Harry Reid

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments, with the exception of the McConnell substitute amendment, be withdrawn; that no other amendments, points of order, or motions be in order to the joint resolution or the McConnell substitute prior to the vote on the McConnell substitute; that at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, September 10, the Senate proceed to vote on the McConnell substitute amendment; that the amendment be subject to a 60-affirmative-vote threshold; further, that if the McConnell amendment is agreed to, H.J. Res. 61, as amended, be read a third time and passed; that the time today until 5 p.m. be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; that following leader remarks on Wednesday, September 9, until 6 p.m., the time be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; and that following leader remarks on Thursday, September 10, until 5:30 p.m., the time be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees. Mr. President, that is my unanimous consent request. Let me say a brief word, and I will turn it over to my friend the Republican leader. If the Republicans want more debate time, they can have it, but I think 3 days would be adequate. There is a definite time for doing this, and I think that is important. If anyone thinks this is not a serious issue, I don't know what could be a serious issue. Based upon the underlying foundation that has been laid by my friend for these many years, this is going to require a 60- vote threshold. Everyone knows that. This goes back long before this dialogue started today on the floor. It has been going on for some time, as my friend the assistant Democratic leader, when he has an opportunity to address the Senate, will discuss.

Mr. REID. I object.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I assume we would alternate with Republican and Democrat amendments; is that right?

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the agreement be modified to allow 11 Democratic amendments instead of 10.

Mr. REID. They will be as follows: Carper No. 2627, Coons No. 2552, Franken No. 2612, Tester No. 2632, Leahy No. 2587, Murphy No. 2589, Whitehouse No. 2626, Wyden No. 2621, Wyden No. 2622, Mikulski No. 2557, and Carper No. 2615.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I want the debate we are going to have in a matter of weeks to be--and I think all of us do--dignified and befitting the gravity of one of the most important issues of the day. This is a step forward, and I do not object.

