Harry Reid

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I know there is important debate, but I wish to take a few minutes and talk about America losing one of its finest entrepreneurs and citizens. Remembering Kirk Kerkorian Mr. President, last night, at 10:30, my friend Kirk Kerkorian died. What a wonderful man. He was 98 years old, and when history books are written, they will say a lot about this good man. I had the good fortune as a young lawyer to meet him. I didn't do any of his mergers and acquisitions and all the stock stuff. I didn't do any of that. But when we first met, he was a businessman with an airline called Trans International Airlines. I will talk about that in a minute, but it started out as one airplane. I knew that Kirk was failing because he and I were supposed to go watch the Mayweather-Pacquiao fight, and he said he couldn't go. I knew then that his days were numbered, for lack of a better description. I had kept in touch with him all these many years. As I said, I am not one to boast about all the great legal work I did for Kirk. I didn't do much. But I did do a lot of work for his brother, a man by the name of Nish Kerkorian, and Kirk never forgot all the work I did for his brother. Kirk had two siblings: One woman who was a sweet, sweet lady, vibrant, named Rose, his sister Rose. She died not long ago. I called Kirk. It was really hard on him; he cried, and we shed a tear together. He was born in 1917 in Fresno, CA. His parents were Armenian immigrants. He grew up at a very difficult time. He didn't graduate from the eighth grade. He became a prize fighter, became the Pacific amateur welterweight champion, and his name was ``Rifle Right'' Kerkorian. His brother Nish, whom I talked about, was also a fighter and a boxer, and he fought a lot. Kirk didn't fight too much. On the floor is one of ours--if not the hero we have in the Senate for military endeavors--the senior Senator from Arizona. It is important to talk about Kirk Kerkorian for just a minute and about what he did for our country in the military, using that term broadly--``in the military.'' He had learned to fly, while milking cows and looking after a woman's cattle, at an air strip near now what is Edwards Air Force Base. That is where he learned to fly, at a place called Happy Bottom Riding Club. That is where he learned to fly. He loved to fly. He got his pilot's license in just a few months, and he wanted to go into the military, but he couldn't at the time because we weren't in the war yet. The British Royal Air Force was ferrying Canadian-built de Havilland Mosquitoes over the North Atlantic because England was desperate for help. The Nazis were after them, Hitler was sweeping Europe, and the submarines were sinking the ships trying to take supplies to England. So out of desperation, Canada, which was part of Great Britain at the time, decided they would help. The problem was that to fly those airplanes over the North Atlantic was really very, very difficult. They had two routes. One was 1,400 miles. The other was shorter but extremely more dangerous. Kirk Kerkorian agreed to take the one more dangerous. It was dangerous because the North Atlantic is very brutal. The wings would ice. But he got a lot of money for each flight--almost $1,000 for each flight. He delivered 33 planes to England. Every one of those flights was a nightmare, but he did it. He was truly an American patriot. There is a documentary on what he did--flying across the North Atlantic with some other gallant men who did that and helped preserve freedom in the world and take on the Nazis. After the war, he had saved a lot of his money, and he bought a Cessna. It was expensive at the time--$5,000. He worked in general aviation. He first visited Las Vegas in 1944. In 1947 he paid $60,000 for the airline where I first met him. He was dealing with Trans International Airlines, which was a small air charter service that basically flew gamblers between L.A. and Las Vegas. He, of course, was a very frugal man. He operated the airline until 1968, when he sold it for $104 million. He paid $60,000 for it and sold it for $104 million. That was him. He was an entrepreneur. He moved into Las Vegas quickly. He bought a piece of land across from the Flamingo Hotel for $960,000. It was 80 acres. That is now where Caesars Palace is. He was originally the landlord for that property. He made $9 million on that deal. He then, shortly thereafter, paid $5 million cash for an off-Strip property--the first one that had ever been done. That is something I was involved with. It was quite interesting. That transaction showed to me his absolute honesty. I have said publicly--I am not going into detail here--but I will end by saying that the lawyer with whom I worked, Bill Singleton, said: No, Kirk doesn't do business that way, and he walked out of the room. He wound up buying the property. That was where the International Hotel was built, and it was a very, very expensive property at the time. It was off-Strip. The first two people to appear in the showroom were Barbra Streisand and Elvis Presley, and that was the beginning of Kirk Kerkorian's ascension to power broker, to say the least, in Las Vegas. He bought and sold MGM movies two different times. In the process, of course, he built the MGM hotel in Las Vegas. He was really an interesting, wonderful man. He is one of the personalities I will never forget, and my relationship with him is one of the special things in my life. I feel so fortunate to be able to talk on a personal basis about this man. He was one of a kind. I am so disappointed. His No. 1 person, Tony Mandekik, called me and told me that Kirk had died. To be honest with you, the tears on the other side of the phone connection from Tony ended the conversation because he couldn't talk anymore. Now he is responsible, among others-- but principally him--for disposing of this man's wealth. He did not make all of his money in movies or hotels and casinos. He branched out. He made a number of fortunes. People would say: How does he know anything about the automobile industry? He wound up owning large chunks of General Motors. He was one of the chief players in Chrysler. He no longer made in those propositions millions of dollars but billions. He made about $5 billion on this Chrysler Corporation deal, where people said: What a fool--why would he do that? You know that deal. Not too long ago, about 3 years ago, I met him for lunch in Los Angeles. I said: I have to get going. He pulled out of his pocket his watch. Kirk, what is that? He says: It is my watch. It was a Timex with no band on it. He said: It keeps perfect time. He came to the Beverly Wilshire Hotel. He drove himself in a little jeep--a jeep with the top partially down. That was him. He was a very private man. He rarely gave interviews. I mean, he rarely gave interviews. Even though he was one of the richest men in Los Angeles, he was probably one of the most private. He simply did not do things in public. With all of the hotels that he owned--for those people who have a little bit of knowledge of Las Vegas, a lot of stuff is done with complimentary privileges. If you are a hotel owner, you get a lot of stuff for nothing--not Kirk Kerkorian. He would not take a comp for anything. Everything he paid for. One of the last times we went to a fight, he also would not sit ringside. He always wanted to be up away from everybody. In 2008 he was worth $16 billion. I am not sure how much he was worth when he died. But he has given huge amounts of his wealth away. His job for Tony Mandekik and others was to give away the rest of his money. It is a sad day for me and for the people who knew Kirk Kerkorian. He lived a good, full life. He has two daughters. He always went out of his way and paid his help well. I wish I had the ability to articulate what a wonderful human being Kirk Kerkorian was. I will always remember him. When I talk to people who know something about business, I will always interject the name Kirk Kerkorian.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Statue of Liberty stands as a universal symbol of hope and freedom. Engraved within its pedestal are the words of Emma Lazarus, a call etched for the world to see. Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, the tempest-tost to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door! For countless generations, our fathers and grandfathers, mothers and grandmothers, have braved oceans, deserts, and rivers to answer that call. As a result, the United States has been empowered by the contributions of immigrants from around the world--immigrants who came in pursuit of the American dream and have pursued this dream through strong family values, hard work, and love of country. My wife's father, my father-in-law, emigrated here from Russia. My grandmother came from England. My family, like so many American families, has its immigrant stories to tell. This month is Immigrant Heritage Month. As we celebrate our shared immigrant heritage, we must work to ensure that America welcomes future generations of immigrants with the dignity and respect we wish for our own families. The United States has become the greatest Nation on Earth because of the hard work, dedication, and diversity immigrants brought to these shores. Our strength lies in our ability to embrace the richness immigrants bring to the American story. Just look at some of our Nation's most successful companies: Google, Yahoo, General Electric, IBM. These are all modern companies, but over the centuries, we have had life stories, where just like Google, Yahoo, General Electric, and IBM, all these American companies were founded by immigrants or the children of immigrants. I have seen personally the contributions of immigrants and the positive impact that a diversity of backgrounds has on shaping public policy. My staff represents generations of immigrants brought to this country. One staff member was born in the Philippines and emigrated with her mother to Las Vegas. Another left Nicaragua in the 1980s in the midst of a brutal civil war and settled in Carson City. Others came from Mexico, El Salvador, and Poland. Much like our Nation, my office is all the better because it reflects the diverse backgrounds, communities, and perspectives of those who have immigrated to Nevada. Nevada has a particularly vibrant international community. Las Vegas is home to large Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, and Armenian communities. Northern Nevada has the same, but in addition to that, it is the home to proud descendants of immigrants from the Basque Country. Without the contributions made by generations of proud immigrants, Nevada would not be the State that it is today. Immigrants have been leaders. They protect our Nation, and they have taught our children. The immigrants who heeded the call engraved on the Statue of Liberty have altered this country for the better. We are and will always be a Nation of immigrants. I have devoted years of legislative effort to fixing our broken immigration system. In 2010 after Republicans blocked the DREAM Act, it became clear to me and to other Senators that Republicans were not going to cooperate. So we urged the President to take administrative action as the Republicans continued to block legislative efforts. Three years ago today, the President announced that young people who do not present a risk to national security would become eligible for relief from deportation through the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program. As a result of this action, over 660,000 DREAMers have been approved, including almost 12,000 Nevadans. These individuals no longer live in fear of deportation. They can now contribute more fully to our country, as college students, teachers, small business owners, and artisans. These individuals were brought here as young children. Most do not remember the countries in which they were born. When they pledge allegiance it is to the United States. They love this country and are Americans in all but paperwork. These young people can now become teachers, own businesses, and further contribute to the American economy. They can secure a better future for themselves, their families, and our country. The program is a temporary solution for a broken immigration system. Comprehensive immigration reform is the best way to repair our immigration system and preserve the integrity of the American dream. In the Senate we passed a bill almost 2 years ago for comprehensive immigration reform, but House Republicans refused even to allow a vote on that legislation. Had they allowed a vote on the legislation, it would have passed by a big margin because virtually every Democrat would have voted for it and a number of Republicans would have voted for it. But the Speaker decided no, they wouldn't allow a vote on it, and they haven't. But because the Republicans would not pass immigration reform, President Obama acted again within his legal authority to create a new program for the parents of U.S. citizens and green card holders that would in effect take care of the parents of these DREAMers. Those programs would be in effect now if it were not for a politically motivated lawsuit filed by a Republican challenging the program. The Republicans say it is about the President, but they really are attacking and separating American families. In the Senate, Republicans have tried repeatedly to stop President Obama's efforts. The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program has transformed the lives of hundreds of thousands of young people over the past 3 years. Shutting down this program would cause the deportation of young men and women to countries they don't know. We, with the President, will do everything in our power to protect and defend this program and to fight the baseless lawsuit that is preventing over 5 million additional people for the American dream. The Supreme Court has been clear that Presidents have the authority for Federal immigration enforcement priorities. I am confident that the President's actions will ultimately be upheld, and I will continue to fight to protect those programs and keep families together. I look forward to the day when programs such as DACA are replaced with permanent comprehensive immigration reform, which is so vitally important. Before closing, on the floor today is the assistant Democratic leader. He has been on this floor articulating the importance of these DREAMers and what they do for our country, and what initially was their potential for our country. Now of course it has already been proven that their potential was even underscored. They have done so much more than we even anticipated they could do. I appreciate very much my friend, the senior Senator from Illinois, for his advocacy of this program and his tireless efforts for justice in America. So I hope that we will live up to the words on the Statue of Liberty, at the lamp beside the golden door, which is beckoning to people from other shores. Mr. President, will you announce the business of the day.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Yes.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I initially say to my impatient friend, he has to be patient and allow me to say a few words. During the short time we have been in the minority, we have behaved in a way that I think is proper for a responsible minority. For example, on this bill dealing with the authorization of our defense capacity in the United States, we have been very clear how we support the troops. But remember, we have this little difficult issue. The President of the United States has said he is going to veto this bill. So we have worked through all this with that in mind. Having said that, in spite of that, we did not ask for a cloture vote on the motion to proceed. When we were in the majority, having the minority not do that was a big day. It happened extremely rarely. We have been doing that consistently--with some exceptions but not many. On this Defense bill, we have allowed amendments to become pending. There are a dozen or so pending right now. We have allowed the Senate to conduct votes. We have allowed managers' amendments to be cleared-- lots of them. We have reacted in a responsible way. We have no regret for having done that. The two managers were working together to get amendments pending in a mutually agreed-upon fashion when out of the blue, up comes this cyber security amendment. It was also done in a very unusual way where Senator Burr employed parliamentary devices to get the cyber security bill pending to where we are right now. We could have been playing around all week with our offering amendments, but I have always felt that it should be done extremely rarely, for the minority to do something like that. We could have done that. If you look at the amendments that have been offered by us Democrats, they are all, with rare exception, dealing with the security of this Nation--not sage grouse, not all the other things the Republicans have brought up in this bill. To say that the Ex-Im Bank and the cyber security amendments have impeded progress is a gross understatement. The cyber security bill is a major bill in its own way--a major bill. I can speak with some authority in this regard. Five years ago, I got every committee chair who had jurisdiction over this subject and we met over a period of days to come up with a cyber security bill. We did that. Republicans stopped us. We kept getting a smaller group of people involved as we were narrowing the bill, and we actually were scheduled to finally have a vote on the cyber security bill. It wasn't as good as I thought we should have, but it was an important bill. And what happened on that? The chamber of commerce made a call to some of the Republican leaders in the Senate, and suddenly that bill was gone and we were voting on another ObamaCare amendment that, of course, went nowhere. But we have tried cyber security. The Intelligence Committee reported out this bill, and I appreciate that they did. It was on a bipartisan basis, but it also contains a lot of matter within the jurisdiction of other committees--for example, the Homeland Security Committee and the Judiciary Committee. To her credit, the ranking member, Senator Feinstein, recognized that and went to the Democrats and said: We will work with you and make sure the problems you have with this bill when it gets to the floor--we will work with you on this. Senator Feinstein is a person of her word. I know she will do that, and she will do that. This morning, the Republican leader, who is on the floor, was saying that we just had an attack on 4 million people and that it is Obama's fault. I think that is stretching things a little bit, especially recognizing that I have only given a brief travel through the times we have tried to get up the cyber security legislation. We should take the time to do it right. I have told the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and I have checked with our ranking member of the Finance Committee, who is extremely interested--and hasn't been for 10 minutes or 10 days or 10 months but 10 years--in privacy. He has been our leader on privacy on this side of the aisle, and he believes we could finish it, if we had a free shot at this cyber bill, in a couple of days--and I agree with him--at the most. So we are not trying to avoid cyber. I believe--we believe it is an important part of what we need to do. But we should take time to do it right. We should not be tacking this important piece of legislation onto a bill the President has already said he is going to veto just so the Republicans can blame Obama for vetoing this bill as well. If the majority would withdraw their cyber amendment and agree to take it up after this bill, we could do it in a couple of days and then we could return to working on the Defense bill. But we cannot take up all these new amendments my friend the chairman of the committee wants to set up votes on--we have the 9 he talks about, plus 6; that is 15-- until we resolve this matter dealing with cyber security. So without belaboring the point--and I appreciate my impatient friend being patient with me and listening to me go through all of this--I ask the majority leader or my friend the chairman of the Armed Services Committee if he would modify his consent request as follows. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture motion with respect to amendment No. 1569--that is cyber security--as modified, be withdrawn; that the pending amendment No. 1569--again, that is cyber security--as modified, be withdrawn; and that upon the disposition of H.R. 1735, the Defense authorization bill, the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 28, S. 754. That is the bill which came out of the Intelligence Committee.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object to my friend's modification, I repeat, the cyber security bill is important and the Senate should turn to it, but putting it after the Defense appropriations bill is a false promise. It is a facade. I think it is very clear. I heard the Republican leader give a speech on the floor today that he knows, unless there are some changes made, we are not going to get on the Defense appropriations bill. So this is a false promise. If we could do it in a more specific, determined time, that would be one thing, but the Republican leader obviously has no plan to complete the Defense appropriations bill if this is how we are proceeding; rather, they are proceeding ahead with his partisan budget plan--a plan the President said will not become law. Until Republicans sit down to work out a bipartisan Senate budget, the Senate will not finish the Defense authorization bill. Once again, the right way to do this would be to consider the cyber security bill on its own merits after the Defense authorization bill is done. It would take 2 days. So I ask the majority leader if he would modify his consent request to the following: that upon disposition of the Defense authorization bill, H.R. 1735, the Senate proceed to consideration of Calendar No. 28, S. 754, which is the cyber security bill.

Mr. REID. Which Senator?

Mr. REID. Yes, I object.

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

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I will be extremely brief. We can have a debate here. We can look at all the press clippings of both sides on what happened in the last 2 years on Defense authorization. We didn't get a bill. We got a bill, but it was done in secret by the managers of the two bills in the House and the Senate. The reason that happened--it wasn't our fault. They wouldn't let us on the bill--``they'' meaning the Republicans. So we can debate that all we want. Those are the facts. I do not object to my friend's request.

Mr. REID. Without any question. Cloture Motion

Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have on the Senate floor an authorization bill for about $600 billion--Defense authorization for about $600 billion. I can't imagine the procedural games, the chicanery involved in this. Why did we yesterday have on this bill something on Ex-Im Bank? Was it just to check it off so they could say we tried and Democrats wouldn't let us do it? Why would we have on this $600 billion bill dealing with the security of this Nation something else that also deals with the security of this Nation and that deserves a separate piece of legislation so we can have amendments and talk about that? We have agreed to do it in a very short period of time. There is no good reason for doing it this way. We should limit the matter at hand to the Defense authorization bill at some $600 billion, and then we have agreed to go to cyber security. We are willing to do that. But I cannot imagine--I cannot imagine--why the Republican leader is doing this. It makes a mockery of the legislative process.

Mr. REID. I will be happy to yield to the ranking member of the committee for a question.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, respectfully, I suggest we are on leader time now. My time is protected--or used to be--and the Senator asked me a question. I yielded to him for a question. He should have the right to answer the question.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I admire and appreciate very much my friend the Republican leader mentioning Dr. James Billington, a friend of mine. I had a wonderful conversation with Dr. Billington yesterday. I wrote him a nice letter talking about what we have done together over these past three decades. It seems only yesterday that I was chairman of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee and a new Senator here. One of the first attacks we got from Republicans at that time was to whack the Library of Congress. They even went after the magazines that were produced in braille. I can remember the debate we had about Playboy magazine. I don't know what they were trying to eliminate, but they tried. I don't know what they could do with the braille in a Playboy magazine. But we were able to turn that back. I so appreciate this good man and what he has done. His academic record is terrific. As a person, he is the best. We have traveled parts of the world with him, together with Mark Hatfield, a Republican, who was one of the Republican leaders of the Senate, and I was a junior Senator at the time. We had a great trip. Prior to coming to the Library of Congress, Jim Billington was the acting leader of our country on the Soviet Union. He is a wonderful man, and I ask that my remarks indicate that I agree with every word the Republican leader said about Jim Billington.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, my friend the Republican leader threw around words such as ``cynicism'' and ``hypocrisy.'' This speech my friend gave--I would suggest he walk into his office, his little bathroom in there, and look into that mirror because over that mirror he should be able to see the words ``hypocrisy'' and ``cynicism'' because the speech he gave was fervent with hypocrisy and cynicism. We have tried very hard since the first of the year to cooperate with the Republicans, and we have done it. On this bill which is before us now, the Defense authorization bill--it is a bill I will talk about a little later in more detail--this is a piece of legislation which the President said before it left the committee was going to be vetoed. He not only said it, he put it in writing. We cooperated. We allowed it to go on the floor without the normal filibuster and the motion to proceed that I had to approach when I led the Senate as the majority leader hundreds of times--hundreds of times. So we have cooperated. We haven't filibustered getting on the bill, as I mentioned, and we have allowed amendments to get pending and get votes. That is something the Republicans would not let us do when this bill came up the last 2 years. It is a major bill. The Republican leader said a couple years ago, and I quote, ``The Defense authorization bill requires 4 or 5 weeks to debate.'' That is what he said. So this work that he has done on this Defense authorization bill is just the height of hypocrisy and cynicism. He comes to the floor today and blames Barack Obama for the hacking that the Chinese did. He talks about what a great bill we have. He stuck on this bill the cyber security--for 5 years we tried to get up a cyber security bill. Every time we brought it up, it was stopped by the Republicans. Every time. I met in my office 5 years ago with five different committee chairs, and they moved forward to try to get a bill out. Every step of the way, my Republican friends blocked us. So talk about cynicism, hypocrisy. On the Defense bill they talk about what a gift they gave to the President. They gave a gift to the President of $39 billion more deficit spending. That is more deficit spending on the overseas contingency fund. They refused to allow that on virtually everything else. My friend the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, in years past and, in fact, when this bill first came from the House, complained about this phony gimmick they were using, but now my friend, with whom I came to Congress 33 years ago, suddenly likes this bill. I don't know how he can do the backflip he did to come to this reasoning. There is no better example of the dysfunction created by the Republican leader and his party than what we have seen not in the last 5\1/2\ months, the last 24 hours. Think about what he has done. We are on the Defense authorization bill that the President said out loud and in writing he is going to veto. Everyone knows that. Every Republican knows that. But the Republican leader is hell-bent on moving forward with this cynical ploy to pass a bill that is destined to be vetoed. Yesterday, he even went