Harry Reid

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I wish to give those within the sound of my voice a very brief tutorial on how serious the Republicans are about balancing the budget. I led a trip to South America. We had 10 or 12 Senators, equally divided between Democrats and Republicans. It was a wonderful trip. I chose purposely Kent Conrad, who was the No. 1 person on the Democratic side of the aisle at the time on numbers, and I also decided to see if Judd Gregg, who was the Republican's No. 1 person on numbers, could go. These two good men sat together that whole trip, hour after hour. They had their yellow tablets, and they were doing what they loved to do-- play around with numbers. When the trip ended, they had an idea. They were both experienced legislators. They had been here when we did something that hadn't been done before. We had military bases in America going back to World War I that should have been closed, but we couldn't do it because of the politics of the Senate. But we decided long ago to try something different. We appointed a commission, they would report back to the Senate and the House, and they would make a decision as to which bases should be closed--no filibuster, no tricky procedural rules; yes or no on what they recommended. We did two rounds of base closings and we closed scores of bases, saving the country billions of dollars. Conrad and Judd decided to do the same thing with this deficit we have. They drafted legislation based on the base closing commission legislation, and they brought it before the Senate. It had a like number of Democrats and Republicans supporting this Conrad-Gregg legislation. We had seven Republican cosponsors. Even the Republican leader today, at that time didn't cosponsor it, but he said he liked it. He said publicly that he liked it. In fact, he said: ``This proposal is our best hope for addressing the out-of-control spending and debt levels that are threatening our Nation's fiscal future.'' What a tremendous idea. I was so happy to have had something to do with setting this program up. But look at what happened. Seven of those Republicans who cosponsored the legislation voted against proceeding to it. We couldn't even get on the bill because the Republicans ran away from it. They ran away from doing something about the deficit. Why? Ask them. I have ideas, but that is the way it is. Even my friend, the now Republican leader, voted against it. It failed by 7 votes--7 votes of the Republicans who cosponsored it but who no longer voted for it. So, based upon that, we were in a quandary. What should we do? So a number of us, Democrats and Republicans, asked President Obama if he could do something with a commission of his own. Now, it wouldn't be as good as what we had tried because that was pretty specific--to bring it back for an up-or-down vote. So the President did what was the right thing to do. He found two stunningly good people who are good with money, good with numbers, including the former Senator from the State of Wyoming, who is such a great guy, Senator Simpson. He is just a fine man with a great sense of humor, and he knew his numbers. Senator Simpson teamed with Erskine Bowles, who had been the President's Chief of Staff. They set up the Bowles-Simpson Commission. It was terrific. It gave us some hope that maybe something could be done. They had long hearings. It was really good. The hearings included people from the private sector and from the House and the Senate--Democrats and Republicans. Now, even before that, when the Conrad-Judd effort failed, we thought that we had some hope. Once again, the Republicans on the Bowles- Simpson Commission walked away from it. It really is unfortunate, but that is what happened. It was quite interesting. People who had been criticized over the years for being too liberal, big spenders--someone such as Dick Durbin from Illinois--voted for the Bowles-Simpson Commission. It took a lot of courage for him to do that, but he did. But Republicans who we thought would have been for it voted against it, and it failed. Then, Senator Biden, because of his close relationship having served in the Senate for 36 years, got with some Republicans, and they made a run at it. There were all kinds of press that they were making progress. What happened? The Republicans took a hike. They broke up the meeting, wouldn't go any further, and that ended that. So then, we had one last attempt. I worked hard on this. Others worked hard on this. It passed. It passed the Congress. We set up a supercommittee: the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction. The committee had an equal number of Democrats and Republicans--six of each. What happened? The Republicans, once again, walked away from it. So all of this happy talk I heard this morning and I am going to hear over this week and over the next couple of days about this great budget the Republicans have is an absolute farce. Pundits have written accordingly. Talk about a balanced budget--they have revenue coming in. One example--of course, Republicans want to repeal ObamaCare, but they want to use the revenue coming from ObamaCare for this fake budget of theirs. Any time the Republicans are asked to close tax breaks for companies shipping jobs overseas--no--but they are happy to cut Social Security, Medicare, and of course, never focus on middle class priorities. They use the words, but it is just a joke. They want a loophole for wealthy hedge fund managers. They want unlimited tax breaks for the oil and gas industry. In this budget, they have not asked millionaires and billionaires to pay one extra penny. So all this talk about this great budget we have is an absolute farce. There are editorials all over the country. I read a number of them yesterday, what they say about this.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I know people are anxious to go to work on other things, but I want to talk about something called the Antiquities Act. It passed in 1906. President Theodore Roosevelt was the President at the time. Congress wanted to give him the authority to designate special lands and cultural resources as national monuments, and he did that. Since then, 16 Presidents--8 Democrats and 8 Republicans--have used this 1906 act to protect America's treasures. For example, way back in 1922, President Harding used the Antiquities Act to protect the Lehman Caves. It is now a beautiful facility. I have been down there. They are certainly not the deepest or the biggest caves in the world, but they are unique and good, and we have enjoyed them in Nevada. That was the basis for the 1986 legislation I initiated to create a national park in Nevada. The only national park we have in Nevada is the result of the 1922 action of President Harding. That is why we have Great Basin National Park. It is a wonderful facility. It has a glacier, the oldest living things in the world, the bristlecone pines. It is a great park, and people from all over the world visit this wonderful facility. So Nevada's lone national park exists today because President Harding used the Antiquities Act to first designate the Lehman Caves. Some Members of Congress--frankly, it is a minority--believe we