Harry Reid

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, these amendments that have just been listed, we are familiar with three of them. The other two I have not had the chance to review nor has my staff, and I do not think anyone else has. We will be happy to continue to study these. I will take a look at them--happy to do that. The only thing I would say is that--and I have other things to say, and I know my friend the assistant Republican leader has places to go, so I would give a statement later. But based on what I have just said and what I am going to say, I object.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, yesterday, the House sent the Senate a bipartisan reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank. The bill the House passed reflects the negotiated agreement that was struck between Republican and Democratic leaders. They worked hard to come up with an agreement. As one would expect with an agreement of that nature, the House passed it with a very strong vote. The vote was 330 to 93. Every single Democrat voted for the measure. Only the far right tea party wing of the House Republican caucus voted against the bill--93 of them. So it was 330 to 93. The House considered no amendments. The House passed the bill on a suspension calendar. For those of us who served in the House, that is a bill that comes up and there is almost no debate. It takes a two-thirds vote to pass it. They do it for noncontroversial items. This measure is noncontroversial. It should have never been controversial. We brought it up 2 months ago, and we were stunned when the Republicans would not let us move forward on it. So the House did the right thing yesterday. This is the sort of bill the Senate should now simply pass without amendment. It is so unusual here. I have been in Congress 30 years. But this is a new one. Even bills that they agree on they want to mess around with. In years past, this would have gone through just like this. Forget about what took place 2 months ago. But now the House passed something 330 to 93, and we are here playing around with it. It should be done. We should have passed it yesterday. This thing is going to expire. It is hard to comprehend what the new mantra of the Republicans in the Senate is. I do not get it. As I indicated in earlier days, the Senate would have passed this bill by unanimous consent, as we have done before, this same legislation. But these days, the far right tea party wing of the Senate Republican caucus--I used to just talk about the House wing of the tea party, but it is over here now--thinks everything has to be a fight--everything. So we are going to have to have a vote on this rather than do it by unanimous consent. The bank will hit its lending limit any day. Its current authorization ends at the end of this month, May. So it will be very important we work to pass the House bill as quickly as possible. If we amend the bill and send it back to the House, we have to start all over again. The House is basically not in session this month, under their very difficult schedule of working 2 weeks on and 1 week off and then sometimes longer than that. I do not know when they are going to be here. It would be so much better, on a noncontroversial, very important piece of legislation--last year, 300,000 jobs--not 30,000 but 300,000. We understand the Senate Republican caucus wants to offer amendments. The amendments are--I do not know for sure, but just glancing at them, I think they may be relevant. We will take a close look at them. There is no question the ones I am familiar with are efforts to gut the program. One of the amendments just eliminates it. How about that? So we are going to continue looking at the amendments we have and those we have not studied and look at them. I will try to be reasonable. So as we do that, we are going to vote on this. I am going to file cloture in just a second, which I hate to do--another motion to proceed. Boy, if there were ever a time when Tom Udall and Jeff Merkley were prophetic, it is tonight. These two young, fine Senators said it was time to change the rules in the Senate. We did not. They were right. The rest of us were wrong or most of us anyway. What a shame. Here we are wasting time because of the Republicans. This week we have accomplished a lot. We had a vote on a judge and we voted on cloture on the Republicans defeating our ability to get something done with student loans. That is our workload this week. I know it has been tough. That was sarcastic, of course, but it is just absolutely mindless what is going on. Then, to top it off, one of the finest Members of the Senate we have ever had was defeated yesterday by a man--listen to this--who campaigned on the platform that there is too much compromise in the Senate. He is going to come back here and not compromise with anybody on anything. Now that is what we need in the Senate, more people who are willing to do nothing but fight. I am going to do whatever I have to do to take the steps to keep this measure moving forward. I hope we can do it next week. I hope we can do it without a lot of trouble, of which we already have too much. Cloture Motion

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

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

Mr. REID. I am finished. But I wish to say again for those who are listening here or watching, Senator Udall and Senator Merkley wanted to do something to change the rules regarding filibusters. If there was anything that ever needed changing in this body, it is the filibuster rule. It has been abused, abused, and abused by my Republican colleagues.