further and intimated that Republicans love the defense of this country through our military and we don't. At that time, I said, and I repeat, every one of my Democratic Senators is a patriot. They believe in this country, and they support the military. So supporting the military isn't a lock that the Republicans have. To make matters worse, the Republican leader is now using this bill which should be focused on funding our troops to pull these diverting, deceitful ploys on cyber security. On cyber security, with the Republican leader's blessing, Senators Burr and McCain employed a rarely used device to get a cyber security amendment pending with no agreement, and then, before any action was taken, the Republican leader quickly filed cloture. When the Senate considered the 2012 cyber security bill--and we tried so hard to get that out--Senator McConnell complained about cloture being filed too quickly, which I did because they wouldn't let us move at all on the bill. In 2012, Senator McConnell said: The few days the bill was on the floor, the majority limited its consideration to debate only and then . . . filed cloture. But, of course, that is kind of par for the course around here. . . . The notion that we should just roll over and wave through these bills without having a chance to improve them and that Democratic Senators would be willing to be rolled in such a way is ridiculous, especially on a bill of this significance. Yet, here the Republican leader is doing just what he lambasted before. Now, that really is par for the course over these last 5 months. For 6 years, in three different Congresses, virtually everything President Obama tried to do and we tried to do was filibustered. That is no secret. Hundreds of times--hundreds of times on motions to proceed, gobbling up 30 hours here, 2 days here. Hundreds of times. So now what we find is something that to me is even more troubling. There have been press reports today that Republicans on the House side are involved in a vote-buying scheme on the trade bill by promising never to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank. They are saying to these few Republicans: If you vote to allow us to go forward with this trade bill, we won't do anything on the Export-Import Bank. What a shame. Let me get this straight. Republicans want to pass a trade bill that hurts American workers, and in order to buy votes to make that happen, they are going to kill 165,000 more jobs by letting Ex-Im Bank lapse. The number of Americans working today because of the Bank, as we speak today, is 165,000. Another part of this cynical ploy unfolded here on the Senate floor. The Republican leader, who is intent on letting the Export-Import Bank lapse, allowed a token vote on the measure to try to appease the Bank's supporters. The Republican leader immediately walks out in the last 24 hours and files an amendment on Ex-Im Bank and within hours files a motion to table the amendment. Wow. So we should not be easily fooled, and we are not. If the Bank expires, there is no telling how long it will take to renew it--if, in fact, it ever happens. None should be fooled by these sham votes. If we want to preserve the Bank, we should vote to extend it before it expires on June 30 this year--in a couple weeks. I am amazed it is even an issue. It wasn't that long ago that Republicans believed that this Bank was good for America. Republican Presidents believed in it--Reagan, Bush, and Bush. I remember when the Republican leader was in favor of the Bank. In 1997, the Senator from Kentucky cosponsored legislation reauthorizing the Bank's charter. With Senator McConnell's help, the Senate passed that bill unanimously. That is the way we used to do it because it was so good for America. Again, 4 years later, the Republican leader signed on to a letter encouraging George W. Bush to extend the Bank's charter, which, of course, he did. At that time, he and 29 other Republican Senators argued that allowing the Bank to lapse would be devastating to the economy and in particular our trade deficit. Now the senior Senator from Kentucky has turned a legislative backflip and today wants the Bank to disappear. Talk about hypocrisy. Talk about cynicism. Wow. As he continues to remind everyone, he sets the schedule around here. Yet, he cannot be bothered to schedule a vote on the Export-Import Bank before it lapses. So what changed? Here is what changed. The Republican leader is not the only Republican performing a breathtaking about-face on this issue. The chairman of the banking committee supported the Export-Import Bank as recently as a year or two ago. In fact, the senior Senator from Alabama supported a 4-year renewal. If the Senator from Alabama had gotten his way, the Bank would still have a year left before the charter expired. But now the senior Senator from Alabama, speaking on the Bank's reauthorization, said, ``I believe at the end of the day if it expires, we won't miss it.'' Tell that to 165,000 people who will lose their jobs. Just last night, the banking committee chairman tried to table an amendment reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank. That motion failed overwhelmingly and displayed that the Bank has a lot of support for reauthorization. I don't mean to point a finger at just the Republican leader and the banking committee chairman. Many other Senate Republicans have flipped on this also and so quickly that I am sure their heads are spinning even as we speak. To understand the Republican change of position, one need only look-- where do we look? What do the Koch brothers want us to do? What do the Koch brothers want us to do? These Koch brothers are their billionaire benefactors. Charles and David Koch adamantly oppose the Export-Import Bank today but not yesterday. They were not always against the Bank. Just like most other businesses in America, Koch Industries is always looking for new markets for its goods. They should. That means the Koch brothers are all for exports. How could they not be? After all, the Koch brothers got into business by selling services to Joseph Stalin. That is where they got started--Joseph Stalin and his brutal Communist Soviet Union. More recently, Koch Industries and its subsidiaries have used the Export-Import Bank to find an international marketplace for their goods. The Hill newspaper reports that Koch companies Georgia-Pacific, John Zink, Molex, and Koch Heat Transfer, among others, received over $16 million in loans from the Bank. That is what the Bank is intended for. That $16 million is to help sustain American jobs. But it is stunningly hypocritical that the same Koch brothers are using the Bank for loans they could literally write a check for and that they are attacking as a corporate giveaway. This reminds me of the time the Kochs attacked ObamaCare as collectivism. They probably know a little bit about it. That is where their business started. The Kochs attacked ObamaCare as collectivism, while collecting health subsidies through the Affordable Care Act. Talk about cynicism. Talk about hypocrisy. Now, after benefiting from the Export-Import Bank, the Koch brothers figure we have it all. Why should we try to help anybody else? We are multibillionaires. That is an understatement. They are labeling it ``corporate welfare'' and ``a handout'' for big business. I wonder if Charles and David got whiplash from their extreme turnaround. The Kochs' main political arm, Americans for Prosperity, is now leading an all-out assault on the Bank. It is going to great lengths to pressure Republicans to let the Bank's charter lapse. It is one thing for a couple of oil baron billionaires to oppose a program for their own financial purposes; it is an entirely different thing for governing Republicans in Congress to do their bidding. But obviously that is what is happening. Why else the turnaround? Republicans in Congress were for the Export-Import Bank until the Kochs were against it. Now Republicans are running for cover, waiting to find a way that they can try to rationalize not being for it, when they were for it before. One conservative news outlet run by the Heritage Foundation went so far as to report that Republican Presidential hopefuls have to reject the Export-Import Bank if they want the Koch's endorsement and financial backing. You cannot make up stuff better than this. The Daily Signal, for example, reports, ``An endorsement would likely turn on a candidate's approach to one or more issues of importance to the Koch brothers, beginning with their opposition to the Federal Export-Import Bank.'' It would be tragic if the Export-Import Bank was not reauthorized because Republicans with White House ambitions or Senators who are afraid they are going to get a primary here in the Senate are more interested in auditioning for the Koch brothers, as Presidential candidates are and Republican leaders in Congress do. They go meet with them a couple times a year to make sure they bow when they are supposed to and don't crowd and make sure they are called upon when they are asked to. The Republican leader and his colleagues have completely altered their position on a program that supports 165,000 American jobs, jobs here right in our country, many in their own States. Every State in the Union benefits. Republicans have changed their opinion on a bank that has returned $7 billion to the Treasury, our Treasury. It is a flip that would make a trapeze artist cringe. I say to my Republican friends: Just because the Koch brothers tell you to jump, do you have to say: Well, how high do you want me to jump? We do not have much time. The Export-Import Bank charter expires at the end of this month. Last night's vote proves there is support in this Chamber to reauthorize this Bank. Sixty-five Senators voted in support of it last night. So I urge Senate Republicans to put aside their nonsensical backtracking on a program they themselves admitted was a job creator and understand where the real cynicism and hypocrisy lies in this Chamber.