should repeal or gut this bill. They advocate weakening the Presidential authority that in the past has protected the Grand Canyon and even the Statue of Liberty. Who in this body thinks America has suffered because Presidents in the past have protected the Petrified Forest in Arizona, the Craters of the Moon in Idaho, and Capitol Reef, Bryce Canyon, and Arches in Utah? I have been to all of them, and even though Utah is an extremely conservative State, I have not heard one single Member of Congress or governmental authority say they were a huge mistake. They draw millions of visitors to the State of Utah with the beautiful lands they have there. What about Muir Woods in California? It is just stunningly important, and it came about as a result of a President designating them a national treasure under the Antiquities Act. Sixteen Presidents--eight of each party--have used this act to protect America's treasures. I am proud of what President Obama has been able to accomplish through the work he has done under the Antiquities Act. He has moved where Congress has failed to act. Caesar Chavez and the Chicano labor movement were honored by creating the Caesar Chavez National Monument in California. He protected Fort Monroe in Virginia in recognition of its storied history in defense of our Nation and the struggle for freedom for African Americans. It is a beautiful facility. We have in Honolulu the Honouliuli National Monument to remember the terrible internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. Last month, President Obama protected by proclamation Pullman National Monument, which celebrates the history of the African-American labor movement in America. As a westerner, I appreciate what he has done to protect America's beautiful landscapes, such as the Rio Grande Del Norte and the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monuments in New Mexico, the Browns Canyon National Monument in Colorado, and western landscapes in California, Washington, and Hawaii. This is something which is so important to be done, so I am disappointed that I hear that on the budget bill there is going to be an effort made to cut the Antiquities Act. I hope not. I absolutely will do everything I can to protect this act. It has been in law since 1906 and has been used by 16 Presidents.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, these budgets we deal with are more than just a piece of paper with a lot of numbers. Each budget we put forward and the Republicans put forward are statements of our values, and it tells Americans basically whose side we are on. I think, when we look at these budgets, we will find the budget we have propounded--and we will see when the votes take place this week-- contains values that put the middle class first. Ours is a budget that supports hard-working families, creates jobs, and invests in our future. The Republicans, by contrast, have developed a budget that attacks the middle class and serves the interests of special interests and the superwealthy. How can I say that? I say that because it is the truth. For example, here are some of the priorities the Republicans are proposing in their budget. They want to take away health care from 16.4 million Americans now insured through ObamaCare. The Senate Republicans' budget wreaks havoc on Medicare at the expense of America's seniors. The Senate Republicans' budget makes drastic cuts to Medicaid and undercuts millions of families who rely on it to pay for nursing homes and other care. A lot of the care we have in nursing homes is not for people who are indigent; it is for people who have had to go to Medicaid because everything they have worked for their whole life is gone. The budget the Republicans are pushing guts nutrition assistance for those in need, slices job training and employment services for millions of American workers, and it cuts billions of financial aid for college students. That is the truth. These items are all attacking middle-class priorities. The Republicans, as usual, have gone the extra mile to protect special interests and the super-rich. Incredibly, even as they take money away from hard-working families, seniors, and students, Republicans will not close a single tax loophole to reduce the deficit--not one. Do they indirectly pay those super-rich more money? Of course they do. Forbes magazine had an article. For 2 years, between 2011 and 2013, the top 14 richest people in America gained during that period of time almost $200 billion. It is hard to comprehend, but it is true--14 people, about $200 billion. Would the budget that has been put forth by the Republicans end tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas? No. Would they close loopholes for wealthy hedge fund managers? No. Would they take away wasteful and unneeded breaks for these huge oil and gas companies? No, not a single one. Would they ask millionaires and even billionaires to pay a penny more? No, not one. Attacking the middle class while protecting the superwealthy isn't just irresponsible, some would say it is immoral. There is more. The budget is dishonest. It claims to balance the budget, but it doesn't. To talk about balancing the budget over 10 years is so foolish and so untrue. USA TODAY--the newspaper--said the Republicans' budget relies ``heavily on huge and politically unlikely spending cuts and bewildering gimmicks that don't begin to add up.'' The New York Times, in one of its op-eds, said the budget is a ``trillion dollar con job.'' I am not saying this. We have USA TODAY and the New York Times. But who is being fooled here? In fact, there is one area where so far many people have been fooled and they have been fooled a lot. During the markup of the budget resolution, Senate Republicans claimed to increase defense spending by adding an extra $38 billion in war funding, known as overseas contingency operations or OCO as we call it. The Republican leader talked about that a few minutes ago, but that money isn't even close to being real. Because of what seems to be a drafting error, not one extra dollar can be spent on defense above the sequestration caps. The resolution currently on the floor puts a strict cap on OCO spending. For whatever reason, Republicans neglected to increase the cap to allow for the additional $38 billion for defense. In other words, the Republicans' extra defense money is a fraud, a hoax, and certainly a political gimmick. We want to provide real sequestration relief, which has so bewildered the country in so many different ways, not only to defense but also the National Institutes of Health and virtually every program in America. We are going to propose just that as we move forward to get rid of sequestration. So we all look forward on this side to the debate. When it is over, Americans will have no doubt which party stands with the middle class and which party stands with special interests, millionaires, and billionaires.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time used for my opening statement not count against the budget resolution time.