Mr. REID

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

Mr. REID. Mr. President, during the day I flipped on the TV that we have in our offices and looked at it as often as I could. I was very impressed with my colleagues who came and talked about why it is so important that we not have an increase in the interest rate for student loans. I have been very happy with my Democratic colleagues who have come here and made such a profound case. But I listened also to what the Republicans had to say, and it is beyond my comprehension how they can come to the floor with a straight face and say what they have said. I have listened as my Republican colleagues have come to the Senate floor to blame Democrats for stalling legislation to keep college affordable for 7 million people throughout our great country. The claim is pretty rich considering that Republicans voted unanimously yesterday to filibuster this legislation. What is a filibuster? It is stopping us from going to the legislation. Our bill would prevent 7 million students from paying $1,000 more on their loans. With college already unaffordable for far too many young people, Democrats believe we should be doing all we can to provide access to higher education. That is what these student loans are all about. Republicans have repeatedly claimed they support efforts to support legislation to keep loans from doubling this summer, but they sure have a funny way of showing it with this endless filibuster. Today, Republicans have said that Democrats should negotiate a way out of this stalemate--again, a very strange reasoning. It is hard to negotiate without a partner. Every Tuesday after we do our weekly caucus meetings, I go to what we call the Ohio Clock. One of the reporters said: Your Republican colleague Senator McConnell said you should negotiate on this issue with Speaker Boehner. Now, how do you like that one, that I, the leader in the Senate, should go to the Republican House and start negotiating with them? That is a strange, strange way of doing business. The Republicans claim their only objection to our legislation is how it is paid for--by closing a tax loophole that allows wealthy Americans to dodge taxes they already owe. That is what we feel should happen. We don't believe it is a tax increase--just that people should pay what they are supposed to pay. They now have a way of avoiding taxes. Rich accountants and lawyers avoid it by claiming they are going to pay dividends and not ordinary income. It is not fair to everyone else. So if the Republicans object to this, fine. Democrats are willing to consider alternative offsets. In fact, we are even willing to vote on the House Republicans' own proposed offset. Now, that is a doozy, the offset from the Republicans coming from the House, which takes away money for preventive care for virtually everybody. The leading causes of death in America are diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. They want to take away preventive programs to stop heart disease. And, as we know, there are programs now--mammograms, for example--that stop people from having to get too far behind with the dread of breast cancer. That is their offset. We strongly oppose that alternative, but we are willing to vote on it. We are not running from it. And once their proposal to slash programs that save money and lives fails on a floor vote--and it will fail--we Democrats are still willing to consider other options to pay for this legislation. My Republican colleagues on the other hand have refused to consider alternative ways to pay for a bill they claim they support. So I say to my Republican colleagues, let us bring this bill to the floor. If Republicans are so interested in negotiating a solution, they should be willing to take that first step. Once the bill is on the floor, we can debate it, we can amend it with an offset on which both sides can agree. But until Republicans end their obstructionist filibuster, there is no path forward. So for my Republican colleagues to come down here and say ``we support this legislation,'' I repeat, what a strange way of supporting this legislation.

Mr. REID. Madam President, I move that the Senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 2343, and I ask unanimous consent that the time until 2 p.m. be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the Republicans controlling the first 30 minutes and the majority controlling the second 30 minutes.