Mr. REID

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

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Iran accord is the result of many years of hard work by lots of people. Congressional committees are conducting hearings to listen to the administration's case and others. For example, this evening at 5 p.m., we will have an all-Senators classified briefing. At that meeting, we will hear from Dr. Moniz, the Secretary of Energy, a man imminently qualified as a scientist--an MIT physics professor who is world famous for his scientific prowess--and Wendy Sherman, one of America's truly great diplomats during the last 20 years. We have yet to see the language of the legislative response to the accord that has been negotiated. I know that Senator Corker and Senator Cardin are working on that, but it is not out yet. It is incumbent on Congress to review this agreement with the thoughtful, level-headed process that an agreement of this magnitude deserves. Let's hopefully remember that we all agree, and now the world agrees, that a nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptable and a threat to our national security, the safety of Israel, and the stability of the Middle East. Like many Senators, I am continuing to consider this matter. I am looking forward to the briefing tonight. It is altogether appropriate for Senators to consider this deliberately and with the understanding that this is very important. I admire those Senators on both sides who have come to a conclusion on how they feel about this. A number of us have not and are looking for more information to better understand this very important time in the history of the world.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, on another matter, unless Congress acts, there will be a government shutdown on October 1. That is a short time away--less than 2 months. Every day that passes we are another day closer to the crisis of an unfunded Federal government. For months we have been warning Republican leaders that there is a need to find a solution to these budget problems. We have offered to meet with them. We have urged them to negotiate. The answer is always no answer. The Republican leader knows he must negotiate. Here is what he said yesterday: ``Different parties control the Congress from control the White House, and at some point, we'll negotiate the way forward.'' I am sure that didn't come out exactly the way he wanted, but I think I get the picture. He believes we have two Houses of Congress that are different from the White House. I am quite certain that is what he meant to say. Regardless, the question remains: Why does the Republican leader continue to decline our invitation to sit down and craft a bipartisan solution and do it now? Why does he continue to tell us no? This should not come as a surprise, however, because Republicans are in the habit of governing by manufactured crisis. We have seen that over the past 7 months. Their obvious distaste--some say hatred--of government generally is so deep that many take pleasure in closing it. We hear that from the statements that have been made over the last few days. That could explain why they keep fighting to not move forward on negotiations and finding excuses to simply close the government. Lately it has been women's health. They are going to close the government because they don't like the way women are getting their health care. In the 1990s Republicans shut the government to force cuts in Medicare. In 2013 they shut the government to force repeal of the Affordable Care Act. It is clear that both of those times were total failures. Earlier this year Republicans came within hours of shutting down the Department of Homeland Security. That is the agency which is tasked with keeping our homeland safe. They came within hours of closing down the whole Department. There is always a new reason--some grievance from the partisans at FOX News, some complaint from whiners on talk radio, some attack from radicals in the tea party. It makes one wonder: What will be next? Will the Republicans again use shutdown extortion to try to repeal ObamaCare or to attack immigrants or to cut Social Security or to privatize Medicare? As I just said, there is a new one. They are targeting the health of women in America. Could it be any more obvious that the Republican Party doesn't care about the health of women? That is obvious from the statements that have been made. The legislation before this body says money that goes to this organization which they dislike--other agencies will take care of it. Well, we have learned that in Texas alone, hundreds of thousands of people simply wouldn't be able to have the care they need. Yesterday Jeb Bush went so far as to say this, a direct quote: ``I'm not sure we need half a billion dollars for women's health issues.'' Unfortunately, the attack on women's health is only one example of the many legislative riders Republicans are pursuing. This isn't just talk; they have actually done it in the various bills that have come out of the House in the appropriations process and over here by the Republicans. These partisan riders have nothing to do with funding the government and everything to do with ideology and special interests. For example, there is a legislative rider to block implementation of the Affordable Care Act, which would deny health coverage to millions of Americans--that, after almost threescore different attempts to repeal ObamaCare. Each of them turned out the same: They were defeated overwhelmingly. There is a legislative rider on behalf of Wall Street to protect institutions that are too big to fail, making taxpayers more vulnerable to future bailouts. There is a legislative rider to undermine the President's work to address the dangers of climate change. And the dangers of climate change exist. Spread across all the news today is the fact that the Forest Service is going to be spending 75 percent of its money fighting fires in the future. There will be no money left for anything other than fighting fires. There is a fire going on in California now. It is 15 or 20 percent contained. There are 7,000 or 8,000 firefighters trying to stop that fire from spreading even more. That is only one of the many fires burning as we speak. There is a legislative rider in their legislation attacking immigrants by undermining President Obama's recent Executive actions. There is a legislative rider to block the Federal Communications Commission from implementing its recent net neutrality order. Let's not forget that this is what the Republican leader wanted; in fact, this is what he promised. It was just last month that he told the Lexington Herald Leader that he and Republicans would ``line the interior appropriations bill with every rider you can think of.'' In this instance, he certainly is a man of his word. Democrats disagree with these Republican attacks, and we are going to resist them. We believe in standing up not for billionaires and tea party ideologues but for everyday, working families. Take sequestration, for example. While Republicans want relief only for the Pentagon, we insist on equal, dollar-for-dollar treatment for the needs of America's middle class--for jobs, for education, for health care. We insist on strengthening Social Security and Medicare, not cutting and privatizing them. And we insist on supporting women's health, not gutting it. We know that Republicans disagree with us about these middle-class priorities, but I hope these disagreements--serious though they are-- won't get in the way of keeping the government operating. Whatever our differences, we should act responsibly. We should at least be able to agree to not shut down the government. Republicans should not once again take legislative hostages to get some rightwing prize that is within their grasp. Mr. President, would the Chair announce the business of the day.