Harry Reid

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, S. 788 is due for its second reading. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin.) The clerk will read the title of the bill for the second time.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would object to any further proceedings with respect to this bill at this time.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I had a number of meetings yesterday with Democratic and Republican proponents of the Marketplace Fairness Act. This is a piece of legislation that is overwhelmingly supported by Democrats and Republicans. I appreciate the remarks of the Presiding Officer yesterday on behalf of this legislation. Succinctly, what this legislation would do is level the playing field between online sellers and brick-and-mortar retailers. As everyone knows, we have had a lot of problems with the economy. But in Nevada we have been hit very hard. We led the Nation for 20 years with a vibrant economy. In the last 4 or 5 years it has been difficult. We are doing better now but we are not doing great. For lack of a better description, I was going to say it breaks my heart. I am not sure that is proper. But I feel very badly when I drive in Reno or Las Vegas and see these little strip malls with ``for lease'' signs. They would not be for lease if they had the ability to compete with these online sellers. As indicated yesterday on a number of occasions in presentations I heard made, people come to the retailers who pay money for brick and mortar. They will find a pair of shoes, they will find a coat they like, or whatever else, and they immediately walk out of there and go on line and do not pay the sales tax. That prevents that business from succeeding. The reason I mention this today, we could finish this legislation today, on Wednesday, and move on to the other bipartisan legislation. We have a small number of Senators who are holding this up, stalling. This has 50 Democratic votes and at least 25 Republican votes. I know many of my Republican colleagues want to attend--and I think that is appropriate; I wish I could--the opening of the Bush Library in Texas. Unfortunately, there are Senators who are playing procedural games that are going to prevent that from happening. I do not say this often. There is no chance they can prevail. We have three States basically holding up this legislation. For people to talk, you are coercing us to do something. We are coercing those States to do nothing. Zero. Nothing. We are just trying to make the playing field level. So I want everyone to understand, just a handful of Senators is preventing us from doing our work. We are going to finish this legislation this week. I know this sounds like me crying wolf, but this may be the time the wolf is really coming. We have a bipartisan bill we have to move to next work period. It is the WRDA, Water Resources Development Act, supported by one of the most liberal Members of this Senate, Barbara Boxer, and one of the most conservative Members, Senator Vitter. They have worked out a bill. It has been reported out of their committee. It is on the calendar right now. We are going to move to that. In addition to that, we have another bipartisan bill in the wings coming out, the agriculture bill. We need to complete those bills next work period, because we have to get to immigration. So everyone understand, this is not crying wolf. We are going to finish this bill. I spoke yesterday to Senator Enzi who has worked on this bill for 11 years. I spoke to my good friend--and certainly Mike Enzi is my good friend; I do not mean to choose favorites here--Lamar Alexander. They both said we have got to finish this bill this week. We are going to do that. When I have requests from Dick Durbin and my Republican friends to move forward on this bill, we are going to move forward on it. If we have to be here Friday and Saturday, I am telling everybody we are going to finish this bill. We have a 3-week work period next time. We have to jam in WRDA and hopefully the ag bill so we can move before July 4 and finish the immigration bill which is going to take up quite a bit of time. We have too much to do when we return from our in-State work period. I have a lot to do. I have a conference. I am going to do some things there with Eric Cantor. We do not do things together very often, but we are going to talk about some issues people want to talk about. I want to be able to do that. It is not here in Washington. If I have to put that off, it would be a shame for me and Eric Cantor, and I think the people putting on the conference. But if that is what it takes, that is what it takes. I want to go home. So we are going to finish this bill. I am going to read an editorial from one of the world's leading newspapers. It says, ``Budget Cuts, Minus the Inconvenience.'' Headline: Republicans encourage a sequester affecting the poor, but they are furious about travel delays. Here is what it says. I am not editorializing, I am just telling you what they put in this newspaper editorial today. On Monday, after the sequester cuts forced the Federal Aviation Administration to begin furloughs for air traffic controllers, delays