Mr. REID. Madam President, the clerk just read the matter before the Senate, which is to prevent the interest rate on loans students receive to go to school--the money they borrow--from doubling from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. That is the pending matter before the Senate. Yesterday the Republicans continued to filibuster our plan to prevent that from happening. We do not want the rates to double. We don't want them to go up at all. There are 30,000 people in Nevada who are depending on our doing something to freeze those rates. But what is worse, in my estimation--and I think that of the American people--is that Republicans seem proud of blocking this legislation. Not a single Republican voted to allow the debate to go forward. This isn't an issue of saying: OK, if I vote for this, this will be the legislation. They would not even let us go forward to debate it. They have said they like the bill, except they do not like the way it is paid for. Fine. Let's get on the bill and offer amendments to pay for it. But no--every single Republican voted no. Every single Republican said: We are not going to allow a debate. The American people certainly shouldn't be surprised because this has been going on for 3 years, almost 4 years. Everything is a fight. They are blocking legislation that would allow us to stop the increase of the rate on student loans. That is wrong. And the person who signed this legislation into law, making this interest rate such as it is, was President Bush. So I hope Republicans will come to their senses and work with us to accomplish this, but I am not holding my breath because, as I indicated, they seem proud they have stopped another piece of legislation altogether. Now, what does this mean, that they are hanging together to stop legislation, to stop progress? Well, as we work to create jobs and make college affordable, our colleagues--my Republican friends on the other side of the aisle--operate under a different set of priorities. In the House, for example, there are efforts now underway to undo a hard-fought agreement of last August to cut more than $2 trillion from the deficit over the next decade. That agreement came after threats by the tea party- driven House--and now 40 percent of the people over here are tea party advocates--to shut down the government. And they wanted to do that in a couple of different ways: not allowing us to continue funding for government programs, and then, for the first time ever, there was a knockdown, drag-out fight over weeks and weeks as to whether we should increase the debt ceiling in this country. During President Reagan's time in running the country, this had been done dozens of times. But, no, these folks will do nothing without a big fight. As a result of that, we came to an agreement that was bipartisan. Now, some say the agreement was forced upon the Republicans, but they voted for it, an agreement to reduce the deficit, and the deficit we couldn't reduce before August of last year. We said: OK, fine, if we don't do something about it this year, then there will be automatic cuts called sequestration. Now the House is doing everything they can to walk away from the agreement we made and the bipartisan vote we took. They are doing everything they can. They have a Republican budget, the so-called Ryan budget. And I say ``so-called'' because they are trying to make a reconciliation bill, but they can't do it because they are not following the law to do that. So they not only have reneged on this bicameral, bipartisan agreement to reduce spending, but they have fundamentally skewed priorities because they hand out even more tax breaks to multimillionaires and shield corporate defense contractors, all at the expense of hard-working, middle-class families, the elderly, and those who can least afford it. That is what they are doing in the House. They are going to have a so-called rule today and vote on it shortly thereafter. They would slash investments to strengthen our economy and just shred our social safety nets. I want to quote from President Dwight Eisenhower. And let me remind everybody that he was a Republican. He was a tremendous President, and each day that goes by, people are looking at him more favorably. Here is what he said: Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This isn't some leftwing, socialistic-leaning liberal. That was Dwight Eisenhower--a five-star general who led the invasion of Normandy and did many other things, such as starting the National Highway System. Let me repeat what he said: Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. I didn't make that up. That is what he said. In a balanced world--one where a strong national defense and a strong social safety net are both valuable pillars of a successful society--that need not necessarily be true, is what President Eisenhower said. But the Republican plan would enshrine into law a set of unbalanced priorities and ensure the kind of terrible math General Eisenhower envisioned. Unlike defense contractors and billionaires, ordinary Americans don't have high-priced lobbyists to protect them. That is our job. That is our job. There is not a person on this side of the aisle who doesn't believe it is good that we have wealthy people in America. We have Senators here, Democrats, who are wealthy--certainly not all Democrats, but there are some. We don't look down on people who are rich, but we do have to look out for people who are in need of our help. Most of these rich people have all kinds of lobbyists here to help them, but the people in Henderson, Ely, and Winnemucca, NV, don't have people here to help them. They have us. So Republicans are going after those who can't fight back--hard-working Americans and struggling families. Let's review a little bit of history again. The sequester isn't the first bipartisan agreement to reduce the deficit. When I became the Democratic leader, I thought--having served on the Committee on Foreign Affairs in the House of Representatives and being very interested in America's involvement in foreign affairs, I took a trip to Central and South America. That was so necessary. And I took Democratic and Republican Senators with me. I was very careful in picking two Senators whom I wanted on that trip. One was Judd Gregg, a very fine Senator from New Hampshire, who has retired, I am sorry to say. I recommended that Senator Gregg be a part of President Obama's initial Cabinet. He agreed to take the job, but something came up, and he didn't do it. But he is a wonderful man. I also wanted Kent Conrad on that trip. And I don't know which one knows more about the inner workings of the finances of this country, Gregg or Conrad, but they are both good, and I wanted them to go together, and they did. Senators Gregg and Conrad spent hours and hours seated in that airplane working on doing something about the deficit. They both believed it needed some really difficult, hard work, and they decided to do what the base-closing commission did; that is, prepare legislation and give it to a commission that would send it back to us. There would be no amendments, no filibuster, just an up-or-down vote. That was their legislation. They wrote that and brought it to the floor. As the leader, I decided I would move to proceed to it, and so I did move to proceed to it, thinking it should be a slam dunk. But seven Republicans, who had cosponsored the legislation, voted against it. I couldn't bring it to the floor. That was where Bowles-Simpson came from, as a result of the Republicans walking away from their own efforts to reduce the deficit. Now, Bowles-Simpson was very difficult. There were 18 members, and they had to get 