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the respective anniversaries of three of the most important programs for American seniors: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. On August 14, 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law. Among other things, this bill created the Social Security Program and made a promise to all Americans: that if you work hard, contribute, and play by the rules, you can retire and live in dignity. Before Social Security, more than 50 percent of older Americans in this country lived in poverty. Many of these seniors worked hard their entire lives but became dependent on others and often had to beg for basic necessities, such as food, shelter, and medical care. ``Poverty- ridden old age'' was a pressing national concern both for seniors and younger Americans, who wondered if their years of hard work would provide enough for them to survive in their old age. Today, less than 9 percent of seniors live in poverty. This significant decrease in poverty among seniors is a direct result of Social Security and the secure retirement it provides. As we approach the program's 80th anniversary, Social Security is the most successful program in American history, and its trust fund contains sufficient assets to fully fund all promised benefits for almost 20 years. Yet, notwithstanding its success, Social Security remains deeply controversial among many Republicans and superwealthy Americans, who are committed to weakening and ultimately destroying the program. Just 10 years ago, President George W. Bush tried to privatize Social Security, which would have forced deep cuts to guaranteed benefits and a massive increase in debt. More recently, several leading Republicans have called for delaying the retirement age and cutting benefits. I have strongly opposed all these proposals to break our promises to seniors, and I will continue to do so. On July 30, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson expanded our Nation's commitment to seniors by signing into law the Social Security Amendments of 1965--the legislation that created Medicare. For 50 years, this program has helped millions of American seniors live longer, healthier lives and has also provided them with the peace-of- mind and economic security that comes with having comprehensive health coverage. I remember what it was like for seniors who became sick or injured before Medicare was enacted. In fact, Medicare was implemented during my tenure on the board of trustees for the Southern Nevada Memorial Hospital, now the University Medical Center of Southern Nevada. Prior to Medicare, 40 percent of seniors who came into that hospital were required to have a signature from a friend or relative who agreed to be responsible for their medical bill if they could not pay. If the patient could not produce a signature, they were turned away. Nationwide, nearly half of all seniors age 65 and older were uninsured, and if you were fortunate enough to have health insurance, you paid more than 50 percent of the cost out-of-pocket. That is how bad it was for seniors. Today, 98 percent of all seniors are insured and can go to the hospital or see their doctor when they need care. This program has truly been a lifeline for millions of seniors throughout the country. And let us not forget about Medicaid, which was also created under the Social Security Amendments of 1965. Medicaid provides health care and long-term services to 16 million low-income seniors and individuals with disabilities. Medicaid pays for services that Medicare does not cover. It ensures that low-income seniors and individuals with disabilities have access to a wide variety of services. These options often allow them to remain in their communities rather than relocating to nursing homes. I have long worked to protect and strengthen Medicare and Medicaid for the millions of seniors and younger Americans who depend on these benefits. In 2010, I proudly cast my vote in support of the Affordable Care Act, which is strengthening Medicare and working to keep seniors' hard-earned savings in their own pockets. Since this law was enacted, millions of seniors throughout the country have saved more than $15 billion dollars on their prescription drug costs and the program's solvency has been extended for 13 years. The Affordable Care Act has also given States the option of expanding their Medicaid Programs so that more low-income Americans can access the care they need. Sadly, Republicans have repeatedly attacked and tried to eliminate Medicare and Medicaid, just as they have done with Social Security. Throughout the last 50 years, they have tried to privatize Medicare, convert Medicaid into a block grant program, and cut benefits for both programs. Now, they have set their sights on the Affordable Care Act, with repeated challenges to the law before the courts, more than 50 votes to repeal or undermine the law, and Republican Governors turning back millions of Federal dollars to expand their Medicaid Programs and expand access to health care in their States. Republicans are determined to destroy effective health care programs in spite of all the good they have done, but my Democratic colleagues and I will continue to work to prevent this from happening. As President Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law 80 years ago, he said, ``Today, a hope of many years' standing is in large part fulfilled . . . We have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-ridden old age.'' Similarly, five decades ago President Johnson declared, ``No longer will Americans be denied the healing miracle of modern medicine. No longer will illness crush and destroy the savings that they have so carefully put away over a lifetime so that they might enjoy dignity in their later years.'' Let us remain mindful of these words and the promise that our country has made to seniors as we commemorate the 80th anniversary of Social Security and the 50th anniversary of Medicare and Medicaid. I am committed--just as President Roosevelt and President Johnson were decades ago--to giving Americans the health and economic security they need, deserve, and have earned.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the 20th anniversary of the United Labor Agency of Nevada. Since it was established in a joint venture with United Way of Southern Nevada and Nevada State AFL-CIO in 1995, the United Labor Agency of Nevada, ULAN, has been assisting Nevada families who are experiencing unexpected crises. Whether it be job loss or a medical emergency, ULAN provides individuals and families throughout our community with assistance so they may have access to vital resources, such as housing and nutrition, during their time of need. ULAN also offers guidance to those battling hardship to prepare plans for long- term self-sufficiency and financial stability. These imperative services have made a lasting impact on Nevadans, and the benefits of ULAN's services are felt across the Silver State. ULAN began as a small dream, with only Audrey Arnold and $30,000 to help the community. Under Ms. Arnold's steadfast leadership, ULAN has grown into a $2 million organization. Today, Ms. Arnold and her dedicated staff and volunteers are now able to provide a one-stop shop for those experiencing hardship. By offering immediate housing, nutrition, job outreach, and financial counseling services, the organization works to prevent financial situations from becoming worse and helps individuals and families transition to living within their means on a new reduced income through federal programs and other resources. This two-pronged approach has had a remarkable effect on countless families over the past 20 years. I applaud ULAN on their decades of dedicated public service and extend my best wishes for much continued success.

