Harry Reid

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, 2 years ago the American people first became aware that the National Security Agency was collecting private information about their phone calls. This is called the Snowden revelation. Under the banner of national security, the National Security Agency was mining information about home phone calls and how long they lasted. They found out whom they were calling--and not only that. They found out whom the call was between. They also determined how long that call lasted. NSA essentially was conducting a dragnet, without first attempting to determine whether that information was relevant to a national security problem. NSA ran this program under the authorities granted to them by section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, which expires on June 1 of this year. The American people were outraged by these revelations and Congress rightly acted. Last year, the House passed a bill by a vote of 303 to 121 to end the NSA's so-called bulk metadata collection program and reform and extend the authority for this program. I brought a similar bill to the floor authored by Senators Leahy and Lee. There was a bipartisan group of Senators who joined them to call for its passage. But sadly, the majority leader--at that time the minority leader--stood in the way of bipartisan reform. Instead of passing meaningful reform, he led a Republican filibuster of this bill. That was one of a couple hundred that was led by my friend. This year, Senators Leahy and Lee worked again with the Chairman and ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee on the USA FREEDOM Act, which ends the National Security Agency's bulk collection program and extends and reforms the authorities under section 215 of the PATRIOT Act. There have been bipartisan and bicameral calls for the Senate to take up that legislation. Yet again, instead of committing to bringing up this bipartisan bill, last month the senior Senator from Kentucky introduced a bill that would extend the authorities for the National Security Agency's bulk collection program for 5\1/2\ years. Then the Second Circuit, almost simultaneously--within 24 hours of that decision by the majority leader--found the bulk collection illegal. In reaction to the court's decision, the House last week passed the USA FREEDOM Act by a vote of 338 to 88. By a four-to-one margin, the House voted to end the National Security Agency's illegal bulk data collection program and reform its practices. But even in the face of that court's decision, the majority leader stood once again against bipartisan reform. Instead of heeding the Republican-controlled House's calls for reform, the majority leader introduced a bill that would extend the authorities for the National Security Agency's illegal program for 2 more months. Congressman Goodlatte, the chair of the Judiciary Committee in the House, said they will not accept a short-term extension of the bill. This morning, Leader McCarthy, the second ranking Republican in the House, said they will not accept any extension. That is exactly what the Speaker, Congressman Boehner, said. If we squander this opportunity to deliver sound reforms to this illegal program, we are handling our duties irresponsibly here in the Senate. To stand in the way of reforming these practices is to ignore the voice of the American people. Just yesterday, a new poll commissioned by the American Civil Liberties Union showed that 82 percent of Americans are concerned that the Federal Government is collecting and storing the personal information of Americans, and they do not like it. If we are unable to reform these practices, we are ignoring the ruling of the Second Circuit, which rejected the National Security Agency's bulk collection program, and we are not allowing the American people's voice to be heard. I think, most importantly, if the senior Senator from Kentucky does not allow this commonsense reform simply with a vote on the Senate floor about what happened in the House, they are ignoring the rare bipartisan support that we have. Just last week, 190 House Republicans voted to end the National Security Agency's illegal program. There is bipartisan consensus in favor of ending this program. Many of the Republican leader's own colleagues have called for it as well. Last week, Attorney General Loretta Lynch and James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, wrote a letter to Senator Leahy, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. Both the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence voiced their support for the USA FREEDOM Act, saying: Overall, the significant reforms contained in this legislation will provide the public greater confidence in how our intelligence activities are carried out and in the oversight of those activities, while ensuring vital national security authorities remain in place. I agree with that statement. But sadly, the majority leader continues to stand in the way of bipartisan reform to end these illegal practices. As we face the June 1 expiration of these authorities, the majority leader still offers no viable alternative. We cannot allow this program to be extended. The majority leader should listen to the American people because we cannot extend an illegal act. That is what the majority leader is asking us to do. The majority leader should listen to the American people, consider the action of his Republican colleagues, and respect the expertise of the intelligence community. The Senate should act now on the USA FREEDOM Act before it leaves for the Memorial Day recess and restore the confidence of the American people.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have heard so much about how great the Republicans are doing here, about how well things are working now. We are doing no nominations--none. We are 5 months into this Congress, and we basically approved virtually no one. It is interesting to say there are not many names on the calendar to bring up. Why? Because they are not even holding hearings on all the nominations. We always hear about the need for jobs--but not from my Republican colleagues. We hear from us. One of the prime examples of that is the highway bill. It is about to expire. What are we going to do? Nothing. There is no program to extend this bill. It has already been extended short term 33 times. Think about that. We used to do bills here for 5 years, 6 years so that the directors of transportation and all of these States around the country could plan ahead. We are being penny-wise and pound-foolish. We are having these short- term extensions, which are very expensive, creating no jobs. For every $1 billion we spend on these highway programs, we create 47,500 jobs. My Republican colleagues are ignoring this. What is the business of the day, Mr. President?

