Harry Reid

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. I enter a motion to reconsider the vote by which cloture was not invoked.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that on Monday, September 10, 2012, at 5 p.m., the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 664; that there be 30 minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nomination; that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order; that any related statements be printed in the Record; that President Obama be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: Calendar No. 450, 609, 709, 718, 719, 720, 723, 825, 826, 827, 831, 837, 838, 841, 858, 859, 860, 861, 862, 863, 864, 865, 866, 867, 868, 869, 872, 874, and all nominations placed on the Secretary's desk in the Foreign Service; that the nominations be confirmed en bloc; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to any of the nominations; that any related statements be printed in the Record; that President Obama be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the concurrent resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Brown of Ohio substitute amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to; the resolution, as amended, be agreed to; the Brown of Ohio amendment to the preamble be agreed to; the preamble, as amended, be agreed to; the Brown of Ohio title amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to; the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements be printed in the Record, as if read.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on August 2, 2012, at 10 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on August 2, 2012, at 10 a.m., in SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on August 2, 2012, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Subcommittee on Securities, Insurance, and Investment be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on August 2, 2012, at 9 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Examining the IPO Process: Is It Working for Ordinary Investors?''

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following staff of the Finance Committee be allowed on the Senate floor for the duration of today's session: Dan West, Micah Scudder, and Heather Sykes.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. I now ask for a second reading, but in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I now move to proceed to Calendar No. 476, S. 3457, which is the Veterans Jobs Corps Act.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, the next half hour will be for debate on the Coburn amendment on the AGOA-Burma sanctions bill. Following that debate, the time until 11 a.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. At 11 a.m. there will be two votes. The first vote will be a cloture vote on the cyber security bill, followed by a vote in relation to the Coburn amendment to the AGOA-Burma sanctions bill. The filing deadline for second-degree amendments to the cyber security bill is 10 a.m. today. Additional votes are possible today, and we will notify Senators when and if they are scheduled. We will vote at 11 o'clock, so those people debating the cloture motion may not get the full hour. They should understand that. recognition of the republican leader

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I wasn't planning on making a statement today. I felt we should leave the time for the vote we are having at 11. It is my understanding that under the rule, Senator Coburn and others will have a half hour to debate the Burma sanctions; is that right?

Mr. REID. The time left over will be whatever time is left over for the debate on the motion to proceed to the cloture vote; is that right?