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is very difficult to respond to fiction, and that is what we just heard. We heard a speech based on fiction, a speech based on no facts, a speech based on made-up facts. It is so hard to comprehend the different areas the majority leader spoke of with no basis in reality. On the subject of health care, it is as if he doesn't realize that 16.5 million people have health insurance. He denigrates people who aren't insured. Because of Obamacare, they now have the ability to go to a doctor or a hospital when they are sick because of Medicaid. Is there anything wrong with that? In America everyone is not rich. In America not everyone is middle class. Some people are falling through the cracks, and the fact that in the State of Kentucky a lot of people there now have the ability to go to doctors when they are sick or hurt shouldn't be anything that people make fun of. Health care has changed dramatically. I walked into a drugstore near my home here in Washington--CVS. As a result of ObamaCare and other reasons, you can go into that drugstore now and have a test for strep. If you need medicine, they can give it to you. That is progress in medicine in America. My friend the Republican leader talks as if he would like to return to the time prior to ObamaCare, when insurance companies defined the people who have preexisting disabilities. Let's go back to that system. Let's go back to the system where if you have a child who has diabetes, you can't get that kid insured. If you have been in an automobile accident and you broke your neck--even if you are doing fine now, but from the doctor's reports it shows that you broke your neck--you can't get insurance. People with debilitating diseases now can get help. The overwhelming majority of Americans, statistically, who enrolled in health care plans under the new law are satisfied with the coverage. The majority leader continues to misstate the facts on the Affordable Care Act. The latest poll shows that the majority of Americans support the law, as they should. So I don't know why my friend has to come here and make up things. ObamaCare has been an important program for American families in Nevada and all over America. So I am very disappointed with the state of nonreality of my friend from Kentucky, who has come here each day this week to talk about ObamaCare and what is wrong with it. Before this law came into being, patients and the American people were subject to premium increases without any notice, cancellations without notice, denials for preexisting conditions, which I have already mentioned, and arbitrary limits on how much care insurance companies would cover.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. The majority leader also came here and talked about how Democrats don't care about people in the armed services in America-- that we don't care. In Nevada, I would compare our military installations and their contributions to a stellar military. Nobody surpasses what we do in Nevada. We have the finest Air Force training center in the world for people who fly fighter aircraft. They are all there. We have 10,000 civilian employees, and about 10,000 troops are stationed there. It has been in existence since it was called the Gunnery School in World War II. We are very proud of that. It is an important part of our community, and we protect it. If you go north 350 miles, there is the Fallon Naval Air Training Center, which is a great installation, where if you want to fly on an aircraft carrier in America, that is where you train, at Fallon. TOPGUN is there. It is a wonderful facility, and we are proud of that facility. It doesn't have as many civilian personnel as Nellis. It is not as big and does not have as many active military, but it is an outstanding operation. People come from all over the world to train at Nellis--from all over the world. We have such a vastness in Nevada, and people train there. They can't do it anyplace else in the world. So I would put my support of the military--I would certainly compare it to my friend the Republican leader. I am sure he cares. I care also, and all 45 Members of the Democratic caucus care about the military. We care about it in a way that is not denigrating to the Internal Revenue Service that he keeps bashing. One reason that the Internal Revenue Service has a tough time doing its job is because the Republicans keep cutting their budget. The head of the IRS came to see me a couple months ago, and said: We made it through the tax season. There were very few problems, but he said that if anyone wanted to call the IRS 2 months prior to the tax season ending, they couldn't answer the phones. They didn't have enough staff to do it. The bill came out of the Armed Services Committee, and at that time, our leading member of that committee, Jack Reed, a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy said that the bill was flawed. It was flawed because he hoped we could fix the funding mechanism that the Republicans put in this--another unbelievably fictitious way of taking care of our government. The chairman of that committee is somebody with whom I came from the House of Representatives 33 years ago. We came to the Senate together. He has been someone who has stood on this floor and berated phony spending. Where is he now? How could this man be in favor of deficit spending? How can he be in favor of OCO? He has spoken out openly against it in the past, but suddenly he is in favor of it. The President said the minute that bill was taken up in the committee: If you don't change that, I am going to veto the bill--as he should. What we have said is we are going to support that. We believe what is in this bill is as fictitious as his account of what ObamaCare is all about. But my friend the Republican leader keeps talking about the leftwing: The leftwing is trying to kill this bill. We are not trying to kill the bill. We are trying to make sure we have programs in America that support the middle class, that support medical research, that support funding the FBI, and our court system. My friend the Republican leader seems only to care about the military. We care about the military, but we care about other things that lead to the security of this Nation. We are not a secure Nation when we don't fund the National Institutes of Health. We are not a secure Nation when we don't fund the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the Department of Homeland Security. We are not a secure Nation when we don't fund the Immigration and Naturalization Service. But my friend the Republican leader is saying: Don't worry about them. Just take care of the military. All this other stuff will work out. The military is not secure, our government is not secure, and our homeland is not secure, when we have all these other agencies that are being, in effect, cut back in funding. Now, on cyber security, we know the Presiding Officer of this body led the Senate through some very important debates in recent days, and one of the things that was underlying everything done by the Presiding Officer was cyber security--maybe sometimes not directly, but that is in the background, always. What does the Republican leader now come and say? Look how much I am on cyber security. Look at me. I lifted weights this morning. But what he has done is that now he is going to put cyber security on the bill the President said he is going to veto. We are stuck. We have 400 amendments filed, and we are not going through these amendments. He wants to be able to check off the box, saying: Well, we did cyber security. He hasn't done cyber security. I have a quote here from him on cyber security, just a short time ago: ``Any issue of this importance deserves serious consideration and open debate.'' This is what the Republican leader said. He says: Oh, we have done double the amendments that were done in the last couple of bills. It takes two sides of the Senate to have amendments heard. The Republicans would not let us have open debate on the armed services bill the last two Congresses. We never even had a debate here. What happened is the two chairs of the committee met in secret and came up with a bill that came up to the Senate floor, and we were able to get that done. But for people to come here and say this is the 53rd year we have done the bill is a little fictitious itself. I hope that my friend, the senior Senator from Kentucky, will get in touch with reality on ObamaCare, on the Defense authorization bill before this body, and on cyber security and stop making things up, because that is it. It is fiction, and it is not appropriate. I was so disappointed yesterday to see my Republican colleagues vote against the amendment proposed by the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, the senior Senator from Rhode Island. His amendment would have done what no Republicans have even tried to do, which is to adequately address sequestration. Sequestration was supposed to be so absurd and so foolish that it would force Congress to reduce the deficit in a sensible, balanced manner. On the floor now--I have said this before and I will say it again--I asked the senior Senator from Illinois who came to this