Mr. REID

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

Mr. REID. Mr. President, the vitally important Export-Import Bank expires at the end of June. It will be gone. If this program expires-- it is not like anything else--we will have to start all over again. We will have to have hearings. We will have to have markups in both Houses. If we can extend the authorization of this, it will solve so many problems for us. The Export-Import Bank creates jobs in our country--in the United States--by providing loans and loan guarantees so customers in foreign countries can buy our exports. An example is airplanes. I have spoken to Mr. McNerney, the head of Boeing, and one of the vital parts of their business is being able to have other countries have businesses within those countries come and want to buy their airplanes or countries that want to buy their airplanes. They have difficulty doing that without the ability of the Export-Import Bank to help raise the financing. I greatly appreciate Senator Cantwell now bringing the attention of this body to this important program that is going to expire soon. I appreciate Senator Heitkamp for working on legislation dealing with this important issue. The Export-Import Bank just this year sustained 165,000 jobs. It will be a lot more if there is a long-term extension of this bill. So one might think, of course, that a program such as this which supports 165,000 jobs in just 1 year would cost taxpayers an arm and a leg, a fortune, but in this case, they would be wrong. It is just the opposite. We make money on the Export-Import Bank. Over the last 10 years, the Bank has returned more than $7 billion to the U.S. Treasury. That is $7 billion the U.S. taxpayer does not have to pay because the program is so important and so successful. A program as effective as the Export-Import Bank should have no problem getting reauthorized, but it has had a lot of trouble. As recently as 2006, the Bank's charter was extended by unanimous consent. It didn't even have a vote. But today the Export-Import Bank is in serious danger of being terminated, ended. The Senate banking committee has made no effort to bring up the Bank's reauthorization, and the majority leader doesn't have a path forward. The best, he said, is we will give you a vote on it. Giving a vote on it is meaningless. So what has changed since just a few years ago when we extended this by unanimous consent? Why has this immensely successful program over the last few years been on the chopping block? I will tell my colleagues why. It is because the Koch brothers have decided that it needs to go. They want to get rid of it. It is part of their attack on government programs, and this is a government program. They don't care if a bank creates jobs or makes money; they simply want to get rid of it. That is not the worst of it. Every other developed country supports their exports. China and Europe support their exports, and so do Brazil and India. They all do. But the Koch brothers don't care. They want the United States to be unilaterally disarmed. They are telling their Republican friends in Congress that the United States should just get rid of this program. They don't care that this will put U.S. companies at a competitive disadvantage, and that is an understatement. They don't care that this will cost U.S. jobs, and that is an understatement. They don't even care that this will put a larger burden on taxpayers to have to make up the lost revenue. All the Koch brothers care about is maintaining their warped, illogical view of taking down a government program and making more money for their massive business interests. I encourage my colleagues to reject this misguided view. Let's stop shooting ourselves in the foot. Let's pass a long-term extension of the Export-Import Bank. On this bill, the trade bill--if it became part of the trade bill, it would be signed into law. The President loves the Export-Import Bank. He said so publicly. We have been trying to get this done, but now the Republicans have said no thanks because their guiding light, the Koch brothers, don't like it because it is a government program. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, it seems as if every day the majority leader keeps telling us how great the Senate is working--better than ever, he says. Let's take a look at a couple of things today. The growing backlog on nominations is another story. There are more than 100 nominations pending in committees. This is an interesting way the Republicans do this. They say we do not have anything on the calendar. We cannot have anything on the calendar if they do not report them out of the committees. There are 48 nominations currently pending in the Foreign Relations Committee, including Ambassadors of really important countries, such as Pakistan, Finland, Sweden, Kosovo, and many other countries. The Environment and Public Works Committee has 11 pending nominations, and 9 nominations are waiting in the HELP Committee. At the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, there is a score--many of them there. There are eight nominations awaiting consideration in the banking committee. Seven are pending in commerce, and six await Senate Finance Committee action. In the Judiciary Committee--I spoke here a little while ago, a week ago, about Judge Felipe Restrepo. He is a Federal district court judge in Pennsylvania. It is being delayed, even though both Senators--a Democrat and Republican--from Pennsylvania want this nomination to go forward. So they say. He is one of 20 pending nominations awaiting in the Judiciary Committee. That is unbelievable. Committee consideration is not the only obstacle to confirmation, the Republican leader also slows down the consideration once they get here on the floor. The Republicans' refusal to consider the President's judicial nominations is especially