Roy Blunt

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, the image I am putting up right now beside me is the cover of Time magazine from June 2014, the first issue in June, June 2, 2014. According to the corresponding feature story, the baby on this cover, Emalyn Aubrey Randolph, was born prematurely at 29 weeks into the pregnancy. She weighed 2 pounds and 10 ounces. The legislation we are actually talking about today, unlike the legislation I just heard described--which we may very well talk about later--the legislation which we are talking about today and which we will vote on tomorrow takes us back only a few weeks before this cover-story baby was born at 29 weeks. We know of lots of cases after 20 weeks--where we have seen babies survive an early birth. In 2010, Freida Mangold was born at 21 weeks and 5 days into her mother's pregnancy. Both had complications. The baby was born, and after intensive care she was able to go home. In Florida in 2006, Amillia Taylor was delivered by an emergency C-section when she was 21 weeks and 6 days into that pregnancy. She received medical care and survived. In Iowa in 2012, Micah Pickering was born prematurely at 22 weeks and 1 day. Micah and her family are actually here visiting with the Senate tomorrow. Micah just turned 3 this past July. She will be meeting with Members of the Senate to talk about and to be the example that her parents will be talking about of what happened to a baby who was born 22 weeks and 1 day into the pregnancy. In my State of Missouri, we know of a remarkable story where the Cowan family in Kansas City welcomed their twin sons into the world 39 days apart. Little Carl was so small that his mother Elene could put her wedding ring over his wrist when he was born at 24-weeks and 1 day. He weighed barely a pound--twins are often small anyway; he was a twin--at that point in the pregnancy. Thirty-nine days later, his twin brother David came into the world. Carl is busy catching up with David in his size as things go on. In St. Louis, Andrew Konopka was born at 23 weeks. Andrew weighed a pound and a half. He was born at Mercy Hospital there. Today he is 8 years old and is doing well. His family lives in Webster Groves. Also in St. Louis last year, Zeke Miller was born at 27 weeks on December 10, 2014. He weighed 2 pounds and 15 ounces. Zeke was in the hospital 111 days. He is now 9 months old. Just last week his parents were excited to hear that Zeke no longer needs to be on oxygen. He has passed another milestone. Across the State line in Overland Park, KS, at the Overland Park Medical Center, babies born as early as 23 weeks of pregnancy are receiving care in the neonatal intensive care unit. Their neonatal unit has been featured for its emphasis on what it calls ``kangaroo care'' because in ``kangaroo care'' the baby's parents come and have that skin-to-skin, parent-to-baby contact so that the baby knows for sure there is somebody out there ready to take care of it. I recognize there is no national consensus on the issue we are talking about or even the issue of the early months of pregnancy. However, the overwhelming majority of Americans know that at this stage--20 weeks--they are not talking about a clump of cells; they are talking about a baby. The baby has 10 fingers and 10 toes. It has unique fingerprints that nobody has ever had and nobody will ever have again. It has a beating heart. Thanks to advanced ultrasound technology, this is about the time when people find out whether they are the parents of a little boy or the parents of a little girl. The fact that the baby at 20 weeks is a baby is obvious to the larger culture. In fact, this cover story in Time magazine--no advocate, as a rule, for outlandishly conservative social structure--Time magazine tells stories of young babies fighting for their lives and doctors who are fighting to save them. Let me quote from the article. It says, ``. . . fragile babies being looked after by a round the clock SWAT team of nutritionists, pharmacologists, gastroenterologists, ophthalmologists, pulmonary specialists, surgeons. . . . '' It concludes: In some ways, the work of the NICU will always seem like an exercise in disproportion--an army of people and a mountain of infrastructure caring for a pound of life. But it is a disproportion that speaks very well of us. That is not me saying that is a disproportion that speaks very well of us; it is Time magazine. The value that our society places on little 1- and 2-pound premature babies in the neonatal intensive care unit is remarkable. It speaks well for us, according to Time. So many of us have experienced now or have friends--in fact, my guess would be that as Members of the Senate go do hospital visits, nothing is more riveting than that moment you sometimes get to spend in the neonatal unit with a baby who is so little that you don't know how it survived, but it has, and you know with the technology we have today, that baby is very likely to go home. When everyone in your family is healthy, you have a lot of problems. When someone in your family is sick, you have one problem, and the one thing that is the focus in the case of these families and these babies is what they are about to do right then, which is everything they can do to save a life that has all it takes to survive, but it just needs some help. So