House with me and with John McCain 33 years ago: Would you do me a favor? We have this committee that the President has set up, and I need somebody that represents maybe a little bit left of center on this committee. Would you do it? He had many other obligations, but he agreed to be on the Bowles-Simpson Commission, and he did a stunningly important good job. He supported the financing of that. Quite frankly, that surprised me because of all the people yelling for all these budget cuts, and many of those voted against it in the committee. Now, no one in this body understands sequestration any better than my friend from Illinois. Sequestration was supposed to be so absurd--I repeat--so foolish, that it would force Congress to balance in a sensible manner. Yet what the Republicans considered lunacy a few years ago is now the preferred form of legislating, the preferred form of budgeting. That tells you everything you need to know about today's Republican Party. They are beating their chests about how great sequestration is. Isn't it great that all of these Federal agencies are being cut. The Reed amendment would have allowed the Democrats and Republicans to negotiate a balanced budget and would have rescinded sequestration, while ensuring adequate funding to the Department of Defense and nondefense programs. Instead, by rejecting Senator Reed's legislation, the Republicans have effectively said spend first, budget later. Here is what they have come up with. They are saying: Ready, fire, aim. Or they are saying: Fire, ready, aim. We know they are not saying: Ready, aim, fire. They have it all backwards, like everything they have done here legislatively--like ostriches with their heads buried deep in the sand. The majority leader and Republicans continue to deny the need for a bipartisan budget. They deny the need to fix sequestration, just as they deny the urgent need to authorize the Export-Import Bank, which employs 165,000 people in America, as we speak. It expires at the end of this month. They deny the urgent need to fix our roads, rails, and bridges. That program is going to expire in 6 weeks, which creates millions of jobs-- millions of jobs. Regardless of what Republicans tell themselves, they cannot wish these important issues to just disappear. It is our job to address these matters that affect working Americans. Here we are in June, months before funding for the government runs out. We have plenty of time to sit down and work out an agreement that both sides can work out. It appears to me what the Republicans are doing is that we are heading for another shutdown. They did it once; they are going to do it again. They want to do nothing now. They want to wait until the fiscal year ends and then lock it up--close up government. There is no reason for this to become yet another manufactured crisis, and that is what we have here. We can, I repeat, months before the funding for government runs out, do something about it. Do they desire another closed government? I hope not. But it appears that is where we are headed. The Republicans are unwilling to do things that are real. So I urge my Republican colleagues to change course, instead of barreling ahead with bills they know are going to fail. The Defense authorization bill, the President is going to veto. The veto will be upheld. We will do it over here. But the House already has enough votes to sustain the President's veto. It is just moving forward for reasons that I do not fully understand. I urge them to change course, work with us to forge an agreement that can get signed into law. The majority leader's party can continue to ignore and procrastinate all they want, but eventually we will need to negotiate a budget free of sequestration, a budget that protects our military and also nondefense, our middle class. Eventually, we will need to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank, I repeat, which sustains hundreds of thousands of jobs and is responsible for billions of dollars in U.S. exports. Now, eventually we need to find a lasting way to fund on a long-term basis our American highways. Fifty percent of our highways are deficient, 64,000 bridges--50 percent of those are structurally deficient. Not far from here, over the great Memorial Bridge, they are closing two lanes. Why? Because it has rotted away. Hundreds of thousands of people go over that every day--or they used to. So why wait? Instead of waiting for the President to veto their sham funding mechanism and then scramble to craft some last-minute, hastily wrought continuing resolution, the Republicans should work with us on a bipartisan solution now. We are ready to cooperate with Republicans to pass legislation that keeps America safe and protects the middle class. But to do that, my Republican colleagues will first have to pull their heads out of the sand.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, the majority leader and I will yield to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, this afternoon the Senate will vote on an important amendment offered by a graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point, the Senator from Rhode Island, Jack Reed, who is also the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee. I commend Senator Reed for the stellar job he has done in being a manager of this bill. He is one of the most thoughtful and responsible Members of the Senate and always has been. He has great legislative experience, having served in the House before he came here. Senator Reed's amendment addresses a major threat to our national security and the middle class--sequestration. Sequestration refers to deep, mindless, automatic cuts throughout the government. These cuts were authorized 4 years ago to force Congress to reduce the deficit in a balanced way. Unfortunately, they did not work. Republicans are unwilling to close even a single tax loophole--not a single tax loophole to reduce the deficit. Now we face the prospect of arbitrary and unreasonable cuts that were once assumed to be so stupid that Congress would not allow them to happen. But something that everyone thought was stupid is now official Republican policy. Unless we can reach a bipartisan agreement to fix sequestration, these cuts will occur, not smoothly but as if done by a meat cleaver. That threatens not only our military security but also the economic security of America's middle class, which really is our national security. The bill aims to avoid sequestration for the Defense Department with a widely ridiculed budget loophole, which would put actual defense spending on the Nation's credit card, increasing our deficit and our debt. I am stunned by my friend, the senior Senator from Arizona. When I was an appropriator, I was on this Senate floor and I watched him, with his staff in the back of the room every time we did an appropriations bill. He pored through line by line with his staff of every appropriations bill. If there was something he thought was askew he would object to it. We got used to that because, frankly, it saved money over time. He referred to all the pork that was in these bills, and he and I disagreed on what was determined to be pork, but I understood where he was coming from. I am just flabbergasted now that the senior Senator from Arizona, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, is agreeing to a one-time gimmick. All the experts have said these gimmicks don't work--especially this one. Now, the committee, led by my friend the senior Senator from Arizona, is agreeing to this gimmick. Think of that. The Republicans, led by the senior Senator from Arizona, are advocating deficit spending big time--not a little bit, big time--tens of billions of dollars. Our troops deserve better than this. Meanwhile, unless we deal with the impact of sequestration more broadly, middle-class America will suffer drastic cuts in things that matter to them the most--cuts in priorities such as education, job creation, and lifesaving research. Sequestration of nondefense programs is also an attack on our military families. For example, sequestration threatens to cut VA spending, health care spending for the military, job training for returning veterans, schools that teach children of military families, and heating assistance for veterans who are struggling. If we are going to be fair to military families, just as to millions of other working Americans, we need to fix sequestration for more than just the Pentagon. We need to fix it for defense and nondefense programs jointly. Defense and nondefense are inextricable. They are certainly things we cannot separate. That is what the Reed amendment is designed to change through bipartisan negotiations. There is no reason to wait to negotiate a bipartisan budget. It makes no sense to start spending extra money on defense or anything else until we agree on an overall plan. Put simply, we ought to budget first and spend later. That is the only responsible way for a family or our Nation to conduct its business. That is why the Reed amendment makes so much sense. I urge my colleagues to support the Reed amendment. A plan that avoids unnecessary cuts to priorities such as education, job creation, and research is what the Reed amendment is all about. It is a plan that funds all agencies that protect our security, including the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Drug Enforcement Administration--all of these vital programs. It is a plan that funds our troops, protects military families, and makes the long-term investment needed to ensure a secure, prosperous future for all Americans. Less than 2 years ago, Democrat Patty Murray and Republican Paul Ryan proved it could be done. Let's put an end to the games and gimmicks and start putting together a responsible budget.