pronounced, especially when you consider that the assistant Republican leader came to the floor here and said we are going to move these expeditiously. He is from Texas. We had one judge, George Hanks, who was confirmed by a vote of 91 to 0. He was only the second judicial nomination we have considered in this Republican Congress in some 5 months. Imagine that. We know there are judicial emergencies and vacancies throughout the country, but we have only considered two judges in this entire Congress. When this year started, we had 12 emergencies. Now there are 25, more than double from the beginning of this year alone. In Texas alone, there are seven judicial emergencies, the most of any State in the Nation. Judge Olvera has been nominated to fill a judicial emergency in the Southern District of Texas. His nomination certainly was not controversial. It was reported out of the Judiciary Committee by voice vote in February. At his hearing, as I indicated earlier, the assistant majority leader said he wanted to move these judges expeditiously. If this is expeditiously, I do not know what the term means. Why is this noncontroversial nomination being delayed for months? Is this the type of swift type of confirmation that Texans can expect from their leaders? If our Republican colleagues would make good on their public statements and confirm these qualified executive and judicial nominations before the Memorial Day holiday, that would be great. But they are not going to. Is the Senate working better than ever? I do not think so.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. ``America is one big pothole.'' Those are not my words. They are the words of former Republican Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood, a longtime Member of Congress and a Republican from Illinois. That is how he described America's crumbling infrastructure: ``America is one big pothole.'' It is hard to argue with Secretary LaHood's assessment. According to the Federal Highway Administration, 50 percent of American roads are in disrepair. Half of the roads we drive on are in disrepair. What are State legislatures around the country doing? Raising the speed limit. There are a number of places in America where the speed limit is 80 miles an hour. That means that this weekend--Memorial Day weekend--as American families load up their cars and head to the beach or the lake or to visit loved ones, half of the highways they travel on are in dire need of repair. If that were not troubling enough, 64,000 American bridges are structurally deficient. As each day goes by, these roads and bridges get a little worse--one big pothole. It is not just our roads and our bridges. Our Nation's infrastructure affects every means of travel. We are all distraught by last week's Amtrak train derailment in Pennsylvania. Eight people were killed. Hundreds were injured. It has been reported that the horrible derailment might have been prevented if speed control safeguards had been installed on this particular section of track. What we have here in this Congress--my Republican friend, the senior Senator from Kentucky, is talking about the Senate running better than ever. I think not. The story of our Nation's infrastructure woes is very clear. We have the technology. This great country has the resources. But my friends will not appropriate any money to do this. Stunningly, time and again, we have failed to fix the problems--one big pothole. Fifty percent of our roads are deficient, and 64,000 bridges are structurally deficient. Specifically, Republicans in Congress have refused to work with Democrats in making an adequate long-term investment in our country's service transportation. What we have here time after time are short-term extensions of the highway bill. Before the Republicans hit town here, we used to do long- term highway bills--they have stood in the way of doing that--so that the Department of Transportation and leaders in all 50 States could plan ahead. That is why we did these long-term bills. The way it is now, a 2-month extension or a 6-month extension does not work. It is terribly inefficient and very, very expensive. The highway trust fund runs out in about 8 or 10 weeks. The authorization for the Federal highway program expires later this month. Later this month, if we have not extended the highway bill, there could be no money spent on highways. The fact that these programs are expiring is no secret. Our Republican colleagues have known about this deadline for months and months. Yet here we are at the end of May, and Republicans are no closer to crafting a long-term investment in our roads, bridges, and railways. They have not had a markup in the four committees of jurisdiction. In fact, Republicans are trying to do the opposite. They are going to the extreme of gutting our already inadequate transportation. Look at what happened with Amtrak. The House Republicans chose to cut Amtrak in the hours just after the derailment by a quarter of a billion dollars. Who could help but be astonished by this act of carelessness? Former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, who knows quite a bit about Pennsylvania, speaking of the Republicans in Congress said: ``Normally, after a tragedy, a pipeline bursts, a bridge collapses, everyone for a couple of weeks says `we've really got to do something.' Here, less than 12 hours after seven people died''--of course, now it is eight-- ``these Republicans in Congress didn't even have the decency to table the vote.'' They went right ahead and did it, cutting a quarter of a billion dollars from Amtrak. In addition to what it does and does not do to highways, our bridges, our dams, is the fact that it stops job creation. Every billion dollars we spend on highway construction, infrastructure development, we create 47,500 high-paying jobs. Instead of slashing Federal funding