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, as the Republican leader mentioned, it is hard to believe that 5 years have gone by since we passed the Affordable Care Act--but it is true. It has been 5 years. We recall back to that cold winter day when we were able finally to get it done. But to me it doesn't seem that long ago. The memories of what took place to get where we did to pass that are very fresh in my mind. It wasn't an easy feat. Presidents going back to Truman and Eisenhower had tried to pass legislation dealing with health care, and they were all unable to do it. So it was really a great accomplishment that Congress could pass this legislation. It wouldn't be a stretch to say that President Obama risked his Presidency by pushing for health care reform. It was really a defining moment for many people. Republican opposition at the time was overwhelming. No matter what we as Democrats did or tried to do, there was nothing we could do to get Republicans to join us in giving health care to the American people, even though the original health care bill we passed was patterned after Republican proposals. So we worked hard, and we got it done. We pled for help, and we got none. Republicans simply were not interested in working with us to fix our Nation's health care system. Outside the Capitol, a sophisticated and dishonest public relations campaign costing huge amounts of money was being waged against ObamaCare by political operatives, lobbyists, insurance companies, and many others. We pressed on, and we did the very best we could, and it was pretty good. Was it perfect? Of course not. No legislation is. But what we eventually passed was and still is good for America. I was very surprised to hear my friend, the senior Senator from Kentucky, talk about a woman from Kentucky. That is very unusual, since 400,000 people in Kentucky today have insurance because of ObamaCare that they didn't have before. Five years later, I am very proud of the work we did. I am just as proud today as I was when President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law. ObamaCare is reducing costs, expanding access, and protecting individuals with preexisting disabilities. Look at just a few of the things it has done. Some 16.4 million Americans now have quality health care coverage-- 16.4 million. The United States has seen the largest decline in the uninsured rate--probably ever, but we will use just for purposes of illustration--in decades. In the last 18 months, the uninsured rate for nonelderly adults has fallen by 35 percent. That is stunning. Health care costs have grown at their slowest level in some 50 years. Now listen to this. Patient safety initiatives are keeping Americans safe. Since we passed this legislation, the number of preventable deaths at hospitals and care centers has dropped by 50,000 people. That is 50,000 people who are alive today who wouldn't have been had it not been for ObamaCare. That is just one aspect of the people who are alive today because of ObamaCare who would not have been otherwise. But for all of the incredible national statistics that are available, the best evidence that the Affordable Care Act is working can be found in our homes, our neighborhoods, and our communities. This year in Nevada, ObamaCare is making a real difference in the lives of about 73,000 people who signed up for coverage through the health care insurance marketplace. Frankly, Nevada got off to a really slow start because they had a contract in the State with Xerox and they did such an awful job. The Republican Governor of the State of Nevada-- I have applauded him in the past and I will do it again--was very courageous. He stepped forward and has made a huge difference in Nevada. Not only are Nevadans getting covered, but they are getting tax breaks, also. Some 65,000 Nevadans who selected a plan on the marketplace qualified for an average tax credit of $242 per month. No matter what standard we use, that is real money in the pockets of Nevadans who are still recovering from the economic downturn because of what happened on Wall Street. There are stories just like this all across America. After 5 years, it is as clear as ever that the Affordable Care Act is working. Americans are benefiting from increased health coverage, lower costs, and improved efficiency. Again, 16.4 million Americans have quality health coverage. Since 2013, the United States has seen the largest decline in the uninsured rate in decades. In the last 18 months, the uninsured rate for nonelderly adults has fallen by 35 percent. Health care costs have grown at their slowest rate in 50 years. Patient safety initiatives are keeping Americans safe. Since 2011, the number of preventable deaths at hospitals and care centers has dropped by 50,000. The ranking member of the Budget Committee is on the floor today. One of the great things we do not talk much about in the Affordable Care Act is community health centers. The good man from Vermont, the junior Senator from Vermont, came to me and talked to me about community health centers. As a result of his advocacy, we put lots of money-- about $11 billion--in the Affordable Care Act for community health centers. It has changed the health care delivery system in America significantly. We must continue that program. The Affordable Care Act, for all the reasons we have mentioned, is something that is really important. It is important that everyone understand how absolutely fantastic it was for the people of this country. After 5 years, it is clear it is working. Americans are benefitting from increased coverage, lower costs, and improved efficiency. I invite my Republican colleagues to accept that ObamaCare is the law of the land. Put aside the unrealistic notions of repealing a law of which 16.4 million people now have health care. Are we going to just drop them, because the Republican plans would just basically drop them all? Instead, Republicans should join with us to help even more Americans get the help they need. Perhaps, then, 5 years from now Democrats and Republicans can look back with pride, knowing that together we helped make a good law even better for all Americans. Reservation Of Leader Time

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, in a few hours, the Senate will vote for a third time on whether to end debate on human trafficking. The result will be the same the third time as it was the second time and the first time, which indicates to me that this week was a waste of time. I indicated that the vote will fail, and it will fail because the debate is such that this is an important issue. We are determined to fix this bill, and we will fix it by removing the unrelated abortion provision from the pages of this legislation. I hope we can do that soon. My friend the majority leader referenced reports that Democratic staffers should have--it should not have been plural--a Democratic staff member knew about the abortion provision prior to the legislation coming to the floor. Perhaps that is true, but I don't really know how the abortion language got in the bill for sure. I think I know. But it got in the bill. I think I know who put it in there, but it really doesn't matter. The fact of the matter is it is in the bill, and I am more concerned about getting the bill out. We have had some columnists make fun about the fact that we should have read the bill more