while the culture is embracing the value of these lives--these little lives who can survive--on the one hand, our laws really don't reflect that science has made that almost an indisputable argument. We know that babies born 20 weeks after conception can survive. Down the road in Maryland, a doctor says he will end a human life at 28 weeks-- that is about 7 months--into a pregnancy. Several States and the District of Columbia allow life to be ended with an abortion in the ninth month of pregnancy. Can anyone on either side of this debate defend that? If they can't, really you should favor this fairly easy- to-achieve view of this issue. There are only seven countries in the world, including ours, that allow this to happen, these lives to be ended after 20 weeks. These babies can feel pain, as I just talked about. They have or are very quickly going to have the ability to survive with some help. By the way, the seven countries include China, North Korea, Vietnam, and the United States of America--not a list I think we want to be on. Shortly my colleagues and I will be able to cast a vote on the Pain- Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. I would like to close by saying a baby is a baby, and science tells us they can feel pain. This bill is a commonsense idea. It is broadly supported. I hope the Senate will take a step to protect these lives. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I am glad to be here and hear the comments from my friend from South Carolina, Senator Scott. It made me glad that I get to sit by him on the Senate floor and hear the reasons--and they are good and they have been repeated many times--about why this is not a way forward for the United States. It is not a way forward for the Middle East. In fact, Senator Scott did a great job talking about what was in the deal, but what wasn't in the deal was what the President said would be there when the negotiations started. When the negotiations started, the administration said Iran would never be allowed to have nuclear weapons, that we would find out everything Iran had ever done to try to develop nuclear weapons, that we would have anywhere, anytime inspections, and the sanctions would only be lifted when real progress was made in those first three areas. That was the framework. That was what we were negotiating for. None of those things happened. None of those things are in this agreement. I think the question that you, I, and others in the Senate are hearing from people, when we are home and when we are talking to people about this agreement is, Is the Congress giving away its power? How is it possible that something like this could happen and the majority of the Congress couldn't do anything to stop it? Of course, the other question is, Is the President giving away the power of the United States of America to lead? I think it is as clear from this agreement as it is so many other things that leading from behind doesn't work. A view that the United States of America is just any other country in the world is not a view that leads to a peaceful, more stable world. In fact, our friends don't trust us and our enemies aren't afraid of us in a world where there is vast agreement there are more potential bad things that could happen from more potential places than any time ever before. That is not just Republicans; that is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that is the Director of National Intelligence, and that is the head of the CIA. They all come up with that same conclusion. We look at the President's foreign policy, that this is just one symptom of--remember the redline in Syria that if the Syrians do this, we are going to do that? The Syrians did what we said we wouldn't allow them to do. Basically, we didn't do much of anything. In fact, what happens is that when the United States of America takes that kind of position and does not move forward, Assad is emboldened. I think the latest number of Syrians who have been killed by Assad is now around 250,000 people, from chemical weapons to barrel bombs, to every way they can think of to massacre their own population--a population that has been displaced in the millions, both inside and now outside the country--so an emboldened Assad. Putin looked at this. Before you know it, Putin took control of Crimea, and Putin has Russian troops in Ukraine. And this week Putin put Russian troops and tanks in Syria. Every American President since President Truman--I am standing at one of the desks President Truman used as a Senator on the floor, and it has his name carved in it. In 1946 President Truman did whatever was necessary to force the Soviets out of Iran. Every other President until now has done whatever was necessary to keep the Russian influence in the Middle East to a minimum. The Russians are building a base and unloading equipment right now. Why are things happening now? Because they think they can get away with it. That is the Russian reset. The Chinese--the Asian pivot--are building an island on an atoll in the South China Sea that is within striking range of the Philippines. Why? Because they think they can get away with it. The more we look at the consequences of the agreement, the more we wonder about it. Why aren't we able to stop it? No future administration is bound by it. For weeks now on this floor and around