Mr. REID. I will talk about cyber security in 1 minute. Let's talk about the minority leader's continual harangue against the President of the United States. Underscore all of this with what my friend the Republican leader said at the beginning of this Congress: The No. 1 issue for him in this Congress is defeating President Obama, and that is how the Republicans have acted. To talk about a Republican tax plan would have to bring a smile to one's face. Yesterday, an organization called the Tax Policy Center--now remember last year Mitt Romney called the Tax Policy Center ``an objective third party'' and cited one of their studies to bash Rick Perry in the Republican primary. So this objective third party said yesterday about Romney's tax plan that my friend the Republican leader wants the American people to grab. The only people to be grabbing that are very rich people. The vast majority of Mitt Romney's tax plan would go to people just like him, people making millions of dollars every year. Under Romney's plan, folks making more than $3 million a year would get a tax break of almost $250,000 per year. So how will he pay for this massive handout to the top 1 percent? He will hand the bill to 95 percent of the American people. Under his plan, my friend the Republican leader wants--I hope everyone within the sound of my voice listens to this because the Republican plan would require the average middle-class family with children to pay $2,000 more in taxes to take care of the millionaires. Ninety-five percent of families in this country would be asked to pay more so people such as Mitt Romney can get a tax break. Now, that is a great program, a wonderful program. Last year, I repeat, Mitt Romney called this Tax Policy Center an objective third party when he was once again changing his position during the Republican debates leading up to his nomination. Now that the group has exposed his plan to hike taxes for 95 percent of the American families while handing out more giveaways to millionaires, the Tax Policy Center is suddenly too liberal, his spokespeople say, to be trusted. I would suggest, when we are talking about trust, we need to look no further than the person my friend the Republican leader wants to be President of the United States. As we know, he has refused to release his tax returns. If a person coming before this body wanted to be a Cabinet officer, he couldn't be if he had the same refusal Mitt Romney does about tax returns. So the word is out that he has not paid any taxes for 10 years. Let him prove he has paid taxes because he has not. We already know from one partial tax return he gave us he has money hidden in Bermuda, the Cayman Islands, and a Swiss bank account. I am not making that up. Mitt Romney makes more money in a single day than an average middle-class family makes in 2 years or more. So let's not talk about this great plan the Republicans have to create jobs. The No. 1 goal in this body by the Republicans has been to damage the President of the United States. They have refused to work with us in creating jobs. Cyber Security Let's talk a little bit about cyber security. We have people coming over here saying: We almost have a deal. I have been hearing that for 3 years. We have been working on cyber security for 3 years. They are over here today asking why we don't have more meetings. This is a bill that has had meeting after meeting. Chairman Lieberman, Chairman Rockefeller, and Chairman Feinstein have had plenty of meetings. They have had meetings with the Republicans, meetings with Independents, and meetings with business groups. So don't come and lecture us over here about how my Senators should vote. We know how important this legislation is. We believe this legislation is more important than getting a pat on the back from the Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber of Commerce does not support this legislation. That is why the Republicans are running like scared cats, because the Republicans will not endorse doing something that is good for our country and that is protecting us against cyber attacks. The statements made by the Republican leader speak volumes. This is another filibuster that could have been prevented by their work to get a list of relevant amendments to show how serious the Republican leader is about cyber security. Let's just take a few days from this week. We have been stalled and stalled in months past trying to get a bill. We could never get the Republican leader to endorse a bill. We worked with the White House, and they came aboard. We begged and pleaded to do a bill together. No, no; because the Chamber of Commerce does not want a bill. The first thing we hear about cyber security, to show how serious they are, is an amendment where they want to repeal ObamaCare. They did that on the last day of the month of July, when on the first day of August all these great benefits for women kick in. The Republican leader was standing here and said, I want to vote on ObamaCare. Then he walks out there a few hours later, standing by the famous Ohio clock, and says, cyber security, we should do it. It will take a lot longer to do than the time we have. If cloture is not invoked today, it is for reasons I have just enumerated but principally because of the Chamber of Commerce. They are opposed to the initial bill because it was mandatory that these companies do something to protect America from these attacks from bad people. So Senators Lieberman and Collins, the two managers of this bill from the Homeland Security Committee, said: OK. We don't think this is the right thing to do, but we will not make the provisions mandatory anymore. That is still not good enough for the Chamber of Commerce. A voluntary alternative is still something opposed by the Chamber of Commerce. I have and numerous other people have come to the floor and talked about how important this bill is. The bill that is before this body now that we are going to vote cloture on would be a wonderful step forward. No, it doesn't do everything everyone wants, but it is a good bill. It is to protect our country. The leaders of the security of this Nation, including General Patraeus, General Dempsey, and the people working in NSA say this bill is more important than Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and North Korea. But the Chamber of Commerce has now interjected themselves in the security of this Nation. They think they know more than Patraeus, Dempsey, and all the leaders of this country. They are telling the Republicans to vote against this, believing they will get something better later on. Maybe they will, but right now here is what we have. I think it sends a very bad message to the country that Republicans are not willing to support this legislation. To show how serious the Republicans are to get this bill done, they filed an amendment on a right-to-work law and they filed an amendment on repealing Dodd-Frank. That is just some of the beginning volleys they shot over here. My friend, the Senior Senator from Arizona, steps in and says: We are working on a list. So I am disappointed, perplexed, and somewhat confused about how the Republicans want to proceed. It is obvious--it is obvious--until they get a signoff from the chamber of commerce that nothing will happen on one of the most important security interests this country has faced in generations. So I would suggest that the Republican leader, rather than trying to denigrate this legislation that has been done with the best interests of the country at heart--including one of his most valued Senators, Ms. Collins--do a conference call with the chamber of commerce. Have them come down here and tell them what they want, and maybe, with what the chamber of commerce wants, we can work something out, because they are ruling the place now as far as this legislation goes. The chamber of commerce, I will repeat, for the first time that I am aware of in the history of this country, has now become the protector of our Nation's security interests. That says it all, Mr. President.