or putting critical transportation infrastructure on the back burner, we should be crafting a long-term plan to boost our Nation's investment and infrastructure. With precious little time before the Federal highway program expires, there is no hope for anything but a short-term authorization longer than a few months. We understand that. We are not happy about it, but that is the reality of the situation that the Republicans have forced us to be in. The U.S. highway system is crucial to our Nation's economic well- being. It is how we move goods and services. It is central to American families who use our roads and bridges every day. The American Society of Civil Engineers predicts that our economy will lose $1 trillion without adequate infrastructure investment. That is almost 3.5 million jobs, and some say more than that. Congress must invest in working families and businesses by addressing our Nation's transportation needs. I invite congressional Republicans to work with us in building bipartisan consensus to ensure a strong and robust investment in our Nation's infrastructure. What is being done as we speak is that they are trying to patch together a 2-month extension. A 2-month extension or a 6-month extension, I think, is the wrong way to go. It is not good for our country. Would the Chair announce the business before the Senate today.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin) and the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) are necessarily absent.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, on behalf of the entire Democratic caucus, I wish to extend my accolades, my admiration for the persistence and integrity of Senator Whitehouse. This is an issue that speaks well of him and our entire country, and I am very proud of the work he has done and will continue to do.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Madam President, reserving the right to object, first of all, I haven't had the opportunity to express my appreciation for the hard, hard work of the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Finance. The senior Senator from Oregon has gone through a lot the past 2 weeks trying to help us get to the point where we are today, so I admire the work they have done and look forward to the fair amendment process we are going to have next week.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I see no one on the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, yesterday the House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly--with approximately 330 votes--to end the bulk collection of Americans' phone records. Last week a Federal court, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, ruled that the Federal Government's bulk collection program is illegal. The majority leader seems prepared to lead the Senate into reauthorizing an illegal program. He has spoken here on the floor in that regard. So how can one reauthorize something that is illegal? This is not a partisan issue. Democrats and Republicans are united in favor of reforming the National Security Agency and how they collect their data. The House, yesterday, as I indicated, voted in favor of reform, overwhelmingly, but Republicans in the Senate want to move forward without making any changes. I don't think so. The Republican leader is isolated in his desire for a clean extension of illegal spying programs. For example, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee in the House of Representatives, Mr. Goodlatte, said yesterday that if the House gets an extension of FISA--the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act--it will go nowhere. It is dead, according to the chairman. Republicans and Democrats have vowed to filibuster a clean extension if the Republican leader brings one to the floor. That is what is going to happen here in the Senate. I have heard extended statements by the junior Senator from Kentucky, who said that. There are others who feel the same way. Even if my friend plows forward in the face of what the bipartisan opposition is to this matter, it will take at least a week to secure the vote. And maybe that isn't even possible. We have a chance to take bipartisan action that protects Americans' civil liberties. It would be irresponsible for us to squander this opportunity.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, as I said yesterday, my heart goes out to those who suffered in the terrible accident of Amtrak's Northeast Regional Train No. 188, on Tuesday night at 9 p.m., when the accident occurred. As we now know, the train was going more than 100 miles an hour on a curve where it should have been going 50 miles an hour. It is very tragic. Seven people died and scores are injured. There were about 250 people on the train. It is unfortunate that sometimes it takes an event such as this before policymakers learn what they need to learn. But worse still would be if policymakers fail to learn anything at all. National Transportation Safety Board member Robert Sumwalt said there is technology available called positive train control that would have prevented this accident. That technology is in place in a few places in the Northeast corridor. This Northeast corridor, millions of people travel there, but it is not yet in place where the accident happened. There are Members of the Republican Senate who have for years denigrated, belittled, and harmed the Amtrak system. I have watched this, and it is really unfair. They attack Amtrak every year, every appropriations process. Many on the far right regularly try to punch the Nation's train system right in the gut. They have made it a punching bag. Yesterday, the House of Representatives approved a bill that underfunds Amtrak by another one-quarter of a billion dollars. The day after that tragic accident, they say: We are going to help Amtrak by cutting spending by another one-quarter of a billion dollars. A nation's train system can be efficient and productive. It can be a point of national pride, but too often neglect of Amtrak has left America's train system a disappointing embarrassment. Amtrak is a vital part of our Nation's economy, and everyone should understand that. It helps--I repeat--millions and millions of people get where they need to go. It takes cars off congested highways. It takes people away from airports. For the safety of rail passengers, for the business it helps to foster, and for the reputation of our great Nation, I hope we can learn to invest more in this important national resource. They need more, not less.