the country, people have talked about the destabilizing impact this agreement will have on the Middle East and the world, and the only administration that is bound by it is this one. It is not a treaty. If it were a treaty, as it should be, we would be voting in the Senate on a treaty and two-thirds of the Senators would have to approve the treaty and the next administration would be bound by it as well. When Presidential candidates say ``I will reverse this the first day,'' they absolutely can reverse it the first day. What kind of policy is that to put in place, a policy that has this kind of destabilizing effect without even a sense that the United States for the long term is committed to it? I am sure the President believes that by the time he leaves, every other President would surely want to keep this agreement. But I don't know how one could listen to this debate and think that. It does dramatically change the Middle East. Neighboring countries don't trust Iran, and they will want to have whatever weapons Iran has. Senator Scott just made the point--and made it well--that you can circle the date on the calendar of when Iran is likely to have a nuclear weapon if this agreement goes forward, and more importantly, the hope that maybe the government would change--it might, but that won't keep the neighbors from deciding they have to defend themselves. As if the 1994 agreement with North Korea wasn't bad enough--they had a missile announcement today, I believe, and said they have a better delivery system for the weapon they were never going to have--we have truly let the nuclear genie out of the bottle here. Their neighbors will believe they will have to have a weapon when Iran has one, and they also all believe Iran will cheat. Even though Iran is theoretically on a 12-month clock, it might not be 12 months from the day they say: We are now going into full weapons mode and 12 months from now we will have one. So even if Iran were to change its mind, we will have three or four countries in a very short period of time, in my view, that will have nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons capability that don't have it right now. We met with Secretary of State John Kerry at the Munich Security Conference in 2014--a conference a handful of Senators normally go to, and I went to that conference that year. John Kerry said: We will be able to know everything the Iranians are doing. We will be able to monitor this with such detail that there is no way they will be able to do anything we don't know about. At the time, I said to Secretary Kerry: Even if that is true--and I said I don't believe that will be true--you won't be able to contain enrichment. Once you let Iran do this, other countries that are perfectly happy with where they are right now will feel as if they have to do the same thing. There are well over one dozen countries that have nuclear power that don't do what we are about to allow Iran to do. We have been able to control this because the world has understood that it needed to be controlled, but we are now at the beginning of letting this get out of control. What is the vote all about? It is not a treaty. Why are we voting at all if it doesn't bind the next administration? Why are we having a debate if the administration would like to have the Congress involved in about 2023? That was another great comment that was often made before the law was passed to allow us to do what we are doing today. They said: Well, Congress will eventually have to be involved because eventually they will decide whether to extend the sanctions regime. By the way, the one that went into effect in 2013 is on the books until 2023. So the ideal day for the Congress to be involved was about 7 years after the administration left office. That would have been the involvement we would have had if Congress had not stepped up and said: We are going to insist that we get involved. In 2006 Congress took back some of the authority--this is not the first Congress to lose authority to the President--the President had, and we put into law the sanctions that had been imposed by the President at that time. We made them not just President Bush's idea but a law. I was there when that was negotiated, and one of the things we did when we negotiated that was to insist that that be codified and become the pattern--and it did--for all the sanctions to follow. But the pattern that Congress followed was also a pattern that had been followed since World War II, which is, here is what we are going to do and here is what we believe the President and the country should do, but we are going to give the President national security waiver authority. That is the authority the President has decided to use without congressional approval, without changing the law. He has decided he is going to waive these sanctions and the Congress could weigh in again in about 2023--if the President had totally had his way. What are we doing here? The President of the United States is about to prop up the No. 1 state sponsor of terrorism in the world. That is an inarguable point. Nobody argues that Iran is not the No. 1 state sponsor of terrorism in the world. They clearly look stronger at the end of this deal than they did at the beginning because they are stronger. The President of the United States is about to release billions