Mr. REID

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

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I agree with the Republican leader that we should work to come up with a way of proceeding in a dignified manner to this most important piece of legislation. Certainly, I would lend my efforts to try to get that done. It is easier said than done, with the feelings on both sides of the aisle on this issue and other issues.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, yesterday President Obama took a very important step in addressing climate change and promoting clean energy. His Clean Power Plan is the strongest action ever taken by our government to fight climate change. The Clean Power Plan would reduce the dangerous amounts of carbon pollution being pumped into the atmosphere. By reducing pollution, the Clean Power Plan would yield significant public health benefits for our entire Nation. Carbon pollution has many devastating effects on our environment, as well as the health and well-being of all of us. Sadly, pollution from burning fossil fuels disproportionately affects low-income people and families of color. Exposure to air pollution can aggravate preexisting health problems, especially respiratory maladies such as asthma. For millions of Americans, carbon pollution affects their ability to breathe and exacerbates the problems they have with asthma. Consider these facts. Minority and lower income Americans are far more likely to live near coal-fired powerplants. Statistically, that is terribly accurate. African Americans are three times more likely to be hospitalized from asthma. African-American children have an 80-percent higher rate of asthma and are roughly three times more likely to die from asthma than their White peers. Roughly half of Latinos live in areas that frequently violate clean air rules, and Hispanic children are 40 percent more likely to die from asthma than non-Hispanic Whites. In Nevada, just a short distance out of Las Vegas, about 35 miles, there is an Indian reservation. Approximately 30 years ago, NV Energy-- Nevada Power--built this huge coal-fired generator there. Over the more than three decades it has been in existence, tens of millions of tons of coal have been burnt in that powerplant. It is a football field away from the reservation. Those Native Americans have been really sick as a result of that. Now there has been a court settlement that gives them a little bit of economic strength as a result of this, and, to its credit, NV Energy's new ownership has decided it is going to phase out that plant very quickly. That is good for the health of those Native Americans. Today the plant is being decommissioned and solar is being built on the tribe's reservation. It is wonderful to see that. They have a lot of jobs, and it is giving some economic viability, in addition to the court settlement I just talked about. President Obama put it best yesterday: ``If you care about low- income, minority communities, try protecting the air they breathe.'' That is exactly what the President's plan will do. It will clean the air we breathe, help curb health care costs, and improve the quality of life for all Americans. But that is not all. As the plan is implemented, we will see even more investment in clean and renewable energy, which is not only good for the planet and our health, but it is good for the economy. The Clean Power Plan will boost renewable energy by 30 percent over the next 15 years, cutting pollution but, of course, creating tens of thousands of jobs for all Americans. President Obama's plan encourages programs and incentives to make American homes more efficient and lower consumers' utility bills. Under the Clean Energy Incentive Program, a jump start in new jobs is expected from construction and installation of renewable energy and efficiency upgrades. This will incentivize new clean energy development and job creation before the new carbon standards even go into effect. It has been disappointing, but not surprising, to see Republicans' knee-jerk opposition to addressing climate change. It is all the more frustrating because they have no plan of their own, except to let the smoke keep billowing. Instead, Republicans are clamoring to show special interests such as the oil baron Koch brothers how far they are willing to go to kill commonsense protections for our air and public health because it might hurt the bottom line of their coal and energy barons. Last month, House Republicans passed legislation that would rescind President Obama's action addressing air pollution and climate change. Senate Republicans, for their part, are trying the same thing with policy riders in the Senate Interior and Environment appropriations bill. Republicans would leave our children and grandchildren to pay the devastating costs of climate change. The Republicans have no solutions. They are afraid to acknowledge that climate change is a problem. It is. President Obama's Clean Power Plan is good for this country. It is the strongest action we can take today to ensure a cleaner, healthier tomorrow for our children and grandchildren, and it has to be done administratively. We can't get anything done legislatively. It is all opposed by the Republicans. It would be good for my State of Nevada, where investment in clean energy is $6 billion. President Obama's plan gives States further flexibility to tailor programs for reducing carbon emissions while protecting public health and keeping electricity affordable and reliable. Already the plan has wide support in Nevada. An article from the Associated Press yesterday reads: Several Nevada government business leaders plan to voice support for a federal campaign to limit carbon pollution from power plants around the nation in an effort to address global climate change. . . . Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval's energy chief, Paul Thomsen, says Nevada is well-positioned to comply with the first national limits on carbon dioxide from existing power plants. Nevada understands the benefits clean energy brings to communities and the lives that will be improved by cleaning the air we breathe. Nevada is at the forefront of clean energy in the United States. Over the past decade, our clean energy infrastructure has expanded substantially, bringing good-paying jobs and new industries to Nevada. There can be no better place for President Obama to begin a dialogue with the Nation about the Clean Power Plan than Nevada. I am looking forward to President Obama's visit to Nevada later this month to speak at the National Clean Energy Summit in Las Vegas on August 24. This is the 8th annual National Clean Energy Summit.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, we all want to address cyber security. Repeatedly, in the last two Congresses, I worked to convene the chairmen and ranking members of the relevant committees to move cyber security legislation, and we worked hard and came up with a number of bills, one of which we brought to the floor and was killed by the Republicans. What was good for our Nation's security was bad for the tea party and the Republicans. They blocked the cyber security legislation. In this Congress, we have not been as uncooperative as the Republicans were when they were in the minority. Democrats are willing to proceed to the cyber security bill, if we can get assurance that Democrats can offer relevant amendments. It has to be done. For the majority leader to say, as he did here today, that well, on this massive bill we had, I stuck the cyber security bill with a lot of other things--he knew it wouldn't work there. It was only to check it off his list that he tried to do it. Realistically, we have already been on this legislation. We should have been on this legislation. The Republican leader could have proceeded to cyber security instead of a politically motivated bill to defund access to health care for women. Unlike Republicans, we don't need all the poison pill amendments that deal with different subjects. Democrats have amendments relevant to cyber security, and we must offer those. I have received a letter from Senators Wyden, Leahy, Franken, Whitehouse, and Coons yesterday that states: We understand that the Senate may soon consider the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act. We share the view that increasing the security of U.S. networks while protecting Americans' privacy is an important goal, and while we have different views on this legislation, we are all interested in offering relevant amendments that we believe would improve this bill in various ways. We look forward to working with you to ensure that there is an adequate process for considering a reasonable number of amendments. The way Republican Senators used to talk about an open amendment process, our request to have a few relevant amendments should be readily accepted by the Republicans. But then, looking at how the Republican leader has led the Senate this year, there is plenty of reason for Democrats to be concerned. Just look at the bill the Senate just considered last week--a major highway bill with more than 1,000 pages. The Republican leader filled the amendment tree twice, not allowing any amendments to be offered. Accordingly, if you look at what the Congressional Research Service says, the Republican leader could potentially fill the amendment tree more times than any other majority leader has done in the first year of a Congress. So far he has done that more than I ever did. Nevertheless, Democrats will work with Republicans to get on this bill and consider a reasonable number of important amendments. I hope the Republicans will cooperate with us. Would the Chair announce the business of the day.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I look forward to that discussion. Keep in mind, being reported out of committee--this is a committee that holds everything in secret. They do nothing public. So having a 14 to 1 vote in a meeting that takes place in secret doesn't give the other Senators who are not on that committee a lot of solace. I look forward to the Republican leader and me and our staffs working together to try to come up with some way to move forward on this legislation. We want to do that.

Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. REID. The Republican leader is my friend, and I don't mean in any way to disparage him, other than to bring out a little bit of history. I can't imagine how he can make this offer with a straight face. Have amendments pending? That is like nothing. We tried that before, as recently as the highway bill. Having amendments pending doesn't mean anything. We want to pass a good cyber security bill. We have a bill that has been crafted in the intelligence committee. Other committees have been interested in participating in what we have here on the floor, but they are willing to say: OK. We have a bill from the intelligence committee. There have been no public committee hearings, no public markups. There has been nothing done other than a rule XIV which, of course, my friend said he would not do if he got to be the leader and there would be a robust amendment process. Having a robust amendment process has nothing to do with having amendments pending. We want to pass a good bill. But we want to have a reasonable number of amendments, and there will be votes on those amendments. We are not asking for longtime agreements. The Republican leader's proposal would not lead to votes on the amendments. He would allow the amendments to be pending, but if the Republican leader were to file cloture, as he has done repeatedly the last few months--and an example is what he did with the recent highway bill--all amendments that were not strictly germane would fall. Remember, we are not asking for germane amendments. We are asking for relevant amendments. We are willing to enter into an agreement that provides votes on a reasonable number of amendments that would be germane in nature, and we should be working on that agreement. In contrast, if we fail to get that agreement, we are going to have a cloture vote an hour after we come in in the morning, and 30 hours after that--sometime late Thursday afternoon or early Thursday evening--he would have to file cloture on that. That puts us right into the work period when we get back on September 8. When we get back, we have the 8th to the 17th, including weekends and a holiday that is celebrated every year that we always take off, which includes 2 days. It is a Jewish holiday. I can't imagine why we would want this to interfere with what we are trying to do in the month of September. We are willing to do this bill. We can start working on these amendments right now if we can have votes on them, but we are not going to agree to some arrangement like this. If the Republicans are going to push this, we can come in here tomorrow, and we will vote. The 30 hours of time will go by--and we know how to use 30 hours; we were taught how to do that--30 hours of postcloture time. And Thursday afternoon, the leader can make whatever decision is necessary. We want a cyber bill. This bill is not the phoenix of all cyber bills, but it certainly is better than nothing. We should--following the recommendation and the suggestion and what the Republican leader has said he would do--be allowed some amendments to vote on. We can start that today. Today is Tuesday. We can finish these amendments--I would hope on the Democratic side--in a fairly short order of time. As for the Republicans, I don't know. All I heard following the caucus is one Republican Senator wanted to offer an amendment on the cyber bill dealing with auditing the Fed. I can't imagine why that has anything to do with this bill. We are serious about legislating. We want to do something that is good, we believe, for the country, good for the order of the Senate. Otherwise, we will look at each other around here until Thursday afternoon, and the Republican leader can look forward to this being the first thing we take up when we get back in September. We are willing to be fair and reasonable to finish this, with our amendments, in a very short period of time. So I object.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the distinguished career of Scott ``Scotty'' Watts, who served as the president of the Nevada Alliance for Retired Americans, NARA, from 2001 until his retirement in 2014. Building on the work of its predecessor, the Nevada National Council of Senior Citizens, NARA has been at the forefront of advocating for the interests of retired Nevadans for more than a decade. Scotty Watts, who was the founding president of NARA, led the organization and played a critical role in its progress and success. Under his steadfast leadership, Scotty helped NARA build a powerful grassroots network to support the economic and health programs that are important to retirees throughout Nevada. Today, NARA has grown to include more than 19,330 members and 28 chapters, making it the largest progressive senior citizen organization in the Silver State. Prior to becoming the president of NARA, Scotty was a leading advocate for retirees and seniors in the Silver State. He served two terms as the president of the Nevada National Council of Senior Citizens. Through his leadership positions in these organizations, he led the effort in our State to protect and strengthen the benefits seniors have earned under Social Security and Medicare and has been a fierce advocate for the Affordable Care Act. I am pleased that this month NARA will honor Scotty during the organization's State convention for his career in dedicated service and advocacy. I have had the pleasure of meeting with Scotty, and I can say without reservation that Nevada's retirees were fortunate to have him in their corner, fighting on their behalf. I commend Scotty for his service to the Silver State, and I wish him the best in his retirement and future endeavors.