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, nearly 3 years ago, I called the chairmen of the Senate's national security committees--Senators Lieberman, Rockefeller, Feinstein, Leahy, and Levin--together to discuss what, even then, was one of the most urgent priorities for our national security: defending our Nation against cyber attack. I asked them to begin working together, across committee jurisdictions and across party lines, to develop comprehensive cyber security legislation to protect our Nation, our security, and our economy from this growing threat. Many of the Senators present had already begun work on their own legislation, but they committed that day to join their efforts in common cause. Since that time, their committees have painstakingly worked to break down artificial jurisdictional boundaries and to resolve differences across party lines. They have also sought to include a remarkably wide array of stakeholders--including cybersecurity experts, the private sector, academia, the intelligence community, military leaders, law enforcement, think tanks, State and local governments, and many more-- in an open, transparent, and cooperative process. The process has been nearly unprecedented in its scope, its thoroughness, and its transparency. Since the Senate began its work on cyber security legislation in 2009, committees have held more than 20 hearings across at least seven different committees specifically on cyber security and related legislation, and addressed critical questions relating to cyber security in dozens of additional hearings. They have held numerous briefings for Senators and staff on cyber security, including a simulated cyberattack exercise for all Senators conducted by senior administration officials. They have organized several other forums for Senators to examine cyber security issues, including cross-committee working groups designed to develop comprehensive legislation, as well as the Intelligence Committee's 2010 Cyber Security Task Force. They have considered nearly 20 separate cyber security bills and numerous cyber security-related amendments. And they have held markups of cyber security legislation in five separate committees, each of which occurred under each committee's rules for regular order. The result has been legislation that addresses the equities of these diverse stakeholders as fairly and thoroughly as one could imagine, while preserving the authorities necessary to boost our Nation's cyber defenses. As ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee, Senator Collins has been heroic in her efforts to ensure the bipartisan nature of this process. Yet, despite her best efforts, Republicans have made it clear throughout the last 3 years that they were simply unwilling to participate. They refused to participate in working groups designed to draft the legislation, despite the fact that these groups were established with Leader McConnell's full agreement. They refused to propose changes to draft legislation, or to participate in negotiations with bill sponsors. When, after 3 years of painstaking work and broad outreach the legislation came to the floor, my Republican colleagues refused to allow the Senate to consider a single amendment to improve the bill, despite my continuous pleading for their agreement on a list of amendments for consideration. And, as today's cloture vote has demonstrated, they have refused to allow us to continue to debate the legislation. Why this obstinate refusal to participate? How can these Senators, who have received the same entreaties from our military and intelligence leaders about the urgency of this legislation, obstruct Senate action to confront one of the leading threats to our Nation? These questions are all the more perplexing when one considers what our national security leaders have said about the seriousness of the threat we face. According to General Keith Alexander, Commander of U.S. Cyber Command, ``The cyber threat facing the Nation is real and demands immediate action. The time to act is now; we simply cannot avoid further delay.'' General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, noted, ``The uncomfortable reality of our world today is that bits and bytes can be as threatening as bullets and bombs. Not only will military systems be targeted by tools that can cause physical destruction, but adversaries will increasingly attempt to hold our Nation's core critical infrastructure at risk.'' Similarly, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta stated, ``We talk about nuclear. We talk about conventional warfare. We don't spend enough time talking about the threat of cyberwar. There's a strong likelihood that the next Pearl Harbor that we confront could very well be a cyberattack.'' And Director of National Intelligence James Clapper called cyberattack ``A profound threat to this country, to its future, its economy and its very being.'' Simply put, there is unanimity across the national security community that malicious cyber activity is an urgent, growing, and imminently dangerous threat that our Nation must confront immediately. But this unanimity is not limited to the current administration. Countless national security officials appointed under Republican administrations--including former Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen, former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency Michael Hayden, and many others--have echoed the urgency of our current administration's call for action, as well as their support for the legislation we have considered today. Yet, today Republicans were nearly unanimous in their opposition to this legislation. Why? It is no secret that Republicans are taking their marching orders from the Chamber of Commerce. And the Chamber has made no secret that it is opposed to any effort to secure America's cyber networks; in fact, it has gone so far as to oppose even voluntary cybersecurity standards. In other words, the position of the Chamber of Commerce is that the owners and operators of the most critical infrastructure of our Nation--the electricity grid, telecommunications lines, air traffic control systems, and the like--should not even be asked to take steps, on a strictly voluntary basis, to improve our Nation's security. That position is hard to believe, and it is seriously out of step with the patriotism of the owners and employees of the American businesses it claims to represent. As a result, my Republican colleagues have ignored the urgent calls of some of America's most respected national security leaders in order to pander to the Chamber of Commerce--an organization that appears more concerned with corporate bottom lines than with the American lives this legislation seeks to defend. It seems that the only people who have not yet awakened to the threat facing our Nation are Senate Republicans. What has become clear in this debate is that Republicans are willing to prioritize partisan politics and slavish defense of corporate interests over our Nation's security. And that is simply unacceptable. I hope that my colleagues across the aisle will wake up and recognize the threat facing our country before it is too late--before the ``cyber 9/11'' of which leaders like Secretary Panetta have warned us arrives. I hope that they can join us, as we have asked them to do for the last 3 years, and work on a bipartisan basis for the good of our country. And if they choose to do so, we will be ready to work quickly to pass this much-needed legislation. But the more they delay, the more the risk to our Nation's security and economy grows. Time is running short.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote. I move to lay that motion on the table.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 12:50 p.m. today, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 651; that there be an hour of debate equally divided in the usual form; that upon the use or yielding back of that time, the Senate proceed to vote with no intervening action or debate on Calendar No. 651, Judge Drain of Michigan, at least a judge-to-be in Michigan.