closely. I will not go into a lot of detail, but page 4 of the original bill--the section to which a lot of people love to point--was eliminated. If you look at it, it is crossed out. If you go to page 50 or 51, it is stuck back in that part of the bill, and this is where the controversy gets pretty interesting. A Republican Senator who was responsible for this bill in the committee sent out a notice to all Senators, including Democrats, saying that we made some changes in the bill that passed last year--one, two, three, four, five, six changes that were made. The problem is he didn't indicate that they put the abortion language back in. It was really misleading, as was indicated on the floor yesterday by Senator Feinstein. We can go into why the language is in the bill. I have indicated I think I know who put it in and why they put it in. But they did put it in the bill. It is in the bill. We can have all of these accusations about paper trails and why it is in the bill, but it is in the bill, and it needs to come out. Remember, Speaker Boehner, who has good qualifications for being the protector of abortion rights, as seen by the Republicans, was able to pass a version of this legislation without the abortion language. No one can question Boehner's qualifications for being anti-abortion. If they passed it in the House, why can't we do the same thing here? Were the House Republicans wrong to pass the bill? I don't think so. So before we embark upon a third iteration of the vote today, which is going to fail, I ask the Republican leadership: Are you interested in working toward a solution on this human trafficking legislation? If so, take this language out. My friend the Republican leader was talking about leftwing lobbyists. The leftwing lobbyists are women, who--as indicated on the floor yesterday by Senator Feinstein--are concerned about protecting their bodies and reproductive rights. They are interested in protecting themselves, as they should be, and they are protecting women all over America. So are they only interested in scoring political points by forcing these show votes or are they interested in reaching a solution? If they are interested in a solution, we are willing to work with them, but the abortion language is going to come out of this legislation. For the first time in the history of our country, we are now focused on not doing what has been done with the Hyde amendment for 30 years, and that is making sure there are no government taxpayer dollars spent for performing abortions. Now they have moved beyond that to private funding. It is wrong and we are not going to go there. Would the Chair announce the business of the day.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise to honor the 60th anniversary of Bishop Gorman High School in Las Vegas, NV. In 1954, Bishop Gorman High School opened as the first Catholic high school in Southern Nevada. I congratulate the institution on 60 years of leading our country in first-rate education while positively implementing Catholic values. Bishop Gorman High School has graduated more than 9,000 students and currently has a 100 percent graduation rate and a college bound rate of 96 percent, making Bishop Gorman a national leader in college preparatory education. The school is equipped with an impressively experienced and credited faculty, with nearly 70 percent holding advanced degrees. The administration and the faculty's dedication to providing excellent education in a Catholic setting, in addition to a low student-teacher ratio, has contributed to Bishop Gorman's success and helped ensure that its students can reach their full potential. The school takes pride in providing its students with a well-rounded education that includes strong academic principles, faith, and competitive athletic opportunities. Over the past 60 years, students have won 97 State athletic championships and received State and national recognition in academics, fine arts, and extracurricular activities. Bishop Gorman High School also gives back to the local community and the State. Every year they organize multiple service events, and this past year, art students designed a beautiful courtyard for a transitional home in Las Vegas. Additionally, the National Honor Society students volunteered each week at a local food bank. I applaud Bishop Gorman High School President John Kilduff and Principal Kevin Kiefer for their strong leadership and recognize this year's Knight of the Gaels honoree, Jack Raftery, Sr. I am pleased that through your joint efforts and the dedication of those before you, this remarkable institution has been a part of our community for 60 years. Best wishes for continued success, and congratulations on this great achievement.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, just as an aside, most everybody knows at this point that on New Year's Day I fell and hurt myself and injured my right eye. During this period of time, the Presiding Officer--who by the way is a medical doctor, an ophthalmologist--has been so kind and thoughtful and considerate in visiting with me, giving me encouragement and some expert advice as to what he has seen in the past and given me hope for better sight out of my right eye. I appreciate it very much. I want the people of Kentucky to know how thoughtful and considerate and kind the Presiding Officer has been to me over these past few months.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, instead of being bogged down in another Republican-contrived fight, I have proposed a path forward that is very simple and very direct. While we work toward an agreement to pass trafficking legislation--and there is work being done on that as we speak--we should move to the Executive Calendar and consider the nomination of a very fine person, Loretta Lynch. Democrats are fully committed to voting for Lynch's nomination and returning immediately to the trafficking bill. The Senate can do two things at the same time. We can certainly work on coming up with a path forward on trafficking and also do something to move forward and have a vote for a new Attorney General. The chief law enforcement officer of this country--the man who is now the Attorney General--said months ago he wants to leave. He has been winding down. It is not right for this country not to have a fully engaged Attorney General. I am disappointed that with all the work the Senate needs to accomplish, the majority leader is bound and determined to waste the rest of this week with the same votes we took yesterday. I was told we are going to have the same votes today that we had yesterday, and we will have the same votes on Thursday that we are going to have today and that we had on Tuesday. Albert Einstein, a genius, said the pure definition of insanity is somebody who does the same thing over and over again and comes up with the same result. It is insane to keep going forward on these votes that everyone knows are going to turn out the same way. Loretta Lynch has waited 130 days. There is no reason to delay her confirmation another minute. We can vote for her confirmation now and move back to the trafficking bill right now.