of dollars that the No. 1 state sponsor of terrorism in the world can use for terrorist causes, with the support of a minority of the Congress-- not only a minority of the Congress, but that minority happens to all be on one side. There is nothing like this in the post-war history of the country where the country stepped forward in this way on this big of an issue. Not only is a majority against it, but a bipartisan majority is opposed to it. A partisan minority is blocking the Congress from even having a vote while a bipartisan majority wants to vote, and they want to vote to disapprove this deal. Even then the President could still veto the disapproval, but the President doesn't want to do that. The President doesn't want this on his desk. I think I read the stories the other day when we for the first time couldn't get the 60 Senators necessary to have the vote. The White House announcement was something like this: The congressional vote today ensured that the President's Iranian deal would go forward. The whole time, my concern about this process is that by not stopping it, somehow it would look as if the Congress was for it. We may not be able to stop it, but I can guarantee that Congress is not for it, and anybody who has been paying attention knows that. A question I think we can ask ourselves: Would Congress and the country be better off without this poor substitute for overseeing a meaningful foreign policy? This is clearly not producing the kind of result a democracy should produce in foreign policy. I think one could argue that it is a weak response. But why did it have to happen? I cosponsored the initial bill that required Congress to approve the deal, but, of course, a piece of legislation has to be signed by the President. Senator Corker and Senator Cardin finally came up with a piece of legislation that the President would sign, but it was almost always guaranteed to ensure that the debate would go forward. So would we have been better off without it? I have had people ask me: What are you guys doing? Why can't you get the foreign policy of the country under some control? I have wondered several times whether we would have been better off going forward without it. As I have thought about that, it does seem to me that the Corker-Cardin bill has produced a number of things, and one of those is that we have 60 days of debate that we wouldn't have had otherwise. When would the Congress have gotten to weigh in? Eight years from now. We would have had the debate 8 years from now. We have had 60 days of debate. Well over 50 percent of the people in the country are opposed to going forward with this deal. Only about 21 percent are for going forward. This process has produced bipartisan opposition to a bad deal. Senator Cardin, a top Democrat on the Foreign Affairs Committee, and Senator Menendez, the other most knowledgeable Democrat on foreign affairs, Senator Schumer, and Senator Manchin voted with the 54 Republicans. So 58 Senators don't want this to happen, and 60 percent of the House of Representatives are opposing this agreement. The White House would have liked to have Congress have a say almost a decade from now. We have had our say, and we should have our vote. We should be allowed to put this bill on the President's desk, and if he wants to veto it and defend that veto, that is how this process should work. I hope there is still a chance that two more of our colleagues will step forward and say: While I am going to be on the other side of the final vote, I think the Congress should vote. We had 98 Members vote for this bill that said Congress should vote to either approve or disapprove this agreement. Let's have that vote, and let's have that vote today. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUNT

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

Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time during the quorum call be equally divided.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, as co-chair of the Senate Law Enforcement Caucus, I call to the attention of my colleagues an effective public-private partnership that was pioneered by the Greater Kansas City Crime Stoppers. This partnership, which empowers citizens to assist law enforcement on behalf of public safety, has been a model for the Nation, and beyond. Crime Stoppers is separate from the police emergency phone system or other standard methods of contacting police, as it allows a member of the community to provide anonymous information about criminal activity. In 1982, the Kansas City Crime Commission launched a hotline for anonymous tips--Crime Stoppers. That first year, 30 tips came in, clearing 8 cases. Greater Kansas City Crime Stoppers emerged as a top program, earning global recognition. In 1999, Sergeant Craig Sarver of the Kansas City Police Department was named International--Crime Stoppers--Coordinator of the Year. An innovator, Sergeant Sarver nurtured an idea that has evolved into a common tool for law enforcement. In the summer of 2002, 19-year-old Ali Kemp was murdered in the pump house at a community swimming pool near Kansas City. Her father, Roger Kemp, suggested to police and the local office of Lamar Advertising Company that billboards could help find the killer. Eventually, a tip generated by donated billboards helped resolve this case. A suspect