criminals from buying guns, and 90 percent of gun owners believe there should be background checks, including 86 percent of Republicans. But even in the face of overwhelming public support, Republicans still refuse to join Democrats in taking steps to implement background checks that could save the lives of countless Americans. We have witnessed the consequence of inaction too often. Why do I say that? This is over a period of many, many years--now decades: Fort Hood, 13 Americans killed; Tucson, 6 Americans killed; Carson City, 4 Americans killed; Newtown, 27 Americans killed, including 22 babies, little tiny children; Aurora, 12 Americans killed; the Navy Yard, here in DC, 12 Americans killed; Charleston, 9 Americans killed while worshipping; Moneta, VA, 2 journalists shot to death on live television; and now there is the massacre at Umpqua Community College, 9 dead. These tragic events have shattered the lives of too many families. The shooter was armed with 6 firearms and loads of ammunition, and when they came to his home they found at least 14 guns--and another gun. I thought it was only 14, but, no, they found another one. So add them up--15 plus 6, or 21 guns--21 guns. We do not yet know why this young man murdered these innocent people in cold blood. But what does it say about our country that it is willing to stand by, idle, while these tragedies happen, happen, happen? Smarter gun laws in this country are long overdue. The lives of these men, women, babies, and children are at stake. How many more innocent lives must be taken before we are willing to act? How many more communities and families' lives will be shattered? How many more sacred places of worship will be violently attacked? How many more colleges or schools will be terrorized and forever traumatized by gun violence? How many more Americans will we mourn? How many more solemn statements, speeches of condemnation, and frank discussions must take place? What will it take before we stand up as a nation and say: Enough, not another innocent American will fall victim to this ideological crusade of having more guns and more guns and more guns. If we don't take action, we are equally responsible for innocent deaths as are the sick individuals who plot and carry out these horrific massacres. I have started reaching out to Senators and talking about what can be done to advance the cause of background checks while Republicans are in charge for the next year or so. But one thing is clear. To pass background checks, we need Republicans to stop acting as puppets for the NRA. Madam President, would the Presiding Officer announce what the schedule is for the rest of the day.