14 of the 18 to approve it. That didn't work. They couldn't get that many people to vote for it. In the meantime, President Obama was working as hard as he could with the lead spokesman of the Republicans, the Speaker of the House, John Boehner. John Boehner said: I didn't get elected to do small things, I want to do big things. And President Obama, to his detriment with his base, said: I will do something to change Social Security and Medicare. And all these things he agreed to do publicly. But the Republicans-- John Boehner--could never go against Grover Norquist. The Republicans shake in their boots. They will not do anything, even though the American people by a more than 70 percent majority say people making more than $1 million a year should contribute to what the problems are in this country. So that fell apart. Then we had the Gang of 6 Senators--three Republicans, three Democrats--who had been on the Bowles-Simpson Commission, who said we should do something about this. They were in the press, they had press conferences, and this was going down the road and doing all kinds of great things. While that was going on, there was a decision made, and a law was passed to create a supercommittee, to which I appointed Senator Patty Murray of Washington to run. No one in the Senate, Democrat or Republican, has more respect than Patty Murray. She worked so hard with the other 11 Members of Congress to come up with something. A few days before they were to arrive at a decision--and the Gang of 6 members are out here doing all this stuff all the time--I get a letter signed by virtually every Republican Senator saying: We are not going to raise revenue for anything. The supercommittee didn't work there. The Gang of 6 is gone. So we passed this last August to fund government for 2 years and to say if we don't arrive at another $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction during this year, it automatically kicks in at the end of this year or the beginning of next year. So that is where we are, and the Republicans in the House are trying to change that. So that is what this little history lesson has been all about. I don't like to sequester. I wish we didn't have to do it. It was a hard pill to swallow, but it was the right thing to do. If we are ever going to reduce the staggering deficit, we are going to have to make some hard decisions. So that is what this is all about. But that is the point: It is hard to do; therefore, we have to do it, to sequester-- which, in effect, would take almost $500 billion from domestic programs and almost $500 billion from defense programs. They were designed to be tough enough to force two sides to reach a balanced deal. It hasn't happened yet. As I said earlier with General Eisenhower's statement, I didn't make that up. That is what he said. My complaint about the Republicans being so unreasonable about everything is something where I am not a lone wolf crying in the wilderness. We have two long-time nonpartisan watchers of Congress, one from the American Enterprise Institute, which is a conservative think tank, another from Brookings Institute that wrote an article saying: It is the Republicans. Can't you see what they are doing? Here is one thing they said: We have been studying Washington politics in Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican party. They further said: The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; of scornful compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition. What brave men to do that, to write these comments--which are true. I have been saying that I don't want to fight about everything. Republicans insist on balancing the budget on the backs of the middle class, seniors, students, single mothers, and those who could least afford it. That is what they are doing over there today. It is their refusal to compromise that leaves us facing the threat of sequester, and it is difficult but it is balanced. Going back to the August budget agreement now in order to protect wealthy special interests is no solution. Neither is refighting the battles of last year. Democrats agree we must reduce our deficits and make hard choices, but we believe in a balanced approach that shares the pain as well as the responsibility. Is the sequester the best way to achieve that balance? No. But Republicans refuse to consider a more reasonable approach--one, for example, that asks every American to pay his fair share while making difficult choices to reduce spending. Democrats will not agree to a one-sided solution that lets the superwealthy off the hook while forcing the middle class and those in greatest need to bear all the hardship. Democrats believe we can protect Americans' access to health care, create jobs while investing in the future, and protect the poor and elderly. But we can't do it alone. It will take work and compromise, and so far Republicans have been unwilling to make a serious effort to achieve that result. Republicans have rejected our balanced approach. Their one-sided solution to across-the-board cuts would take away from the many to give to the few. Here is what the plan would do--not all of it, but here is what their plan would do. Remember, they are taking it up over there in the House today. It would cut Medicaid benefits, increasing the number of uninsured children, parents, seniors--and that is in addition to people with disabilities--by hundreds of thousands, just eliminate them. It would also put seniors in nursing homes at risk. Some of them would have to move out of the nursing home, I guess. It would punish Americans who receive tax credits to purchase health insurance when their financial circumstances change, causing 350,000 Americans to have no coverage. This would add to the tens of millions who already exist that way. It would weaken Wall Street reforms, protecting big banks at the expense of consumers. Their legislation would once again target middle- class workers, food inspectors, air traffic controllers, Border Patrol agents, drug enforcement, and FBI agents. They would have to be laid off. It would cut funding for preventive health care programs that fight chronic illnesses--such as heart disease, cancer, strokes, and diabetes--that cause 70 percent of the deaths in America. Preventive care would be reined in. It would slash block grant funding in the United States to help 23 million children, seniors, and disabled Americans live independently and out of poverty. No segment of the population is immune from this painful, absurd Republican plan--except maybe millionaires, billionaires, and wealthy corporations. The Republican proposal cuts Meals on Wheels and reduces food assistance for almost 2 million needy people. One of the Republican candidates running for President said President Obama is the Food Stamp President. There are more poor people. Our economy has been in bad shape. People are struggling. The millionaires are doing fine. And in addition to what I have already mentioned, this thing that they are taking up in the House today cuts off almost 300,000 children from free school lunches at a time when one in five children lives in poverty. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said the Republican plan fails ``a basic moral test.'' This budget sets very clear priorities. The problem is what they are taking up in the House sets up the wrong priorities. President Franklin Roosevelt said: Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough. So Republicans would do well to remember our Nation is judged not only by the strength of its military, but also by the strength of its values, so says General Eisenhower and President Roosevelt. Reservation of Leader Time