began to build up at airports around the country. Travelers had to wait, but nothing delayed Republicans from scurrying away from all responsibility. Speaker John Boehner started using the Twitter hashtag #ObamaFlightDelays, the latest effort in his party's campaign to blame all the pain of the sequester on the Obama administration while claiming all the credit for its effect on reducing the deficit. ``Why is President Obama unnecessarily delaying your flight?'' Eric Cantor, the House majority leader, wrote in a message on Twitter. If the President wanted to, Republicans said, he could easily cut somewhere else and spare travelers any inconvenience. As it happens, the sequester law is clear in requiring the F.A.A. and most other agencies to cut their programs by an even amount. That law was foisted on the public after Republicans demanded spending cuts in exchange for raising the debt ceiling in 2012. Since then, the party has rejected every offer to replace the sequester with a more sensible mix of cuts and revenue increases. Mr. Boehner is so proud of that strategy that he recently congratulated his party for sticking with the sequester and standing up to the president's demand for tax increases. But drastic cuts in spending carry a heavy price. Republicans certainly don't want voters they care about-- including business travelers and those who can afford to fly on vacation--to feel it. They continue to claim that the $85 billion in this year's sequester can be covered by eliminating waste, fraud, consultants, and the inevitable grant to some obscure science or art project. And of course to programs for the poor. You don't see any Republican hashtags blaming the president for cutting housing vouchers to 140,000 low-income families, which has begun. These vouchers are given by cities to families on the brink of homelessness, and about half of them go to families with children. There aren't any tweets about the 70,000 Head Start slots about to be eliminated, which is forcing some school districts to distribute these valuable services by lottery. This is not the editorial. The Presiding Officer's colleague, Senator Rockefeller--a wealthy man with this great name--as a young man went to West Virginia and fell in love with the poor because he was a VISTA volunteer, and he never left. He is now here in the Senate. Let's get to the editorial. I am sorry about that. Continuing: Or about the cuts to Vista [Volunteers in Service to America], which is hurting the program that performs antipoverty work in many States. Or the 11 percent cut in unemployment benefits for millions of jobless workers. The voiceless people who are the most affected by these cuts can't afford high-priced lobbyists to get them an exception to the sequester, the way that the agriculture lobby was able to fend off a furlough to meat inspectors, which might have disrupted beef and poultry operations. And what was cut in order to keep those inspectors on the job? About $25 million from a program to provide free school breakfasts. As bad as the sequester was, it was being made worse by these special-interest demands for exceptions, as well as politically motivated attempts to deflect the responsibility for pain. The maneuvering shows the futility of trying to reduce the deficit with crude and arbitrary cuts. Both Senate Democrats and the White House have proposed budget plans that replace the sequester with a much better mix of spending cuts and revenue increases. On Tuesday, the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, proposed replacing the sequester for 5 months with unspent money from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is what one of America's major newspapers said today that millions of people will have the opportunity to read. The sequester was designed as a tool to bring Democrats and Republicans together to reduce the deficit in a responsible way. By now we can all see that didn't work, and we can see that sequester's costs far outweigh the savings. As indicated in this editorial, these across-the-board cuts would cost, this year, 750,000 jobs--three-quarters of a million jobs. They will cost us investments in education that keep America competitive. They will cost millions of seniors, children, veterans, and needy families the safety net that keeps them from descending into poverty. Most of the headlines are focused on the hours the sequester has cost travelers in airports across the Nation. The frustration and the economic effects of those delays should not be minimized. The sequester could also cost this country, and humankind, a cure for AIDS, Parkinson's disease, or cancer. These arbitrary cuts have decimated funding for medical researchers seeking cures for diabetes, epilepsy, and hundreds of other dangerous and debilitating diseases. The National Institutes of Health has delayed or halted vital scientific projects and reduced the number of grants it awards to research scientists. Thousands of research scientists will lose their jobs in the next few months. Research projects that can't go on without adequate staffing will be cancelled altogether. Ohio State University, which is known for more than a good football and