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, my friend, the Republican leader, must be in denial to come to the floor and talk about ObamaCare the way he did. He is neglecting the facts. I will only repeat a few of them. No. 1, there are 17 million people who now have health insurance who didn't. Using his own numbers, he said: One out of every five people who went to the emergency room in Kentucky had insurance, private insurance. Four-fifths of them had no insurance. They have it now. That says it all. Rather than cut Medicare and cut Medicaid, as in the Republican budget--they should not be doing that. The reason there are long waiting lines is because Republicans are not helping us fund Medicare and Medicaid in an appropriate fashion. The late Senator Ted Kennedy once said: ``An essential part of our progressive vision is an America where no citizen of any age fears the cost of health care.'' We are not there yet, but since the Affordable Care Act became law, that vision has become more of a reality every day. The facts are indisputable. Health care costs are growing at a historically low rate. The overall health of Americans is improving, and health care providers are now finding innovative ways to reduce health care spending while improving the quality of care that patients have. Last week, the Department of Health and Human Services announced that a key pilot program created by the Affordable Care Act saved Medicare almost $400 million in 2 years. This is good news. The Pioneer accountable care organization model was launched by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in an effort to improve health care delivery and payment options. An independent evaluation of this model shows an average of about $300 in savings per beneficiary every year. Rather than being a model, it should cover all patients. Right now this model is serving more than 600,000 Americans. The idea is called accountable care. Accountable care organizations tie provider reimbursements to quality metrics and reductions in the total cost of care for patients--better care, less costs. What is most remarkable about this program is that huge savings are being achieved without threatening the quality of care the patients receive. In fact, the quality of care is improving. Medicare beneficiaries within the Pioneer accountable care organization model have reported more timely care and improved communication with the health care providers. They now have an ability to understand what is happening to their health care. Their questions are being answered. These patients use inpatient hospital services less and have fewer tests and have fewer procedures. That is what it is all about. Last week's announcement shows that the Affordable Care Act is working, to the tune of $400 million. Can you imagine the impact this pilot program will have on health care costs when it is expanded? It is true that we have more work to do to ensure quality affordable health care for every American. These reports show Senator Kennedy's vision for America's health care system is beginning to become a reality. Mr. President, would you be kind enough to announce the business of the day.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I join with the majority leader in extending my thoughts to the terrible situation in Pennsylvania. That accident occurred last night at 9 p.m. We now have six reported dead and many, many more injured. There were about 300 people on that train. I join him in commending the first responders for the work they did and are doing as we speak.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have heard the expressions ``red herring'' and ``loss leader,'' all these terms that try to focus attention someplace where it shouldn't be focused. That is basically what the Republican leader has done this morning. He, of course, misconstrued what I said on the floor yesterday. I said that I am not here to debate the intricacies of this trade bill. Some can do that better than I. I have no qualms about saying that about myself. It is a very specialized area. But I do understand that the debate was not taking place because we were not on the bill. I said that I understand the procedure around here--and I do. The procedure is pretty simple. It is a fact that virtually all legislation that passes the Senate needs major bipartisan support. This year is an example. Nearly every bill passed by the Senate has enjoyed the support of over 90 percent of Senate Democrats. It is just a reality that the 114th Congress will take Democratic votes to get things done. Many Democrats don't support fast-track. I don't. The vast majority of Democrats don't. But without following all of the loss leaders, the red herrings the Republican leader threw out, the Finance Committee reported out four bills, and it is only logical we consider all four of them. I have said, and I say it again, it is only logical we take the Republican leader's words for what they are. He said: Let's get on the bill, and then we will start the amendment process. Well, we can't start the amendment process very well if we are not having an opportunity to amend and change the bills that aren't there. They would just be thrown to the winds. That is, Customs is very important and enforcement and, of course, the situation dealing with African trade. We put a reasonable alternative on the table for Senate Republicans to accept. All the Republican leader needs to do is say yes, and we can open debate on these trade bills.