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, the majority leader can't seem to let the facts as they exist get in the way of his ideology. The facts are that the Affordable Care Act is working, and 16.5 million people are proof of that because they have access to health care, most of whom did not have it before. In the light of day, it has been shown that private insurance companies were taking advantage of the American people. They cannot do that now under the Affordable Care Act. Companies that are proposing these huge rate increases simply won't get them. Understand that 80 percent of every dollar that is charged by an insurance company in premiums--80 percent of it--has to go toward caring for people. If it doesn't, there are rebates, and hundreds of thousands of Americans during the last few years have gotten rebates as a result of insurance companies not spending 80 percent of the money they are getting in premiums for health care. The sad commentary is that insurance companies took advantage--took advantage by not insuring people who had preexisting disabilities. One ``disability'' that insurance companies said was preexisting was the fact that you are a woman. Some insurance companies charged more for the same care if you are a woman and not a man. We have wide-ranging evidence that was in existence before and I guess my Republican colleagues want back again where insurance companies determine how much--they could arbitrarily cut off insurance to someone. They had these arbitrary limits. They can't do that anymore. Senior citizens have received millions of benefits from the Affordable Care Act. They get a wellness check every year for no cost at all. They no longer have to worry about the hole in the doughnut, so to speak, as we call it, on coverage for their prescriptions. There are many things we can talk about. The fact is that the Affordable Care Act is working, and we are going to continue to defend it as the American people want us to do.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Madam President, a few days ago, the majority leader was reported to have declared to a conservative talk-radio show that under his leadership, the Republican Senate will shirk its constitutional duties by not continuing to confirm judges--period. He went on to say: We may confirm a few that come from States where only Republicans give the President the names, but other than that, we are going to do none. I assume this is accurate. I hope it is not, but I assume that it is. It would be a very stunning and disappointing declaration that the senior Senator from Kentucky, especially since he argued for the fair consideration of President Bush's court nominees, would now switch his position. In July of 2008, here is what he said: ``Even with lameduck Presidents, there is a historical standard of fairness as to confirming judicial nominees, especially circuit court nominees.'' That is a direct quote from the majority leader. These are his words. Not a single word has been made up. That is what he said: ``Even with lameduck presidents, there is a historical standard of fairness as to confirming judicial nominees, especially circuit court nominees.'' And the record is spread with many quotes he has given just the same. He also said in that same year: ``No party is without blame in the confirmation process, but what is going on now--or, more accurately, what is not going on--is yet another step backward in politicizing the confirmation process--something we had all hoped that we would get beyond.'' Earlier my friend from Kentucky said: ``Judicial nominations need to be treated fairly and commitments need to be kept.'' And even earlier than that, here is what he said: ``On the issue of judicial confirmations, the majority leader and I discussed this matter publicly at the beginning of the Congress''--he is saying that he and I are talking--``and we agreed that President Bush, in the last 2 years of his term, should be treated as well as President Reagan, Bush 41, and President Clinton were treated in the last 2 years of their tenures in office because there was one common thread, and that was that the Senate was controlled by the opposition party.'' So what he is saying there is that what he wanted was for Bush to be treated the same way that Bush 1, President Reagan, and President Clinton had been treated. He got that with large numbers of judges being appointed. So we are here now with the statements ringing loudly that the majority leader is intent on writing off the Senate's constitutional duty of offering our advice and consent now that President Obama is nominating individuals to the Federal bench. The Republican leader is a student of the Senate. He says he is, and I believe that. I am confident that he understands that the Senate cannot and should not neglect the constitutional obligations we have. The Senate cannot simply ignore critical vacancies in the last 2 years of any President's term--what a bad standard to set, especially with the growth in certain communities. We have a number of judicial emergencies that have been determined. It is all the more troubling that the majority leader wants to pick an unnecessary fight over judges just as Republican Senators are working with the President to fill vacancies in their States. The majority leader is essentially telling other Senators that their judicial recommendations simply don't matter--Democrats, Independents, Republicans. The majority leader is telling the chairman of the Judiciary Committee that regardless of the judicial nominations his committee continues to report out, they could be blocked on the Senate floor. But I do say this just as a caveat: The present Judiciary Committee is doing the same thing that was done by the present chairman of the Finance Committee when he was chair of the Judiciary Committee. He didn't have to worry about a lot of names on the calendar because he simply held no hearings in the Judiciary Committee. The same situation is prevailing now. So we don't have a lot of people on the calendar because they are not having any hearings to speak of in the Judiciary Committee. I have spoken here on the floor before about the nomination of Felipe Restrepo for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia. After repeated, repeated, and repeated delays, the committee is finally considering his nomination on Wednesday. He has been waiting for months. This is an incredibly qualified nominee who enjoys vast bipartisan support, including both Pennsylvania Senators, one a Democrat and one a Republican. The Republican Senator from Pennsylvania has said that Judge Restrepo would be a ``superb addition to the Third Circuit.'' In that case we have waited months to even have a hearing. So it must have been shocking for the junior Senator from Pennsylvania to learn that his judicial pick would face another delay-- a delay indefinitely, perhaps. This is a blatant rejection of the Senate's constitutional duties. Just as Senator McConnell argued for fairness for President Bush's nominations, it is not unreasonable for Democrats to expect that same measure of fairness that President Bush got in the 110th Congress. Regardless of whether a State had two Democrats, two Republicans or a split delegation, Senate Democrats brought President Bush's nominees up for a vote. By this point in the seventh year of George W. Bush's Presidency, Senate Democrats confirmed 18 judges, including 3 circuit court judges. In almost 6 months, the Republican Senate has only confirmed four district court judges. To put this in perspective, during the Presidency of Bush, we confirmed four in 1 month. So perhaps the majority leader's comments about a judicial slowdown were just confirming what he has already done to block the President's nominees. I repeat. The committee is being run the same way that the present chair of the Finance Committee did when he was chair of the Judiciary Committee--just holding no hearings. That way, there is nobody on the calendar--or very few. The Republican Senate hasn't confirmed even a single circuit court judge--not even a consensus nominee such as Kara Stoll to the Federal Circuit. She was reported out of committee by a voice vote in April. Nothing so far--they are not even having hearings, I repeat, on most nominees. Therefore, there is no one to report to the floor. Actions speak louder than words, and the majority leader can demonstrate that his remarks were misinterpreted--and I would certainly hope so--by scheduling a prompt vote on the Stoll nomination. We should schedule a vote on her nomination no later than this week. Kara Stoll is the only appeals court judge awaiting a vote before the Senate. For the reasons I have just said, people have been in the pipeline, but they won't hold hearings. Both of these nominations--Restrepo and Stoll--need a vote now. Let's hope the majority leader will reflect upon his past statements about fair consideration of judicial nominees, in comparison to what he said on a talk show--I guess appealing to the rightwing even more than what has happened recently, and that is quite a bit. Let's hope he does not treat judicial nominees as they have never been treated before. Let's hope that the Senate will quickly confirm at least these two qualified judges. We need a lot more, but these two would be a step in the right direction. I note there is no one on the floor, and I ask that the Chair announce the business of the day.