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed en bloc to the consideration of some concurrent resolutions: Resolutions numbered H. Con. Res. 105, H. Con. Res. 106, H. Con. Res. 117, and H. Con. Res. 118.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolutions be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid on the table en bloc, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate move to calendar No. 385.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Corker-Webb substitute amendment be agreed to, that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to this matter be placed in the Record at the appropriate place as if read.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. I now ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 450, S. Res. 451, and S. Res. 452, which were submitted earlier today.

Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid on the table for all three of these, that there be no intervening action or debate, and any statements relating to any one of these three matters be printed in the Record.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. During tomorrow's session, it is possible that the Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to the Student Loan Interest Rate Hike Act as well as the Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act. That should be easy. That should be something we should agree to. We tried to get the Ex-Im Bank done. Everyone wanted to get it done. The chamber of commerce, labor, aircraft companies--all wanted it done. Everybody wanted it done. But, as a lot of things go here in the Senate, it didn't get done because Republicans wouldn't let us get it done. It went to the House, and they sent us back a bill that is virtually the same as the one we weren't able to pass here, so I can't imagine anyone would want to slow that one down. I hope I don't have to file cloture on it because if I do, I will do it because we will have another chance to vote on it just as it came from the House. Every Democrat voted for it over there. There were 90 Republicans who voted against it. We all know who they are. But they voted against it. We are going to have a chance to vote on the exact bill that passed the House.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until tomorrow, Thursday, May 10, at 9:30 a.m.; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; and finally when we come in tomorrow morning I be the person first recognized.