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, last week there were celebrations all around the world celebrating the 70th anniversary of Victory in Europe Day. Here in our Nation's capital, we celebrated the day that Europe was officially liberated. Just outside of the Capitol, dozens of World War II aircraft flew up and down the Mall honoring and celebrating the end of the war that engulfed Europe--over the Lincoln Memorial, the National World War II Memorial, the Washington Monument, over the Capitol, and points in between. I grew up in a little town and I was a little boy, but I can still remember the war ending. I don't really remember what I remember, but I knew it was something that was important to everybody there. It was a big deal in Searchlight, as it was everyplace in America. The war was at an end. Americans were thankful that the war was over. They were thankful that their fathers, sons, brothers, and--yes, Mr. President-- World War II daughters were able to come home. They had fought valiantly on battlefields across the world, and they would be coming home--as I mentioned, the women, the WAVES, the WACs, and SPARS--all these women, thousands and thousands who participated in the war, for that manner. Across America we were all happy that freedom and democracy had prevailed over a regime that was fueled by hatred. I heard on the radio this morning a brief account of Winston Churchill. That was many years ago, 70 years ago today giving a speech. He had only been Prime Minister 3 days, and he gave one of his most famous speeches, about all he had to offer. They were engulfed in this war. They were doing it alone. It was a stunning speech that history will always remember. But after that war was over, we were happy. England was happy. Freedom and democracy had prevailed over a regime that was fueled by hatred. As I got older and could understand a little more, I first became really focused on World War II. I am sorry to say I did not do it until I was in college, but I remember it as if it were 5 minutes ago, looking at those pictures in the book ``The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich'' by William Shirer. Those pictures I will never ever forget. I can see them now in my mind's eye. In that book, there were pictures of the liberation of the concentration camps. I learned how the world learned of the enormity of the Holocaust, the genocide of 6 million Jews. The world saw the incredible extent to which the Nazis had taken their hatred of the Jews. It is hard to comprehend, but nothing--nothing--could adequately describe how horrible the situation was. Sadly, though, as I look around the world today, there are still glimpses of that same hate that we as a human race had hoped to extinguish those seven decades ago. It is not always on the front pages of the press or on the television sets, but it is still there. Hate wears many masks: violence, intimidation, segregation, vile rhetoric, and, of course, disenfranchisement. Anti-Semitism is that and more. Though it assumes different identities, in the end, it is still hate. It pains me to say there seems to be a resurgence of anti-Semitism across the world. I look at Israel and I see the vicious attacks carried out against innocent Jews there: the slaughter of Jewish worshipers in a Jerusalem synagogue last November; Hamas's campaign of terror, indiscriminately targeting innocent Israelis with their thousands and thousands of rockets. I look at Europe and see the heinous acts being perpetuated there against Jews. For example, in the Netherlands, the home of a prominent rabbi was attacked twice in one week. In Paris, hundreds and hundreds of protesters attacked synagogues, smashed the windows of Jewish shops and cafes, and set several afire. In France, there was also an attack on a Jewish grocery store following the Charlie Hebdo shootings. Anti-Semitic slogans, such as ``Gas the Jews'' have been shouted at several demonstrations throughout Germany. Jewish museums throughout Norway were forced to close because of fear of attacks. I look at the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva and am sickened by its long history of bias against Israel and the people of Israel. Then I see what is happening on some college campuses here in the United States, and I am shocked by the vitriol being directed at Jews and supporters of Israel. Last Sunday, the New York Times reported that in the midst of campus debates about boycotts of Israel, Jewish students felt increasingly intimidated. At several colleges, swastikas have been painted on the doors of Jewish fraternities and in some instances on the doors of Jews who were in their rooms. Some Jewish students feel the need to hide their heritage and support for Israel given the intense backlash. That is sad. The former president of the University of California system, Mark Yudof, recently was quoted as saying: Jewish students and their parents are intensely apprehensive and insecure about this movement. I hear it all the time: Where can I send my kids that will be safe for them as Jews? That is just stunning. Bigotry and hatred have no place in the world today, especially not in a country that has long prided itself on being a beacon of freedom and acceptance. Instead, it is incumbent upon all Americans to not only stand up to anti-Semitism wherever we see it but also to stand in solidarity with the Jewish people. Three things: Let's stand against anti-Semitism; let's stand with Israel and the Jews throughout the world; and, third, let's stand against hate.