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, Gandhi said, ``Action expresses priorities.'' Action expresses priorities. Congressional Republicans' actions on the budget clearly demonstrate how little regard they have for the American middle class. I want to get into a few examples. Their budget proposal--the one the House is going to send to us soon--ends Medicare as we know it, replacing it with another voucher program. It takes health care away from 16.4 million Americans now insured through the Affordable Care Act. It guts Medicaid and undercuts millions of families who rely on it to fund nursing homes and other care. It cuts billions in education funding--billions--and it cuts job training and employment services for 4 million American workers. The list goes on and on. But we know one thing their budget does not do. It doesn't cut a single tax loophole for the superwealthy to reduce the deficit. Not one. Instead, this budget is brimming with more tax breaks for the megarich--many new tax breaks. In fact, the Republican budget would drastically cut the tax bill for the average millionaire while raising taxes on the middle class. That is not just irresponsible, it is immoral. Of course, lowering taxes for millionaires and billionaires will add to the deficit, not cut it. Republicans claim they are reducing the deficit, but that is not true. In truth, they are using mirrors and a lot of smoke in an effort to fool the American people. House Republicans are really hiding the ball--moving the ball-- claiming massive savings without explaining how. They are, for lack of a better description, cooking the books, using speculative and what they call ``dynamic scoring.'' What is dynamic scoring? This is an effort to claim they are balancing the budget. Dynamic scoring says, here is all this tax revenue and other money we are going to get and it will help significantly. The fact is everyone knows there isn't any truth to that. It is only some numbers on paper. They are relying on transparent tricks to hide their refusal to protect our military from sequestration and budget cuts. Yet Republicans say of their own budget plan, we do not rely on gimmicks or creative accounting to balance our budget. The definition of ``gimmick'' is a concealed, devious aspect or feature of something, as a plan or a deal--a concealed, devious aspect or feature. Well, we have a perfect example of a gimmick in the Republican budget that the House is working on and we are told they will complete. It sounds like a gimmick to me. At least one Republican from the House agrees with me. Congressman Ken Buck of Colorado said yesterday, ``It's all hooey.'' The budget is all hooey. But as Dana Milbank said in today's Washington Post, speaking of the House Republicans' plan: ``True, the budget does not rely on gimmicks. The budget is a gimmick.'' That is a direct quote. We don't need gimmicks. We need a responsible budget and this is not a responsible budget. This is not responsible governance. Unfortunately, though, this is the budget we have come to expect from today's Republican Party--a party that is so committed to supporting the superwealthy that they are throwing America's middle class and the military overboard. Democrats are focused on the middle class. We want to create jobs, invest in the future, and make sure that all Americans benefit from an improving economy. We are more than happy to work with our Republican colleagues in order to make our goals a reality. Unfortunately, helping the middle class just doesn't seem to be a priority for congressional Republicans. Mr. President, would the Chair announce the business of the day.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, the longest serving Member of this body is the President pro tempore emeritus of the Senate, Patrick Leahy of Vermont. He came to this body in January of 1975, 40 years and 2 months ago. But nipping at his heels is an individual well-known in this Chamber, Ruby Paone. Ruby came to the Senate right out of college and has worked in the Reception Room and other places in the Senate for decades--four decades, in fact. Today marks Ruby's 40th anniversary of working in the Senate. To put that in perspective, she has worked through 7 different Presidential administrations, 16 different Sergeants at Arms, and has seen 383 Senators serve in this Chamber during her time. After working with 383 different Senators, one would think that maybe she could not remember these names and faces, but that is not Ruby. She knows everyone and remembers everything during her time here in the Senate. During these 40 years in the Senate, a lot has happened, not the least of which is meeting her husband, whom we all know, Marty. Marty also worked in the Senate for many, many years, eventually serving as the secretary of the majority, and we all depended on him so much. In fact, Ruby and Marty were both here in the Capitol working on their wedding day. The Senate was in session until 12 p.m. that day. Marty and Ruby decided to get married 3 hours later, and they did. Ruby and Marty have three wonderful children. I can remember their careers in soccer and working their way through school. Their children are Alexander, Stephanie, and Tommy. Ruby and Marty are rightly very proud of these three fine young people, one girl, Stephanie, and the two boys. No words can adequately sum up the 40 years of service to our country, but Adlai Stevenson came close when he said: ``Patriotism is not a short and frenzied outburst of emotion but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime.'' I appreciate very much Ruby's steadfast dedication. I admire her continued support of this institution that is very dear to so many of us. Thank you, Ruby, for your 40 years of faithful service, and we look forward to many more.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an article that appeared and was posted last night at 7:14 p.m. in the Washington Post be printed in the Record.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, referring to this article just printed in the Record: The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services released some very good news, further proof that ObamaCare is working and insuring millions of Americans--16.4 million to be exact. Reading from the Washington Post report that is now part of this Record, I state: About 16.4 million adults have been added to health insurance rolls under the Affordable Care Act, which provided especially robust gains in coverage for minorities-- And everyone, in fact-- and states that expanded their Medicaid programs, administration officials announced Monday. The total includes 14.1 million adults who joined the insurance rolls since October 2013 and 2.3 million younger adults ages 19 to 25 who were able to remain on their parents' health insurance plans since October 2010, when that provision of Obamacare went into effect. As if that weren't enough good news, the Department of Health and Human Services also reported that uninsured rates for minorities are plunging. Quote: The Latino uninsured rate dropped by 12.3 percentage points between the first quarter of 2014 and the same period in 2015 as 4.2 million adults gained coverage. . . . About 2.3 million African Americans enrolled, dropping that group's uninsured rate by 9.2 percentage points, and 6.6 million whites obtained coverage, a decline of 5.3 percentage points. So it is clear that the Affordable Care Act is working just as Congress intended. Not only are record numbers of Americans gaining health coverage, but historically underinsured communities are now getting access to quality health care. At some point, my Republican colleagues need to face reality. ObamaCare is helping their constituents.