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, here is an excerpt from an article in the Republican leader's hometown newspaper, the Louisville Courier-Journal: Sara Hall started going to Planned Parenthood when she was in her late teens and needed birth control, and she's gotten care there ever since. Without them, ``I wouldn't have a doctor to see. I don't know where I would have gone. It would have meant I wouldn't get the care I needed.'' Like Sara, millions of American women depend on Planned Parenthood for much needed health services. Every year, Planned Parenthood helps women, just like Sara, get the important services they need, such as birth control measures, but it is more than just birth control. Here are a few of the health services Planned Parenthood provides to American women, and they did it, for example, in 2013. Half a million women went to Planned Parenthood for breast cancer screening, 400,000 women received a cervical exam from Planned Parenthood's medical staff, and 4.5 million treatments and tests for sexually transmitted diseases and infections were performed. Yet, here we are once again, faced with another Republican attempt to limit women's access to health care. A few hours from now, the Senate will vote on a Republican bill to defund Planned Parenthood. Let's understand what that vote means. Defunding Planned Parenthood would limit American women's access to critical health services, such as contraception, breast and cancer screenings, and well-women visits. This legislation is just another Republican attack on the health care of millions of women, like Sara from Kentucky. Over the past few months, Republicans have worked to trick American women into believing Republicans don't want to limit women's access to contraceptives or other critical health services provided by Planned Parenthood, but votes like the one we are going to take in a couple of hours lay bare the truth. The cold, hard fact is that a vote to defund Planned Parenthood is a vote to limit women's access to cancer screenings, contraceptives, and other important services that Planned Parenthood provides. Our Nation is already facing a shortage of primary care providers. For many women, Planned Parenthood is their preferred medical provider. One in five American women will go to Planned Parenthood for services at some time during their lives. Defunding Planned Parenthood and reducing the number of providers available for women to receive contraceptives and other critical health services would reduce women's access to good health, and more importantly, their access to care, which is very direct and to the point. To put it another way, the demand for care would still exist, but there would be fewer providers to render this care. And for many women, Planned Parenthood may be the only provider where they can seek medical help. Republicans are trying to eliminate their access to health centers. Last Thursday, I listened to the senior Senator from Texas, where he claimed this bill we are going to vote on soon would actually increase access to care for women. I am surprised this distinguished Member of the Senate, a longtime member of the Texas Supreme Court, would say something like that. He and other Republicans believe, I guess, that clinics like community health centers will pick up the slack should Planned Parenthood be defunded. That is simply not true. I am a strong supporter of community health centers. It is part of ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act, because I believe in community health centers. We put billions of dollars in that bill, and during the years it has been in existence, it has done so much to provide help for community health centers, but we still have far, far much to do. There are not enough community health centers, even with what we have done, to increase their ability to meet the current demand. To throw in a few more women who have been knocked out of Planned Parenthood--and ``a few'' is a pejorative term; it would be millions of women--is wrong. The director of women's health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation says: ``Across the nation, Community health centers are already at capacity.'' Take a look, for example, at the assistant Republican leader's home State of Texas. A recent report from George Washington University detailed what it would take for other providers to replace Planned Parenthood--exactly what the senior Senator from Texas has suggested. For example, in Midland County, TX, there would have to be an increase of 537 percent by non-Planned Parenthood clinics, if Planned Parenthood is defunded. Lubbock County would see an increase of 250 percent. Community health centers cannot handle that, nor can they handle that increase in heavily populated Dallas County, where it would be an almost 200-percent increase. What the Republican legislation does is makes it nearly impossible for women who need medical attention to get the care they need. If women cannot go get health care from Planned Parenthood, where do they go? Take a look at what happened in the State of Indiana in 2011, when that State's legislature voted to deny State funding for Planned Parenthood health centers. Republicans then argued that other health care providers would bridge the gap and absorb Planned Parenthood patients. They asserted that other providers would take care of those women just fine. So what are those other health care providers for women that the Indiana Republicans said could take the place of the State's Planned Parenthood health centers? Prisons--listen to this--prisons, they suggested, juvenile detention centers, and homeless shelters. These are certainly not the kinds of places my Republican colleagues would want to send their daughters, sisters or wives for care. It is common sense--if you take away Planned Parenthood health centers, women will have no ability to access care, and most will go without the care they need. The Republican senior Senator from Maine agrees. Here is what she said: The problem is, in my state and many others, Planned Parenthood is the primary provider of women's health services in certain parts of my state. So I don't know how you would ensure that all of the patients of Planned Parenthood could be absorbed by alternative care providers. In Nevada, Planned Parenthood centers there serve about 22,000 patients a year. Where will these patients go if the Republicans' legislation passes? I do not know. They will not get the care they need, that is for sure. Senate Republicans are not being fair to American women. They are trying to shift the responsibility to someone who does not exist. It is our responsibility in the Senate to ensure that American women have access to care. It is our obligation to protect our wives, our sisters, our daughters, and our granddaughters from the absurd policies of a Republican Party that has lost its moral compass. Today, Senate Democrats will do just that. This Planned Parenthood bill is not going anywhere in the Senate. Senate Democrats will fight this vigorously and any other attempt from Republicans to deprive American women health care. Mr. President, I do not see anyone here to speak. I would ask the Chair to announce the business of the day.