Mr. REID

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

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. I want to say a brief word about something I mentioned as I started my remarks. My friend, the Republican leader, has stated that the extreme left is causing a problem on this bill. It is not the extreme left. It is Democrats who are concerned about the middle class. We do not focus here on the middle class. Republicans are focused elsewhere. We have done nothing on minimum wage, and we have done nothing on student debt. We have done nothing on equal pay for men and women. We have done nothing to create jobs--nothing. We are here. In a matter of 1 week or 2 weeks, the authorization for highways will be gone. It is different than other authorizations we do because under the law we passed previously, when that law expires, there is no contract authority, and that program will come to a screeching halt. We have a few dollars left to carry on for a few more weeks, but it will not be spent. It is a shame my friend, the Republican leader, keeps referring to the extreme left--whatever that means--when we start talking about the middle class. That is one reason we are concerned about this trade bill that is before us today. Mr. President, would the Chair announce the business of the day.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President. First of all, I want to take just a very brief minute and express my appreciation to all my Democratic colleagues who have been understanding and vocal in their opinions as to what we should do to move forward. I also extend my appreciation to the Republican leadership, the majority leader, for having this suggestion to go forward. We have worked together the last 24 hours, and I think we have come up with something that is fair. The bipartisan majority of the Finance Committee reported out four trade measures, fast-track, trade adjustment assistance, trade enforcement, and a bill expanding trade for Africa. Democrats want a path forward on all four parts of this legislation. Yesterday, we made it clear that we didn't accept merely a fast-track for new trade agreements. We also must enforce the trade agreements we make. The proposal before us today will provide us that path forward. I look forward to consideration today and tomorrow of the trade enforcement package and the Africa bill. Once we proceed to the fast- track measure, the majority leader has offered an amendment process that in his words will be open, robust, and fair. I appreciate that offer. This is a complex issue and one that deserves full and robust debate. Once we get on the trade bill, then we have to debate and vote on a number of amendments. So with that background and the understanding that we have on both sides, I do not object.

Mr. REID. Why don't we get the approval first.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, yesterday the National Football League punished one of its most recognizable players for allegedly having tampered with game balls. I find it stunning that the National Football League is more concerned about how much air is in a football than with a racist franchise name that denigrates Native Americans across the country. The Redskins name is a racist name. So I wish the commissioner would act as swiftly and decisively in changing the name of the Washington, DC, team as he did about not enough air in a football.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, we know that later today the Senate will vote on whether to move forward with consideration of trade legislation. What we do not know, other than what the leader just said, is what is going to be in the matter before us. It seems to me he said that there will be TPA and TAA in the bill, and that dealing with Africa and these other provisions dealing with customs won't be in the bill. That is unfortunate. In April, the Senate Finance Committee reported four bills out of the committee. Each of these four bills addressed different trade issues. Several of these bills contain amendments that the Senate spent months and years working to pass. As I stand here today, Senate Democrats still don't know for sure the procedure of the Republican leader. And I would say to my friend the Republican leader, and to everyone who hears me say this, that using the logic of the Republican leader, he should move to these four bills. If he wants a robust amendment process, which he talks about all the time, why doesn't he put this legislation before this body and we will have a robust amendment process. The ranking member of the Finance Committee is here. He is an experienced legislator and he knows--he was here before the Republicans put skids on doing any legislation for 4 years. He knows what the process was before then. He knows what the process is today, and he knows that the reason a few things are being accomplished this work period--and I mean a few--is because we have cooperated with Republicans. We still want to do that. But if the Republican leader is concerned about a robust amendment process, then, put everything the committee reported out. That is why we have been led by the good senior Senator from Oregon the way we have been. I have been very clear. I am not a fan of fast track. But it is important to remember that the Senate's ongoing debate about trade is not limited to legislation granting President Obama fast-track trade authority. One of the bills reported out of the committee provides worker assistance for American workers who lose their jobs because of trade-- important. Trade adjustment helps American workers to be trained, to look for new jobs, and to reenter the workplace. It is a program that has worked well. The second bill helps developing countries export their products to the United States. The third bill started out as a customs bill and now includes bipartisan provisions fighting currency manipulation and includes provisions on the importation of goods made with forced labor. It also ensures that American manufacturers can enforce trade laws against foreign companies that refuse to play by the rules. Simply