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent that the time be charged equally.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I wish to speak a little bit about human trafficking and Loretta Lynch. The Republican leader is right. In an hour or so the Senate will vote to end debate on the human trafficking and child pornography legislation. That vote is going to fail. The Republican leader knows it is going to fail, just as I do. It is going to fail because Republicans have chosen to manufacture a political fight that has nothing to do with human trafficking. Abortion legislation has no place in human trafficking legislation. The Republican Congressman who drafted this version of the human trafficking bill in the House said as much. Congressman Erik Paulsen said: ``There is no reason it should be included in these bills. This issue is far too important to tie it up with an unrelated fight with politics as usual.'' We have a long piece out of the New York Times. My friend quoted partially from the Washington Post. But let's be realistic. There has been a sleight of hand here to get the abortion language in this bill. As this article indicates: This legislation, which sailed through committee in February, stalled last week when Democrats noticed a provision that would prohibit money in the fund from being used to pay for abortions. The original Senate bill, introduced in the last Congress, made no reference to abortion. Nor did the House's version of the bill, introduced by Representative Erik Paulsen. Paulsen said, ``there is no reason it should be.'' He said last week, ``This issue is far too important to tie it up with an unrelated fight with politics as usual.'' Republicans say they routinely add the abortion language to bills, but Democrats say Republicans operated in bad faith-- not to mention in violation of Senate norms--by misrepresenting the bill's contents. This dispute has nothing to do with the needs of the Justice Department. It is beyond irresponsible to strand the Department without a leader, sowing instability and uncertainty in an important executive agency. The chief law enforcement officer of our country is being detained because of this fight between us, Democrats and Republicans, over whether abortion should be in this bill. We believe it shouldn't be; Republicans believe it should be. This is a good person who deserves our immediate attention. The Loretta Lynch nomination should be done immediately. There is no reason we can't do this now, today. Would the Presiding Officer tell us the business of the day?

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the life of Sam Smith from Las Vegas, NV. Mr. Smith passed away last month. Mr. Smith was a retired firefighter and the founder of the bookstore and treasured community establishment, Native Son. Native Son operated in West Last Vegas for 17 years, and throughout that time Mr. Smith was its heart and soul. Mr. Smith offered free math and reading classes and helped many students prepare for fire department entrance exams. He had a saying, ``People who study calculus don't go to jail.'' Mr. Smith cared about the people in his community, and he worked to improve their lives. Mr. Smith helped people like Trina Jiles become the first Black woman in the Clark County Fire Department. When she came into Native Son in 1995 he told her there were no Black women firefighters and asked how many pushups she could do. When she did 20, he told her she would be all right and began teaching her in his free math and reading classes. Soon after, she passed all of her tests and became Clark County's first Black female firefighter. She went on to work her way up the department to become an arson investigator. Through his years of service, Sam Smith was a fixture in the West Las Vegas community. I appreciate all he has done, and I celebrate his life.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Madam President, Confucius said, ``Life is very simple, but we insist on making it complicated.'' That is true. Right now, the Republican Senate leadership is insisting on making a good piece of legislation far more complicated than it should be. This human trafficking and child pornography bill before the Senate has wide bipartisan support. Unfortunately, it also includes a previously unreported abortion provision that has brought us to a screeching halt in this legislation. But there is a quick and very easy solution to this dilemma: Take the abortion language out of the bill. The Republican leadership doesn't seem to be interested in a solution. The Senate Republican leadership is anxious to shut down debate without fixing the problem. We can stand here all week and question how the abortion language got in the legislation. Many believe it was by sleight of hand, but it doesn't matter. It is a fact that Republicans included abortion language in this bill that is completely unrelated to human trafficking, and by doing so Republicans turned a bipartisan bill into a political fight. Republican Congressman Erik Paulsen of Minnesota drafted the House version of the same human trafficking bill. He wrote the bill. It passed the House. Even he believes that inclusion of the abortion provision in the Senate bill is not appropriate. Here is what he said: There is no reason it should be included in these bills. This issue is far too important to tie it up with an unrelated fight with politics as usual. This is his bill, and he says we should take that language out. He is a Republican. The path forward is clear: Take the abortion language out of the bill and we can pass it right now. That is it. But if hijacking the human trafficking bill with an unrelated abortion provision wasn't already bad enough--listen to this--the majority leader is now holding Loretta Lynch's nomination hostage too. It is hard to comprehend, but that is what is happening. Just last Tuesday, the Republican leader gave his word that he would bring up a vote this week on President Obama's Attorney General nominee. President Obama's Attorney General is well qualified and no one questions her qualifications. Now Senator McConnell is saying the Senate will not confirm Loretta Lynch until we pass the trafficking bill--abortion language and all. Loretta Lynch was nominated by the President 128 days ago. Since that time, Senate Republicans have found reason after reason after reason to delay her confirmation. First, it was just wait until the next Congress. In fact, the Republican leader said last year: Ms. Lynch will receive fair consideration by the Senate. And her nomination should be considered in the new Congress through regular order. But when this Congress got underway, her nomination had to wait until after the Keystone legislation. Everyone will remember it