was arrested in Connecticut, tried, and convicted. Since then, ``wanted'' billboards have led to arrests in more than 20 murder cases in the Kansas City area. Sarver, who retired in 2008 after 33 years on the force, cites two reasons why billboards help generate solid tips for police. First, he says, is the frequency of the message. Tipsters have said they had seen ``wanted'' billboards multiple times before they shared tips. Second is the emphasis on anonymity, important to those who fear retribution, according to Sergeant Sarver. Now this tactic--to feature a tip line number on billboards along with a suspect's photo--is a common tool for law enforcement. In 2007 in Philadelphia, the FBI starting using donated electronic ``digital'' billboards to help find fugitives. The FBI calls these high-tech signs ``force multipliers.'' Tips generated by digital billboards have resolved 53 FBI cases. State and local police also rely on billboards to communicate with the public. After two inmates escaped prison in upstate New York in early June, New York State Police activated 50 digital billboards in four states. Near St. Louis, a motorist opened fire on an Illinois State trooper during a traffic stop on June 23. The trooper was not injured, but the shooter fled. In southern Illinois, the District 11 State Police office is located near Mid America Outdoor Advertising in Collinsville, IL. Shortly after police asked Mid America for help, the suspect's photo appeared on a digital billboard along a high-traffic interstate en route to St. Louis. The suspect was arrested by the end of the week. In Elyria, OH, the sheriff says 12 fugitives have been arrested thanks to tips prompted by digital billboards. Lorain County Sheriff Phil R. Stammitti describes these long-sought individuals as ``very hard to locate.'' Neil Mahan, the retired police chief from Janesville, WI, says billboards help police apprehend suspected criminals and deliver other information to the public. ``For example,'' he wrote in The Police Chief magazine, ``an elderly female suffering from Alzheimer's disease wandered away from family at a local shopping mall and was found by a citizen using the digital billboard information. When spring floods along the Rock River posed significant danger to the public, billboards were used to post warnings about the danger.'' In conclusion, we know that public safety is enhanced when citizens are empowered to help law enforcement. I commend the Kansas City Crime Commission and Greater Kansas City Crime Stoppers for their contributions in advancing a new communications tool that aides the cause of safety.

Mr. BLUNT

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

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I join Senator McCain in thanking Senators Isakson and Blumenthal for the package we are putting together and talking about. And I join them in thanking Senator McCain for coming forward and giving reality to this idea that many of us have advocated for some time--more choices for veterans, more competition to see who serves veterans. I think the numbers Senator Isakson has used here today would indicate that every month veterans are embracing this idea of more choices. It makes common sense that there are a few things the veterans health care system should be better at than anybody else. They should be better at post-traumatic stress, dealing with that unique battle situation so many of our veterans are facing right now. It is not a disorder; it is a problem veterans have because of what we ask them to do and where we ask them to do it. They should be better at IEDs, the explosive devices, dealing with the injuries that come from those kinds of attacks, eye injuries and others. They should be better, in all likelihood, at dealing with prosthetics because in the history of military service, so many of our people who serve have lost arms and legs. The VA has been good at prosthetics because of that. But, frankly, I don't know very much else we should argue that they should be better at than the place we probably drive by to get to their facility. There is absolutely no reason to think the Veterans' Administration should be a better place to get heart bypass surgery done or a better place to get renal cancer dealt with or a better place to do almost anything else. If, in fact, there is a unique VA location that has become better at those things than anybody else, that is a great place for veterans to go. But our goal should be to get veterans the choice they need to go to the location that works best for them. In looking at veterans mental health, Senator Stabenow and I last year proposed the Excellence in Mental Health Act. Particularly young veterans want to have more choices. They want more choices that work better with work and work better with their families and let them access those kinds of facilities and that kind of assistance in an easier way. Seeing the steps this bill begins to take is something we should all embrace. We should also hold the VA accountable for doing everything they could--it appears to me--to resist the concept Congress wanted them to embrace. This bill addresses some of those obstacles. I joined with Senator Moran in a bill he had so the Veterans' Administration could no longer say: Well, the way we read the law, in the strictest possible