put, these three other bills include many provisions to make sure that trade is fair for American workers and the American economy. My views on trade--I repeat--are well known. I don't support these trade provisions. But if the Senate is going to talk about trade, we must consider its impact on the American workers and the middle class, and that is what the customs provision does. That is why I support combining these four bills into one piece of legislation--so no American will be left behind by the Senate Republicans. It is essential that if we move to fast-track, we consider these other bills as part of the process. In past years, Democrats and Republicans joined together to pass other important trade legislation with fast-track. For example, in 2002, when that passed, Congress adopted in that trade adjustment assistance, customs and trade enforcement and an extension of our preference programs. If we did it in 2002, why can't we do it today? My friend the majority leader talks about the motion to proceed as a way to move forward. There is also a way to move forward that would be less disruptive, and it would work a lot better; that is, have the majority leader put all these four bills together and then begin--his words--a ``robust amendment process.'' The absence of assurance that these four bills are together is a signal that some will be left behind, and the people left behind, of course, are the American middle class. I urge the majority leader to take the necessary steps to merge these four bills reported out of the Finance Committee into one piece of legislation; otherwise, we risk hurting every American whom we talk about protecting so much here; namely, the middle class. Again, logically, if you use the statements of the Republican leader, we should put all four of them together. We would move forward on this legislation. We could have a process--again, using his words, a ``robust amendment process.'' Last time those words came out--``robust amendment process''--we had two amendments. That was the Iran bill, two amendments. That is robust? That is not very robust, in my estimation. I wish my friend the ranking member of the Finance Committee the very best in this legislation. It is a huge responsibility for his caucus. We, at this stage, support these four bills being moved forward at the same time and then the process can begin of legislating. If we do not--if he does not do that, then it is going to be very difficult to get to the guts of the bills that are reported out of committee.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, my friend, the majority leader, has one person to blame for our not being on the floor now debating this important piece of legislation, and that person is the majority leader. The next time he looks in the mirror, he can understand who is responsible for not having debate, as he said, with robust amendments. It is he. The reason for this situation we are in today is very simple. The Finance Committee reported four bills out by a large, bipartisan vote of the Finance Committee. The majority leader decided, on his own, that he would consider two of those and that the others would have to figure out some other way to get done. As the Republican leader said this morning in his opening statement, let's move to those two bills, and then we will start the amendment process. Do all four and start the amendment process. It is very logical. It is illogical what he is saying. Why should we only do two of the four reported out of the Finance Committee? It doesn't make sense. Now, my friend the Republican leader is very aware of motions to proceed. During the last 4 years, because of the Republicans' cynical approach to government, they basically defeated everything we tried to do while not allowing us to proceed on legislation. However, we are saying we are willing to work with you on this legislation. We don't want to stop moving forward on this bill. We think, though, the bill should be what was reported out of the Finance Committee. That seems the fair thing to do. That is all we ask--a path forward, a realistic path for all of us to proceed on this legislation. If we are stuck here, it is too bad. We shouldn't be. I say to my friend the Republican leader, I am always available to speak with him--here, telephone, my office, his office--to figure a way forward on this legislation. I have stated the last week or so that the way we should go forward is to have all four of the measures that came out of the Finance Committee lumped together and start legislating on those--to have, in the words of the Republican leader, a robust amendment process on those bills as lumped together.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, one word before my friend from Oregon is recognized--

Mr. REID. Mr. President, Senator Schumer has been involved in the currency issue from basically the time he came to the Senate. It has been an important issue for him, and he can speak for himself. I am not an expert on the bill, and I don't intend to debate anyone here on the merits of the bill. People know how I feel about the legislation generally, but I am kind of an expert on the procedural aspect of what goes on around here. I suggest the best way to move forward is to come up with a program to have all of these bills discussed at the same time, and that is why we have felt the way we did and we indicated that in the vote we just took. So I think everybody should just take a deep breath, and I think there are probably ways we can move forward with this without disparaging either side. I think the vote was important, procedurally. We, as a minority--as the Republican leader certainly can understand, having been in the minority for a number of years--I think we would be better off with the minority having a say in what goes on in this body. That is the way we spoke today. We believe that, and we look forward to continuing the process of moving forward on this bill. We cannot be debating the merits of this legislation unless we figure out some way to move forward, and right now that process is not looking very good.