was a bill to construct a massive pipeline to import foreign oil, only to turn around and export it to other countries. Then Ms. Lynch's nomination had to wait until after a new Defense Secretary was confirmed. Then Republicans on the Judiciary Committee needed more time and said just one more week. Then she had to wait until after the February recess. As I said, it has been delay after delay after delay, and now we are here in the middle of March and Loretta Lynch has yet to get a vote on the Senate floor. Why can't we get this incredibly qualified woman confirmed? She has waited 128 days. That is the longest any Attorney General has ever waited in the last four decades. As I have said, a vote on the Lynch nomination has nothing to do with the trafficking bill and it certainly has nothing to do with abortion. The majority leader can choose to keep the Senate stuck on this abortion provision, but he does so at the detriment of so many other bills that require the Senate's attention. The majority leader gave his word that we would consider the Lynch nomination through regular order, and that has not happened. He gave his word that we would vote on confirmation this week, but now he is hedging on that. There is no reason my friend, the majority leader, cannot live up to his numerous commitments. Loretta Lynch's nomination is on the Executive Calendar, meaning the Senate can consider her nomination and then immediately move back to the trafficking bill. Any attempt to hold her nomination hostage because of the abortion provision is a sham. This Congress is barely 2 months old. Yet this is just the latest on a growing list of examples proving Republicans simply cannot govern. The American people need a human trafficking bill, and the American people need an Attorney General. Let's confirm Loretta Lynch as soon as possible. Madam President, what is the business of the day?

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, my friend the senior Senator from Texas could write a book on how the Senate has been dysfunctional. That chapter, which would become a huge part of what he would be writing about, would be on what has happened in the last 6 years. Talk about dysfunction. The Republicans have basically filibustered everything, and I mean everything--everything. The decision was made after Obama was elected that they weren't going to support anything, and to your credit, I say to the Presiding Officer and all Republicans, you stuck with it. You supported nothing Obama wanted to get done. So let's not talk about the dysfunction of the Senate because the book on that has been written by the Republican minority for the last 6 years. Mr. President, the legislation dealing with human trafficking is going to pass this Congress, but it is going to pass this Congress without abortion language in it. There has been a lot of talk in the last couple of days about how to handle this issue, and the way to handle the issue is very simple: Just take it out of the bill. It could be done with a consent agreement in the matter of a second or two. So that is what we proposed, and we have been proposing it for the last several days. Take the abortion language out of this bill. If my Republican colleagues want to get something done, just take the abortion politics out of this bill. Unfortunately, for those who want to see this trafficking bill pass, Republicans are ignoring the obvious path forward while setting a new low standard on all bipartisan business that is conducted in the Senate. By saying that Democrats should always assume their Republican partners are just not being forthright, I guess it is our fault because time and time again, whether it is on the funding of Homeland Security or whether it is trying to solve a problem we have in the Middle East, there is always something that comes out of nowhere--something so unusual, so unbelievable that we would have 47 Senators sign a letter directed to the Ayatollah. Never in the 200 years of this body has there been this level of interference in negotiations by the President until just a few days ago. The bottom line is this: Democratic Senators have been working in good faith on this critical legislation for years. Assuming their Republican partners were being forthright when they provided a list of changes that did not include the addition of the Hyde language, Republicans are now saying that trusting them was a mistake. There is a clear path forward to passing this trafficking bill, which is the goal shared, I hope, by Democrats and Republicans. Republicans should work with us to remove the unrelated abortion language that has no business being in this bill. Democrats are open to any number of ways to improve the language in this bill, but it is so simple: Just take it out. Take the abortion language out. Today, Senator Leahy, a senior Member of this body, submitted text that omits the abortion language. One way forward would be for the Senate to adopt, not simply vote on, this text. Voting to reject the change Democrats are seeking, as Senator McConnell says he wants to do today, is not a viable path forward since it does not address Democrats' concern that abortion language has no place in a bill designed to protect victims of human trafficking. This trafficking bill could pass quickly if the abortion language were removed, as I said. We hope Republicans will do the right thing in the interest of passing this bill and will work with us to remove the completely unrelated abortion language that has no business being in this bill. I, therefore, object.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, McClatchy News has a story that I think is worth talking about, a part of it at least, this morning. It says: Newspaper editorial pages around the country have not been kind to Senate Republicans this week. A collective ``Seriously?'' has emerged in reaction to the open letter that 47 Republicans penned to the Iranian leadership, which seemed designed to undercut nuclear talks with the Obama administration. Here are some of the things they said: ``A blot on 114th U.S. Senate,'' from the Detroit Free Press. ``The Senators who signed the letter should be ashamed,'' said the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Some sounded embarrassed. ``Cringe-worthy buffoonery on the global stage,'' says the Salt Lake Tribune. Others seemed just weary of Capitol Hill's continuing dysfunction. ``Has Congress gone crazy?'' wondered the Courier-Journal in Louisville, KY. Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois ``has not been among the crazies in Congress, particularly on foreign policy matters. But he joined them here,'' wrote the Peoria Journal Star. Noting her signature endorsing the letter, the Concord Monitor said of New Hampshire Republican Senator Kelly Ayotte: ``It's not every day that a United States senator attempts to undermine U.S. foreign policy and weaken the nation in one cursive swoop.'' In Phoenix, AZ, the Arizona Republic editorial board concluded that the Republican Senators ``are effectively declaring a congressional right to conduct subversive foreign policy proxy wars with the president, with threats to blow up agreement negotiations as their weapon of choice.''