sense, if you are within 40 miles of a facility--no matter whether your health care problem can be dealt with there or not--you don't meet the 40-mile criteria. Well, of course the intention of Congress wasn't that they meet a 40-mile criteria. This piece of legislation, with the help of Senator Blumenthal, Senator Isakson, and Chairman Miller in the House, begins to clarify that. I had a bill the House passed some time ago--Hire More Heroes--that allows veterans to have some advantage with companies that hiring that are right at 50 employees, and because of the difficulties of the new health care requirements for employers, those employers don't want to get to more than 50. The Hire More Heroes provision of this will let veterans who have TRICARE--who have veteran-provided care of one kind or another--be hired by an employer and not count toward the 50 because they don't need to be counted in terms of who needs health care because they already have it. That is what this does. So I would like to see a better job done. The Cochran facility in St. Louis--I think one of the more troubled facilities in the country right now--the big VA hospital there is about to get its eighth Interim Director in 2 years. Now, there is some serious management problem when one of our major facilities with some significant problems as an agency is now looking forward to its eighth Interim Director in 2 years. No problems are going to be solved by half a dozen Interim Directors. The head of the VA needs to understand that just like everybody else does. The waiting list for getting a VA appointment is longer than 30 days and is more than 50 percent bigger than it was a year ago. So the choice aspect of this--looking for more flexibility in how to apply the ability of veterans to get their health care where they want to get their health care--is a good thing. I am certainly disappointed that we are looking at another short-term extension of the highway bill, but if we have to put something with that short-term extension of the highway bill that moves veterans choice and competing for who can provide health care to veterans in the best way, as this addition does, I think it is a great step in the right direction. I certainly want to work with Senator Blumenthal, and the chairman's pledge to do everything he can to make this competitive environment, where veterans can get their health care where they want in the best way, a permanent part of veterans health care--that is something I want to do. One of my good friends introduced me at a meeting at a VA hospital about a year ago. He said: Senator Blunt has been telling me for about 10 years that we need to have more choice. I have been telling him the VA could do the job. I am now convinced that more choice is what we need. Many of our veterans and their families have had great experiences at Veterans' Administration facilities, but every one of them should have a great experience, the best possible experience at whatever facility they go to in gratitude of the service they provided us. I am glad these additions are in the bill. I look forward to working with my colleagues as we try to make competition work better, as we try to ensure that it is permanent, and as we try to make the Veterans' Administration work for the veterans instead of being focused on working for the Veterans' Administration. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, needless to say, yesterday's announcement about our ongoing stature and status with Iran is, in my view, a dangerous step forward in advancing not only the illicit nuclear program that they have had up until now but the clear nuclear weapons capability they would have under this agreement. I think the agreement confirms that the President was too willing to get a deal with Iran at any price. The concessions made by the administration, based on the starting point of these discussions, I believe to be stunning. All we have to do is go back and review a little bit of recent history to see that today Iran's advancement of instability, terrorism, and violence in the world continues unabated and not hampered by the agreement that has just been announced. Tomorrow, we will see all of those things still continue unabated, and unfortunately they are much better positioned and much better funded than they are right now. Supported by Iran, Assad in Syria has been massacring his own people, resulting in the deaths of at least 191,000 people in Syria. That is according to the U.N., and those numbers were reported a year ago. Assad, by the way, stepped forward immediately to praise this agreement. Supported by Iran, Shiite militias are continuing to support Assad and promote division and violence throughout the country of Iraq. Supported by Iran, Houthi rebels have seized key territory in Yemen and continue to work to destabilize that country. Supported by Iran, Hezbollah in Lebanon wages terrorism and calls for the annihilation. Supported by Iran, Palestinian terrorist groups in Gaza continue to lob mortars and rockets into Israel. Last April, Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy stopped a Marshall Islands-flagged ship as it tried to go into the Strait of Hormuz. This is at a time when Iran is trying to get major countries in the world to negotiate with them. Iran continues to hold hostages without any