basketball team, is also one of the premier research centers in America. Grants for cancer research and infectious disease control have been axed. They are over. At the University of Cincinnati, which is at the forefront in research on strokes--a leading cause of death in the United States--scientists are bracing for some more cuts. Vanderbilt University and the University of Kentucky are accepting fewer science graduate students because of funding reductions. At Wright State University, scientists researching pregnancy-related disorders, such as preeclampsia, will lose their jobs. Boston University has laid off lab scientists, and research laboratories in San Francisco have instituted hiring freezes and delayed the launch of important studies. Grants to some of Harvard University's most successful research scientists were not renewed because of the sequester. The research I have talked about today--and these are only a few of them--saves lives and saves misery. These scientists are looking for the next successful treatment for Alzheimer's or the next drug to treat high cholesterol. They might never get the chance to complete their groundbreaking work or make their lifesaving discoveries because of these shortsighted cuts. We have seen the devastating impacts of these arbitrary budget cuts. Now it is time to stop them. Be prepared, everybody--the House is now working on another bill because we have the debt ceiling coming soon. They are working on another bill to make it even more painful for the American people. Last night I introduced a bill that would roll back the sequester for the rest of the year, and just like the editorial indicated, it is something we should do. The bill would give Democrats and Republicans time to sit down at the negotiating table and work out an agreement to reduce the deficit in a balanced way. It wouldn't add a penny to the deficit. It would use the savings from winding down the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to prevent cuts that will harm our national security and our economy. Before the Republicans dismiss these savings, they should recall that 235 Republicans voted to use these funds to pay for the Ryan Republican budget. They didn't consider it a gimmick when it served their own purposes. We can stop the flight delays and the pink slips. We can stop the devastating cuts to programs that protect low-income children, homebound seniors, and homeless veterans. We can stop the cuts to crucial medical research. But Democrats can't do it without Republicans' help. Republicans overwhelmingly voted for these painful, arbitrary cuts, and Republicans bear responsibility for their consequences. Remember, these cuts came about because of the debt ceiling they refused to move on until these devastating cuts came about, and Republicans bear responsibility for the consequences, from travel delays to cuts to vital programs. Now Republicans must accept that they have an obligation to cooperate with us to help stop these Draconian cuts and mitigate the consequences.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Remember, Congressman Ryan, when he came up with one of these budgets, used these overseas contingency funds to balance his budget. Let's not even worry about that for purposes of this conversation, the overseas contingency fund. Let's just talk about the war in Afghanistan. What my friend is saying is that it is OK to borrow money for the war in Afghanistan but not to use that same money to reduce pains being felt all over America today. Even Joe Scarborough on ``Morning Joe,'' a former Republican Congressman from Florida, said today that he can't believe that the pain is being felt all over America today and no one is concerned about the war in Afghanistan. Does anyone think we are going to be fighting a war in Afghanistan 5 years from now, 10 years from now? That is the money people are trying to protect. I hope not. For the sake of my children and grandchildren, I hope we are not still fighting in Afghanistan 5 or 10 years from now. We are asking to take a few dollars of the $650 billion that is there--billion dollars--to relieve the pain we are feeling now for 5 months. That is it. I think it is really unfair that it would be so easy to turn the sequester around and allow us to do something for a long term to take care of this issue, but, no, the Republicans like the pain. One Republican Senator who came here last night said: Well, why don't we take the money from the construction fund for airports? Those create jobs. He said: Why don't we take it from essential air services? That dog has been here and fought lots of times. That has been stripped bare. As I indicated in my opening statement, this is supposed to be fair and equal. You can't jimmy things around. It is the same amount of money. The Republicans say: Well, it is the same amount of money, but give more pain to somebody else than the other; just balance it out. The pain is too severe; it can't be balanced out.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the leader time not count against the hour that is set aside for morning business.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. I yield back all time.

Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the next vote be 10 minutes in duration.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Madam President, on behalf of Senators Enzi, Durbin, and others, I have an amendment at the desk and I ask the clerk to report.

Mr. REID. I have a cloture motion at the desk.

Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the names be waived.

Mr. REID. I now ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived.

Mr. REID. Madam President, I now ask unanimous consent that Senator Donnelly be recognized for up to 20 minutes to give his maiden speech, and he will proceed as in morning business. Following his speech, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Durbin, the manager of the bill, be recognized.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, S. Res. 114 concerns a request for testimony, documents and representation in a federal criminal action pending in Arizona Federal district court. The prosecution and defense have requested the production of a limited number of documents and testimony, if necessary, from current and former employees of the Offices of Senator John McCain and former Senator Jon Kyl. Senator McCain and former Senator Kyl would like to cooperate with these requests by authorizing the production of relevant documents and employee testimony from their offices. The enclosed resolution would authorize the production of relevant documents and employee testimony from the offices of Senator McCain and former Senator Kyl. It would also authorize the Senate Legal Counsel to represent any current or former employees of those offices from whom evidence may be sought in this case.

Mr. REID

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

Mr. REID. Madam President, my friend from Oklahoma is on the Senate floor. I would ask if he would be kind enough to wait while I say a few words and withhold offering the consent agreement to allow Senator Schumer to speak for 5 minutes. Following Senator Schumer, I will offer the consent agreement. Would that be appropriate for the Senator from Oklahoma? Madam President, the arbitrary spending cuts in the Budget Control Act were designed to be painful--so painful that both parties would come together to find a bipartisan way to reduce the deficit. Thus far, it hasn't worked. We have reduced the debt by doing a number of different things by approximately $2.5 trillion. We have cooperated in that regard. The deep cuts required by the sequester failed to bring the Republicans to the negotiating table to find more savings or more revenue. Even after both the House and the Senate passed budget resolutions, the House Republican leadership has refused to go to conference to work out our differences. Republicans have been telling us for a long time that they want regular order. When we come to regular order, they don't want regular order. Republicans are afraid to even be seen considering a compromise with Democrats. I speak more strongly, as the Republicans here in the Senate are doing their objection here on going to conference more to protect the House. This applies much more to the House Republicans than it does to the Republicans in the Senate. The Republicans in the House are afraid to be seen considering a compromise with us. Because Republicans have refused to negotiate a compromise, sequestration kicked in with devastating effect. We are just beginning to feel the impact of these deep cuts. Nationwide, the sequester will cut 750,000 jobs this year alone. More than 70,000 little boys and girls will be kicked off the Head Start Program. Programs funding medical research with Duke University, as I indicated on the floor yesterday, and scores of other programs that do the same and programs that help get homeless veterans off the streets are being decimated. Yesterday I spoke about Meals on Wheels. Meals on Wheels is one of the programs that are so helpful. Homebound seniors receive one meal a day, and it is usually only during the day. These are being significantly hammered. I have spoken about Head Start for young children, but education programs are being hit very hard. These are programs that deal with impoverished children. We know the sequester is causing massive delays. I am from Las Vegas. I am from Nevada. No place in America is more desperate to have the flights on time than tourist-oriented Las Vegas. It is the same in Reno. These cuts are hurting tourism in Las Vegas and in all of the country. It is not only the furloughs at the FAA, it is some of the programs I have spoken about and many more. We have seen the dire effects of these arbitrary budget cuts, and we have an obligation to stop them. That is why I am going to ask unanimous consent to take up and pass legislation that would block sequestration until the end of this fiscal year, until the first day of October. This would give us 5 months to sit down at the negotiating table and work out an agreement to reduce the deficit in a balanced way, in a way that doesn't punish the American people and our economy in the meantime. The legislation I am proposing is simple, and it deserves quick approval. There is no reason to go back, even though I would agree to it through the Buffett rule. Let's do some spending cuts, let's do some more cutting. We tried that. It wouldn't work. Let's try the flexibility. That also won't work because we are dealing with the same amount of money. I hope this simple solution I am offering will be supported by my Republican friends--establishing binding caps on the war spending. The wars are winding down, and currently there is $650 billion there. And as this bill proposes, the one on which I will ask consent, it will close that loophole and propose more than enough savings to offset the cost of delaying sequestration for 5 months. Let's put a stop to the furloughs, delays, and a stop to the job losses. Let's put a stop to the devastating cuts to programs that keep our poor children from receiving an equal shot in life. Let's stop senior citizens and homeless veterans, who are the most vulnerable among us, from falling through the cracks. They may not be as transparent as what is happening at our airports, but these are devastating to human beings. Let's do it in a fiscally responsible way and do it now. Then let's get to work finding a broader agreement to strengthen our economy and reduce our long-term deficits. I yield 5 minutes to my friend the Senator from New York as indicated with the tentative agreement I requested earlier. Then I will resume on the floor to ask for the consent, and my friend from Oklahoma will respond.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. 788. My friends on the other side have had this legislation for a short time, not a long time, but it is not that difficult to understand. I have tried to explain it the best I can. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. 788, the text of which is at the desk, which is a bill to suspend the fiscal year 2013 sequestration and offset that with funds from the Overseas Contingency Operations; that the bill be read three times and passed; and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Calendar No. 19, S. 16, the Inhofe-Toomey bill on flexibility, with an amendment that reflects the current changes for sequestration; that the bill be read three times and passed, as amended, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. REID. I object.