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, in the last Congress legislation to combat human trafficking was a bipartisan matter. Senators Klobuchar and Leahy have long been leaders on this issue. But this year--and we could talk about how it got in the bill, many believe it was sleight of hand-- there is an abortion provision in this bill that is now before this body. For well more than 25 years I had the pleasure of serving with Henry Hyde in the House of Representatives, who was famous for a number of reasons, but one is that he has penned the Hyde language which deals with abortion. In all these 25-plus years, that matter has been put over 1 year at a time. We have never chosen to make that permanent law. This year Republicans have sought to inject into this consensus bill one of the most controversial issues of the last 40 years--a woman's right to choose. Don't take my word for it. Leading Republicans acknowledge that abortion politics is extraneous to the bill before us. Yesterday John Cornyn said: ``This bill is being hijacked and being used to debate something that it really doesn't have very much to do about, and that is the subject of abortion.'' Orrin Hatch said: ``I can't believe that this Senate has become so political that we would raise that issue at this time on this bill.'' The solution is so simple. Take the abortion language out of the bill. The bill dealing with human trafficking is going to pass. If we don't do it now, we will do it. It is something that is imperative that we accomplish, but it should not be dealt with in relation to abortion. Take the abortion language out of the bill. The Republican Senators have a choice, to legislate or to hijack the legislation. If they want to get something done, they need to take abortion politics out of this bill. If they want to leave abortion politics in the bill, then the Republicans will only continue this session's record of dysfunction. This is the second day my friend, the Republican leader, has come to the floor and quoted something I said a few days ago. Every word he quotes is perfect--that is what I said--but here is the context in which I said it. I am an expert on motions to proceed. During the last 6 years I have had to file cloture as a leader here hundreds and hundreds of times--in the last Congress more than 200 times. Virtually all of the cloture motions were filed because Republicans wouldn't let us get on the bill. They simply wouldn't let us get on the bill--every bill--even bills they favored. We would have to spend a couple of days getting it ripe for a vote on cloture, and once that was done, then we had to wait 30 hours. What I said the other day is true, human trafficking is something that needs to get done, and we Democrats are not going to ask you, the Republican leadership, to file abortion language. Get on the bill. And we are on the bill. We could finish this bill in 20 minutes. The only thing that needs to be done is the language relating to abortion should come out of this bill. Abortion and human trafficking have nothing to do with each other. So my friend the Republican leader can come and quote me any time he wants, and I know he will quote me correctly, but it should be put in the proper context, and that context is this: We have proven during the first few months of this Congress that on issues that we believe should be debated, we will allow the Senate to get on the bill. We are not going to be stalling, as has been done for the last 6 years, just to kill time. We are on this human trafficking legislation because it is something that needs to be completed, and the only way at this stage it is going to happen is the abortion language must come out of the bill. Mr. President, would the Chair announce the business of the day.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, the votes are scheduled today at 2 p.m.; is that right?

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

Mr. REID

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

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, around the country we see a number of stories appearing. I will take one of the stories from the New York Times and read just a little bit of it. It is a long article, but everyone gets the drift of it. There are a few paragraphs I am going to read. The Obama administration said Tuesday that 11.7 million Americans now have private health insurance through federal and state marketplaces, with 86 percent of them receiving financial assistance from the federal government to help pay premiums. About three-fourths of people with marketplace coverage-- 8.8 million consumers--live in the 37 states served by HealthCare.gov, the website for the federal insurance exchange. The other 2.9 million people are in states that created and operate their own exchanges. Sylvia Mathews Burwell, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, underlined the importance of subsidies for people in states using the federal exchange--subsidies that could be withdrawn if the Supreme Court rules against the Obama administration in a pending case. Administration officials suggested that more than 7 million people could lose subsidies, making insurance unaffordable, if the court ruled that such assistance was unavailable in the federal exchange. The plaintiffs contend that the Affordable Care Act does not allow subsidies in the federal exchange. In Florida, nearly 1.6 million people have selected or been automatically re-enrolled in health plans--the largest enrollment of any state in the federal exchange--and 1.5 million of them qualified for subsidies in the form of tax credits, which averaged $294 a month. In Texas, 1.2 million people selected or were re-enrolled in health plans, and one million of them qualified for financial assistance averaging $239 a month. In North Carolina, 560,400 people selected health plans in the federal marketplace, and 515,500 of them qualified for subsidies averaging $315 a month. A lot rides on what the Supreme Court does, affecting millions and millions of people. If the Supreme Court can't see the absolute clear language of that bill, millions of people will lose their health insurance, and that would be a tragedy. It would be so very bad if suddenly people find themselves with no health insurance after they waited for so long to get it.