Mr. REID

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

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, Republicans called it ``the beginning of socialized medicine.'' The Wall Street Journal accused Democrats and the President of ``politicking with a nation's health.'' One Republican Senator called the health care law ``brazen socialism.'' Further: It is not needed. It is socialism. It moves the country in a direction which is not good for anyone, whether they be young or old. It charts a course from which there will be no turning back. . . . It is not only socialism--it is brazen socialism. You would think that based on the 50-plus times of trying to overturn ObamaCare, that is what the Republican Senators were talking about, but, no, that was Medicare. They weren't talking about ObamaCare; Medicare is what they were talking about. Fifty years ago, President Lyndon Johnson signed into law Medicare and Medicaid. At that time, conservatives believed that access to health care through government was the worst possible decision any elected official could make--and so many Republicans, the same thing. In fact, Republicans still do feel that way. Even after decades of Medicare's success, they are still clamoring for the program's elimination or massive changes. Jeb Bush--a frontrunner for the Republican Presidential nomination-- called for ``phasing out'' Medicare. Where did he do this? At a Koch brothers rally in New Hampshire. Jeb Bush--a frontrunner for the Republican Presidential nomination--said let's phase out Medicare. How about that one? For half a century, Republicans have continued to attack Medicare, despite all the good it has done. They have tried to privatize Medicare and turn it into a voucher system and reduce benefits for seniors. Republicans attacked the closing of the prescription drug doughnut hole and elimination of cost-sharing for preventative coverage simply because they were improvements made by the Affordable Care Act. Republicans have repeatedly sought to destroy Medicaid, and Republican Governors have turned back millions of Federal dollars and denied their citizens, the most needy of all, coverage simply because of ideology. This week they renewed their never-ending assault on women's health by trying to defund Planned Parenthood in reaction to a radical rightwing crusade by an extremist group. American women value Planned Parenthood because they know Planned Parenthood provides vital health care services to millions of women, but Republicans are choosing to disseminate access to the health services of women. Women need this health care to stay healthy. Why are they doing it? I guess, to further their political agenda. When will the Republican attack on effective health care programs end? Medicare and Medicaid have positively affected and even saved millions of Americans' lives. Before Medicare, nearly half of all seniors age 65 and older were uninsured. The elderly were discriminated against simply because of their age. If you were fortunate enough to have health insurance, you paid over 50 percent of the cost straight out of your pocket. My first elected job was from Clark County. That is in Las Vegas, NV. I was chosen to be a member of the board of trustees of Southern Nevada Memorial Hospital--the largest hospital district in Nevada. After a year or so, I became chairman of the board of trustees. I was there when Medicare came into being. Prior to Medicare, more than 40 percent of all seniors who came into our hospital were required to have a brother, a son, a daughter, a mother, a father, a husband, a wife or a neighbor sign on the dotted line, saying: If that bill is not paid, we will guarantee it is paid. We had a collection department in that hospital that was very aggressive and went after these people. That is how bad it was for seniors, but today, 50 years later, about 99 percent of seniors are insured and go to the hospital when they need care. The cost during their working years is a small amount of out-of- pocket costs. The program that we call Medicare is a lifeline. Before Medicare and Medicaid, health care for millions of younger Americans was subject to racism and discrimination. A White American was 30 percent more likely to be admitted to a hospital than an African American. In fact, in many cases emergency response calls were subject to race confirmation before action. They wanted to know where you lived, and if the color of your skin wasn't just right when you were brought to the hospital, you went on your way. Today the disparity in hospitalization rates between minorities and White Americans has decreased significantly. Medicare and Medicaid have protected the health and well-being of millions of seniors, individuals with disabilities, low-income individuals, and millions of children. In the past 50 years, Medicaid has grown to be the Nation's primary health insurance program for low-income individuals and families. Medicaid has grown to cover nearly 70 million Americans, including more than 40 million children. Today Medicaid covers nearly half of all births in the United States and ensures that children receive the health care they desperately need in the early stages of their lives. By providing early childhood health care to millions, Medicaid has improved the long-term health of children and contributed to their overall quality of life. Medicaid has also provided health care and long-term services to 16 million low-income seniors and individuals with disabilities. Medicaid pays for services that Medicare does not cover. It ensures that low- income seniors and individuals with disabilities have access to a wide variety of services. These options allow them to remain in their communities rather than relocate to nursing homes. But when they do have to go to a nursing home, the vast majority of people in convalescent centers in America are Medicaid recipients. Sadly, 22 States have chosen not to expand Medicaid coverage, and this decision has hurt millions of people who can't afford health care any other way. Why do States and the Republican Governors of those States oppose this? Because it is part of ObamaCare. To his credit, the conservative Republican Governor from the State of Nevada, Brian Sandoval, was one of the first Governors to sign on to this program. He didn't care if it was a Democratic program or a Republican program; it helped people in Nevada who needed help. I truly admire him for doing that. The expansion of Medicaid in States throughout the country would boost States' economic activity--and Brian Sandoval knows that--and create job growth, in addition to providing quality, affordable health care to vulnerable Americans. The State of Nevada is a relatively sparsely populated State. Almost 200,000 people are receiving the health care they need and would not have but for ObamaCare and Governor Brian