Mr. REID

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

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I understand there are four bills at the desk due for a second reading, and I would ask the Chair to move these forward.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I now object to further proceedings with respect to each of these bills.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Senate is now considering the motion to proceed to the Stop Student Loan Interest Rate Hike Act. The time until noon will be divided between the two parties, with the majority controlling the first 30 minutes and the Republicans controlling the second 30 minutes. At noon there will be a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to S. 2343, which is the Stop Student Loan Interest Rate Hike Act. Following that vote, the Senate will recess until 2:15 p.m. to allow for our weekly caucus meetings.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, over the last 2 weeks, Senate Republicans have repeatedly claimed they support efforts to keep interest rates low for Federal student loans. In fact, Presidential nominee Mr. Romney has said the same. There is only one way to prove this, and that is to end the needless filibuster of Democrats' plan to stop rates from doubling this summer. Democrats have proposed legislation to freeze student loan interest rates at current levels for a year without adding a single penny to the deficit. Our plan adds no new taxes. I repeat, Mr. President: Our plan adds no new taxes. It would simply stop wealthy Americans from avoiding the taxes they already owe. Our legislation would prevent 7 million students from paying $1,000 more over the life of each of their loans. Yet Republicans appear poised to filibuster this worthy measure. They are sending a clear message they would rather protect wealthy tax dodgers--and that is what they are--than help promising students achieve their dreams of higher education. Republicans will try to explain away their ``no'' votes by claiming they oppose the way the legislation is paid for. They propose radical cuts to a preventive health care fund instead--a proposal they know we oppose. Mr. President, we have already cut that plan to the bare bones. We have used this on other programs to cut and we have done it in the right way. Any fluff that was in that program is gone. Some say we have cut far too much out of it. The prevention fund is, as we speak, helping States fight chronic illnesses such as heart disease, cancer, stroke, and diabetes. These chronic diseases I have just mentioned are responsible for 7 out of 10 deaths in America today. Imagine, 7 out of 10 deaths are caused from heart disease, cancer, stroke, and diabetes. Yet Republicans want to use this program to pay for the student loan interest rate stabilization--a program that stops these diseases from going forward. It is a preventive program. These diseases are responsible for three-quarters of the Nation's health care spending. So anything we can do to cut those back is the right thing to do. Common sense indicates we need to be treating those 26 million Americans with diabetes. Around America today there are 26 million people who are taking medicine for diabetes, and it is sad to say that includes a rapidly growing number of children. These 26 million people use up much of our health care delivery system, and diabetes increases the risk of developing other costly, life- threatening, chronic diseases such as heart disease, stroke, kidney failure, and many other maladies that come from simply having diabetes. This prevention fund the Republicans want to use to pay for this stabilization program for student loans also pays for successful tobacco cessation programs that avert billions of health care costs to treat emphysema, heart disease, and cancer, among others. It finances immunizations for preventable childhood illnesses such as measles and whooping cough. These diseases are back because there have been too few immunizations. Last year, measles reached a 15-year high in our country. After nearly being wiped out in the 1950s, whooping cough has resurfaced. There have been major articles--I read one--that are stunning. As a kid, I received a whooping cough shot. I hadn't heard of it, but it is back. This is a terrible disease that we now have in America. As I say, it has come back. It produces violent coughs that can go on for as much as 6 months. People can die as a result of coughing so hard. There has been a real bad outbreak of whooping cough in California, and the disease in America has reached its highest rate in 50 years. Yet the Republicans want to cut back on these immunizations. That is not a good idea. These diseases I have talked about are completely preventable with the proper immunizations the prevention fund supports. Yet Republicans want to axe investments in preventive care that save the country money and save lives. We have already made cuts, as I have indicated, difficult cuts to this program. We cannot afford to make more drastic cuts that would put Americans' health at risk. While we do not support Republicans' plan to cut programs that combat diabetes, heart disease, or cancer, we are happy if they want a vote on some alternative. But let us get on this bill. Republicans need to stop filibustering our legislation--in this instance, the Stop Student Loan Interest Rate Hike Act. If they want some other way to pay for it, let us take a look at it. Let them offer it. The stakes are too high to let partisanship get in the way. The average student graduates with $25,000 in debt. These young people are running up these loans because they want to, because education is so important in our country. But too many young people are putting off buying a house, starting a family, or opening a business because they are saddled with this crushing student loan debt. We don't need to load that burden even more. Democrats are determined to protect millions of students from increasing interest rates--almost 30,000 in Nevada alone. If Republicans truly share our goal, they will vote to advance this legislation today.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and honor the Hispanic Museum of Nevada--Museo Hispano de Nevada--for its 20 years of service to our community. For the last two decades, Museo Hispano de Nevada has been guided by its mission: ``dedicated to promote awareness, education and resources of the diverse Hispanic cultures and traditions to enhance intercultural understanding among community members.'' This institution has played a critical role in educating Nevadans about the diversity of Latino heritage and promoting pride and cultural understanding. The Museo Hispano de Nevada has sponsored numerous field trips and workshops, shedding light on the different cultural traditions of the Latino population and enabling future generations to learn about their heritage through historic artifacts and art exhibits. These programs and activities have served as learning tools for educating our community about the diversity in my home State of Nevada, where 26 percent of the population is Latino, accounting for 46 percent of growth in the Silver State. As someone who has directly witnessed the importance of having a museum dedicated to preserving the history and telling the stories of Latinos in my home State, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Smithsonian American Latino Museum Act, S. 1868. It is my hope that a museum illuminating the richness of the Latino culture and history, as well as the numerous contributions Hispanics have made to the United States, will be built in our Nation's Capital in the near future. I would also like to recognize Lynnette Sawyer, executive director of the museum, for her outstanding leadership and commitment to the museum. I extend a warm felt thanks to the staff and countless individuals who have worked over the years to make this great institution a resource for all Nevadans. Please join me in congratulating the Hispanic Museum of Nevada for 20 years of great work honoring the rich diversity among Hispanics and their many contributions to our great State. I wish the Museo Hispano de Nevada continued success in their future endeavors.