Mr. REID

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

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have watched over the last decade Senator McConnell focusing attention on Burma. It is remarkable the good he has done for that country. His vigilance in watching literally every move that government has made has been good for that country and I think good for the world, and I admire and appreciate the work he has done. There has not been a watchdog over any country that I am aware of who has been more intense than the senior Senator from Kentucky, keeping an eye on what goes on in Burma. I appreciate his remarks today in that regard.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, every Senator wants to keep America safe, and that is why every Senator should be concerned about a particular threat to our national security. This threat to our national security is called sequestration. Sequestration puts in place drastic cuts to all funding, defense and nondefense. The Defense authorization bill that is before us today doesn't fix that--and that is a gross understatement. We should not start spending until we develop a bipartisan budget that does. That is the only responsible way to protect both our national security and America's middle class. Sequestration results from what happened 4 years ago with another threat of a government shutdown because the Republicans couldn't get their financial house in order. The Budget Control Act of 2011 passed. That act included a number of significant spending cuts and established a supercommittee led by Senator Murray and Congressman Hensarling from Texas to produce a balanced, bipartisan agreement for additional deficit reduction. Unfortunately, Republicans could never agree. There was a lot of this: Yes, we are almost there, we are almost there. But they could never pull the trigger and agree. There was a refusal to close a single tax loophole to reduce the deficit; not a single one could they agree on. So the supercommittee failed to reach an agreement, and the Budget Control Act triggered deep, automatic cuts. Sequestration was never intended to happen. The point was to threaten cuts so deep and so stupid that Congress would never let them happen. But never put that beyond this Republican group over the last 10 years and who are still here in Congress. They allowed this stupid thing to happen. The cuts affected both defense and nondefense programs so everyone would feel compelled to move it, because the cuts were equal. Unfortunately, what was stupid in 2011 is now official Republican policy. Congressional Republicans incorporated sequestration into their recent budget resolution. That resolution leaves sequestration cuts in place in parts of the budget that affect the middle class, and it also directly threatens national security. There are many examples of this. How does it affect the middle class? The list is really endless. It cuts investments in roads, bridges, rail, and transit. That costs jobs--lots and lots of jobs, hundreds of thousands of jobs. It puts travelers at risk, and it weakens our economy. Sequestration cuts education. That means fewer children with a shot at going to school. If they can't do that, they don't have a shot at success. It means fewer Americans who can afford college. That is the way it is. It means less economic opportunity for millions of Americans. Sequestration cuts research. That means fewer chances to beat cancer, heart disease, and Alzheimer's. As a result of sequestration, the National Institutes of Health, the premier medical research institution in the world, was whacked by sequestration to the tune of $1.6 billion. They have never, ever gotten that money back. It stopped the finalization work done on the universal flu vaccine. The list is endless as to what they can't do because of that money being lost. While sequestration is a dagger pointed at the middle class, it also represents a threat to our society in many different ways. It means fewer opportunities for American businesses and consumers to benefit from cutting edge innovations. Sequestration threatens cuts to the FBI, the Federal Bureau of Investigation. It means fewer FBI resources devoted to terrorists and hunting them down. Sequestration threatens cuts for the Transportation Security Administration, which helps protect us from another 9/11. Sequestration threatens cuts for fusion centers, which have worked so well--these centers help law enforcement officials work together--and for the Coast Guard and border security officials who protect Americans from dangers from abroad. These are cuts that are in place right now. The bill before us is designed to provide an end run around sequestration for the Department of Defense by exploiting a provision that exempts from spending caps what is called the overseas contingency operations, or OCO. We all know that OCO was put in the budget many years ago, and it was set there so we would have the money to fight wars. It is always very hard to determine how much wars are going to cost. We know that because we had to borrow almost $2 trillion for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, especially in Iraq. But the OCO gimmick does not solve the problem of sequestration, and that is true. I am disappointed that even Senators who long have had a reputation for fiscal honesty, such as the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, my friend, are turning a blind eye to the OCO gimmick. There has not been a word from people who have had a reputation for fiscal honesty--not a word--about this gimmick. The Department of Defense says it won't work. It is just a 1-year gimmick, and that will make it impossible for military leaders to prepare for threats we face in the future. The OCO gimmick does nothing for agencies that protect us here at home, such as, as I have indicated, the FBI and even the Department of Homeland Security. That leaves all Americans vulnerable to attacks if they don't get the resources they need. So until we reach a balanced, bipartisan agreement on the budget--an agreement that protects both national security and the middle class-- not a single spending bill will become law. If any bill reaches the President, he will veto it. He has said so publicly many times. He should. It is critical for the middle class, and it is the only way to be fiscally responsible. We ought to budget before we spend. Days after letting critical national security tools expire on their watch, Republicans are showing yet another way they can't govern. Now we are wasting time on a bill that has no chance of becoming law--no chance. No troops will be helped by a bill that can't be signed into law by the President. Our military needs all the help they can get. They deserve it. If Republicans want to join us in supporting our troops, they should start taking their responsibility to govern seriously and work with us on a Defense bill that can actually become law to help those in our Armed Forces. Let's be straight. At the moment, we don't have a budget. Without the vote of a single Democrat, Republicans approved a nonbinding resolution with their own wish list. It means nothing. The budget means nothing. There was a lot of back-slapping here: Oh, it is a great budget; we are going to balance the budget. But everyone knows that is just a farce. Until both parties join together, the government does not have a budget to actually guide decisionmaking. We need one. This is not rocket science. After all, budgeting for the Federal Government is not all that different than budgeting for a family. If two spouses are trying to resolve differences over their own budget, would it be responsible for one spouse to go out and buy a new car on credit? We all know the answer to that--no. It is the same here in Washington. Shouldn't we agree on a budget first and spend later? That is not asking too much, I don't believe. We don't need political theater and meaningless votes on bills that are going nowhere. We don't need another manufactured crisis. We just need to sit down, get real, and fix sequestration in a way that protects both national security and the middle class. They go together.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.