Mr. REID

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

Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, there is no other way to say this than my Republican friends are hopelessly stuck in the past. They continue to want to fight battles that are already over. At the beginning of this Congress, when we were trying to pass an air transportation bill, the Republican leader offered an amendment to repeal the Affordable Care Act. On February 2 of last year, the Senate voted that amendment down. It was defeated. In March of this year, when we considered the highway jobs bill, Republicans insisted on voting on stopping women from getting contraceptive coverage--part of the Affordable Care Act. On March 1, the Senate voted that amendment down. Just this week, when we have been considering a bill to protect our country from cyber attack, the Republican leader gave notice that he wanted once again to offer an amendment to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Remember, the House has already voted 34 times to repeal the Affordable Care Act. I repeat, they are hopelessly stuck in the past. They are stuck in the past when before the Affordable Care Act, insurance companies didn't have to pay for preventive care. They are stuck in the past when before the Affordable Care Act, there was a gap in coverage for seniors' prescription drugs. That is the doughnut hole that we are filling. Republicans are stuck in the past when before the Affordable Care Act passed, insurance companies didn't have to allow young adults up to age 26 to stay on their parents' health insurance. I have spoken here at least a half a dozen times about my friend from Searchlight, NV, who, at 22 years old, went off his parents' insurance. The time ran out. Within weeks, he was diagnosed with testicular cancer. It about broke his parents. He had no insurance and had two surgeries. That will not happen in the future. This young man was in college. That is what this is to protect. They are stuck in the past when before this act passed, insurance companies could deny coverage to people because of preexisting conditions. And, by the way, one of those conditions was being a woman; or diabetes; or if a woman had been a victim of domestic abuse. They are stuck in the past when insurance companies could charge women more than men. Republicans are stuck in the past when women didn't have access to the services they need. They are stuck in the past when insurance companies could drop your coverage when you got sick or set some arbitrary limit on how much insurance would pay. I have talked about a man in Las Vegas who was badly injured, living a pretty decent life even though he was paralyzed--and suddenly he finds he has no insurance, which led him into an awful situation. Republicans are stuck in the past when insurance companies could use premium dollars for bonuses for the bosses rather than health care. All around America this month there will be hundreds of thousands of people who will be getting a rebate because insurance companies weren't spending enough money on them but, rather, on their own salaries. We set a limit: You have to spend 80 percent of a premium to help people get well. They are stuck in the past and they want to return to when insurance companies were king. They are hopelessly stuck in the past. But there was a vote that we should all focus on, on the Affordable Care Act. It was a 5-4 vote that upheld that bill. The Supreme Court of the United States did that. But I guess they didn't get the news. The Supreme Court ruled the act is constitutional. It is the law of the land now. We need to move on. They need to catch up on the fact that people want us to work to create jobs, whether it is in Alaska, Nevada, Kentucky--any of the States. But they want us to vote on repealing the Affordable Care Act. On July 19, they blocked us from voting on a bill to prevent outsourcing jobs--which, by the way, their Presidential nominee is very good at doing. Now they want us to vote on repealing the Affordable Care Act. On July 12, they blocked passage of the small business jobs bill that would have helped small businesses all over this country. They wanted to vote on repealing the Affordable Care Act. But on March 29, they blocked a bill to promote renewable energy. On March 13, they blocked Senator Stabenow's amendment to extend expiring energy tax credits. They wanted to vote on the Affordable Care Act, and they stopped us from proceeding to put workers back on the job building and modernizing America, and that was done on November 3. On October 20, they blocked the motion to proceed to a bill to keep teachers and first responders on the job. They so badly want to go back and fight these old battles that they blocked a motion to proceed to the American Jobs Act. They blocked us on a bill to reauthorize the Economic Development Administration, something that has been done as a matter of fact in the past, creating thousands of jobs in America. They wanted us to vote on repealing the Affordable Care Act. One day last year, after weeks of debate, they blocked the bill to improve small business innovation. That, by the way, is one of the programs that has done so many interesting things, including inventing the electric toothbrush. Republicans are hopelessly stuck in the past. They need to stop trying to repeal a law enacted 3 years ago. The Supreme Court has declared it constitutional. Let's move on to try to get jobs for people. So I object.

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

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

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I believe we are now on a motion to proceed to S. 3457; is that correct?

Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived and that the vote with respect to this motion occur at 2:15 on Tuesday, September 11.