Sandoval. Medicaid expansion would benefit every State. The Affordable Care Act transformed Medicaid into a true safety net for vulnerable Americans. We should be expanding this coverage, not restricting it for partisan gain. Medicare and Medicaid have protected Americans for 50 years, and our Nation is healthier and stronger because of its existence. But despite 50 years of undeniable Medicare and Medicaid success, Republicans remain committed to ending access to health care for those who need it the most. We will be celebrating ObamaCare's success 50 years from now while Republicans call for the Affordable Care Act to be phased out, like Jeb Bush wants. In 50 years, will there be a Republican Presidential wanna- be out there saying ``Let's get rid of ObamaCare; let's phase it out''? I hope not. Republicans have repeatedly engaged in politically motivated attacks designed to undermine the law that transformed our Nation's health care system. The Affordable Care Act has helped millions of Americans to gain access to quality health care. Since the Affordable Care Act was signed into law, 16.4 million Americans have gotten quality health care--many of them for the first time in their lives. The United States has seen the largest decline in the uninsured rate in decades, if not forever. In the last 18 months, the uninsured rate for nonelderly adults has fallen by 35 percent. Health care costs have grown at their slowest rate in 50 years. Patient safety initiatives are keeping Americans safe. The Affordable Care Act is working. It is the law of the land, and that is not going to change. There have been more than 50 votes to repeal or undermine the Affordable Care Act and there have been repeated challenges to this law before the courts, but we have won on every level. The American people have won twice with the stamp of approval by the Supreme Court. Last month we witnessed the Supreme Court rule, as I have indicated, again for the second time in favor of the Affordable Care Act. It is here to stay. It is here to stay because the American people want affordable health care. American seniors need affordable, accessible health care coverage, and they need it right now. Five decades ago--50 years ago--President Johnson said: No longer will older Americans be denied the healing miracle of modern medicine. No longer will illness crush and destroy the savings they have so carefully put away over a lifetime so that they might enjoy dignity in their later years. No longer will young families see their own incomes, and their own hopes eaten away simply because they are carrying out their deep moral obligations to their parents, and to their uncles, and their aunts. The Republicans have spent the last five decades fighting against President Johnson's dream. The Republicans are determined to roll back access to health care for Americans. It is hard to believe, but it is true. Just this week the Senate held a vote on whether to repeal this lifesaving program--again. It is clear that after 50 years, the Republicans have learned nothing. We should be building on the success of Medicare, Medicaid, and the Affordable Care Act. We need to be expanding coverage to all Americans. We should be encouraging States to expand Medicaid access. Democrats are committed--just as President Johnson was half a century ago--to giving Americans the health care they need and deserve. Will the Chair announce the schedule for today.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Nevada PEP for its more than 20 years of service to children with disabilities and their families. Nevada PEP was founded more than two decades ago by a handful of families who wanted for their children what every parent wants for their child: the opportunity to learn, grow, and succeed in all areas of life, regardless of their ability. Since then, this organization has helped children with disabilities by increasing opportunities for home, community, and school success. Although Nevada PEP started as a small organization with meetings around a kitchen table, the organization has now served more than 17,000 people throughout the State and has had a positive impact on many more Nevadans through its greater advocacy efforts. The ``PEP'' in the organization's name has a number of meanings, including, ``Parents Encouraging Parents,'' ``Parents Educating Professionals,'' and ``Professionals Empowering Parents.'' Nevada PEP truly embodies all of these meanings through the services it provides. The organization offers support groups, webinars, and other skill- building activities to help the families of children with disabilities become effective advocates for their child. Nevada PEP also works to connect families to essential community resources, including organizations and professionals in the fields of education, health care, housing, and employment. Additionally, the organization raises awareness and engages the community through events, such as the ``Baldy Bash,'' the ``Run, Walk, Roll Against Bullying,'' and an annual art show. I applaud Nevada PEP for their years of dedicated service to children with disabilities and their families. Their work is truly appreciated and admired. I also commend Karen Taycher, a parent and passionate advocate, as well as founding member and the executive director of Nevada PEP, for her fine leadership throughout the past two decades. As Nevada PEP begins the next chapter, I wish them continued success for years to come.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the life of Erma Arvilla Rupp Fritchen. Ms. Fritchen devoted her life to justice, notably as a Freedom Rider in the summer of 1963. Ms. Fritchen was born and raised in Reno, NV. She strove to be the first in her family to graduate from high school, but nothing was handed to her. Erma worked to pay the rent and still managed to graduate from Reno High School in 1948. Following high school, she pursued adult education classes in psychology before moving to Fort Benning, GA, as a military wife. When she arrived in Fort Benning, she was shocked by the racial disparities in her new city. After moving back to Nevada, Erma began attending college while also raising her two children on her own. Education and family were important to her, but she was never too busy to take a stand for the principles she believed in. When she had the opportunity to make a difference by joining a civil rights caravan headed for Washington, DC, in 1963, she jumped at the opportunity and added her voice to the Freedom Rider demonstrations that were taking place throughout the country. Through her years of fighting for justice and equality, Ms. Fritchen proved that everyone can do their part if they work and fight hard enough. I appreciate her dedication to her five sons and contributions to making our country a better place.

Mr. REID

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