Mr. REID. Madam President, earlier this year the Senate voted on dueling responses through the sequestration. Democrats had a balanced plan--half revenues, half spending. Republicans tried giving flexibility with, of course, no revenues whatsoever. The Senate voted both of these down. We know these plans won't work so there is absolutely no need to repeat what has already failed. So let us try to solve the problem. I appreciate the mini lecture of my friend from Oklahoma, but it is wrong. It is good to go back and talk about what has happened. When President Bush took office--and I hate to keep bringing this up; his library is going to be dedicated in a few days--he had a surplus over 10 years of $7 trillion. When he left office, he had a debt of almost $2 trillion. Why? Was it because government got bigger? Well, it got bigger because we had two wars, paid for with the $7 trillion that should have been surplus, but it was all borrowed money. All borrowed money. During the Clinton years, when Bush stepped into office, President Clinton had created 22 million jobs in 8 years. During President Bush's 8 years, we lost 8 million jobs and lost our entire surplus. So of course those two wars and the tax cuts that were unpaid really created some problems. The Senator from Oklahoma complains about government is larger than it was 2 years ago. Well, I have talked about that. But one thing my friend fails to acknowledge is Simpson-Bowles. By the way, he voted against that--is that right?

Mr. REID. That is right. You were with Senator Durbin and voted for that. Most Republicans voted against that. My liberal friend Dick Durbin voted for that. The reason I mention that is because Simpson-Bowles wanted to arrive at a savings of $4 trillion, as I understand it. We have already done $2\1/2\ trillion. It is not as if we haven't done anything. I would also talk about my friend from Oklahoma. I know he is smart, and I understand that, but just because you are smart doesn't mean you are always right. We have a situation where this country has been driven by the tea party for the last number of years. When I was in school, I studied government and I learned about the anarchists. They were different from the tea party because they were violent. But they were anarchists because they did not believe in government at any level, and they acknowledged that. The tea party kind of hides that. They do not say we are against government, but that is what it amounts to. They are not doing physically destructive things to buildings and people directly, but they are doing everything they can to throw a monkey wrench into any form of government, whether it is local, State, or the Federal Government. That is what it is all about. So anything they can do to throw a monkey wrench into the wheels of government, they are happy doing that. And I am sorry to say my friend from Oklahoma is helping them, maybe not directly but indirectly, and that is wrong. Government is not inherently bad. Government is inherently good. That is why we have a Constitution, and we direct the activities of this government based upon that Constitution. We have a situation here that is not good. We have programs being cut all over America. Rather than doing things with a meat cleaver, as my friend from New York said, we should be doing it with a scalpel--doing things that are fine-tuning and working to eliminate these programs. My friend asks why doesn't the FAA cut other programs? Listen to this: He wants to cut airport improvement programs. These are job creating. They create jobs at airports--runways, terminals. These are programs that create jobs. Essential Air Service may not mean much to him, but we had a program where--I don't know if it was my friend from Oklahoma but some Republican Senator offered an amendment to get rid of Essential Air Service. One of the places they indicated should be cut is Ely, NV. I said okay, too much per passenger, I will go along with that. I could have stopped that but I didn't do it. We have had this debate previously. Essential Air Service has been whacked on a number of occasions. There are places in America where Essential Air Service is just what it says, it is essential, to give those rural communities the ability to have an airplane come in there once in a while. The Congressional Budget Office would give us credit--it wouldn't be toward the deficit--to do something for 5 months and take a little money out of Overseas Contingency Operations. We are going to cut money from that. We are not going to spend all that money that has been set aside to take care of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is too bad we are right here with competing unanimous consent requests and the American people are going to continue to suffer-- whether it is some little kid not able to go to a Head Start Program or some senior citizen who will miss his Meal on Wheels or the other programs--in addition to the devastation that is going to take place at airports.

Mr. REID. Sure.

Mr. REID. That is true.

Mr. REID. In addition to that, I say to my friend from California, there is research dealing with dread diseases, in addition to cancer, which research is being curtailed.

Mr. REID. Five months.