reasonable way of defining hostages and without any reasonable charge. They currently have three Americans held as hostages: Pastor Saeed Abedini, former U.S. Marine Amir Hekmati, and Washington Post journalist Jason Rezaian. They also remain totally uncooperative in helping to locate former FBI official Robert Levinson. When the Secretary of State was asked about why these people weren't part of the negotiations, he said: Well, this was a negotiation about nuclear weapons but not about people unlawfully and wrongly detained. Well, it quickly became a negotiation about not just nuclear weapons but all kinds of other weapons that we have prevented the Iranians from having access to in a worldwide marketplace. That was quickly added to the topic, but we couldn't get three Americans released and find out more about one American than we know now. The concessions laid out by yesterday's announcement were also, I thought, pretty stunning. Concerning uranium enrichment, the Obama administration said a year and a half ago Iran didn't have the right to enrich. In November of 2013, the Secretary of State told ABC News: We do not recognize the right to enrich. It is clear . . . in the nonproliferation treaty, it's very, very [clear] that there is no right to enrich. Under the agreement, Iran is allowed to continue to enrich. As far as inspections, the President said we would have to be able to verify Iran's compliance or Iran's cheating through anywhere, anytime inspections. It is widely understood that any good deal must allow inspections--trust but verify. The President may say that is in there, but it is clearly not in there. In fact, last April the President's Deputy National Security Advisor proudly proclaimed that ``under this deal'' we ``will have anywhere, anytime 24/7 access'' to Iran's nuclear facilities. As it turns out under this deal, inspectors will be forced to wait up to 24 days for access to suspicious sites once they ask for access to suspicious sites. That is a brand-new definition of ``anywhere, anytime.'' You can possibly have access in 24 days, and obviously lots of things can and would change in 24 days. Militarily, the President said we would disclose and define the possible military dimensions of the research and where Iran's illegal nuclear program was headed. The President said this information is critical to knowing what Iran's true breakout potential and their true intentions would be. Under this agreement, however, the option of examining the possible military dimensions of Iran's nuclear program is off the table. As far as sanctions, the administration said that removing all sanctions was a nonstarter until Iran demonstrated that it is complying with the agreement. A little over a year ago, in March of 2014, Secretary Kerry said: ``Iran is not open for business until Iran is closed for nuclear bombs.'' However, we know now that Iran will, in fact, be open for business much sooner than that. This deal will not only allow them to be open for business, but they will be rewarded with hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of sanctions relief and return of assets that didn't have to be returned. And under this agreement all sanctions, even those related to arms, missiles, and proliferation, will be removed--not suspended. These will be removed. We have some of the most aggressive arms suppliers in the world, and Iran is now being given access to all kinds of arms that they couldn't get legally or easily up until now. All economic and banking sections, as well as those imposed on transport, insurance, petrochemical industries, and valuable materials will be removed. As far as dismantling, the President said Iran would have to dismantle its illegal nuclear program. In December of 2013, the chief negotiator, Wendy Sherman, told PBS that a final agreement should include ``a lot of dismantling of their infrastructure.'' Yet under this deal we are seeing that Iran's program will, in fact, almost all be preserved, not dismantled. The length of the agreement--the P5+1 initially stipulated that Iran must accept restrictions on its nuclear program for 20 years plus another 25 years, and then later they said 20 years plus another 10 years, and finally their last offer was just 20 years, which in the end was reduced to 10 years. I think over the next 60 days, as people read the fine print of the agreement, they might find out that it is even less than 10 years, but they certainly know now it is not 20 years plus 25 years. This is a bad deal for the United States and one that will embolden our enemies, jeopardize the security of our allies, and further lead our friends to not believe they can trust us and our enemies not to be afraid of us. In a dangerous world, what worse place could we be in than that. The stated goal of the negotiations was to ensure that Iran never developed the capability of producing a nuclear weapon. Yet the President agreed to a deal that does just the opposite. By allowing Iran to become nuclear weapons capable and failing to provide for anytime, anywhere inspections, this deal gives Iran a free pass to cheat at its military sites with no access to U.S. inspectors. Meanwhile, just last week Iran continued its calls for the destruction of Israel. These are the people we are allowing, through this process, to have access to more weapons and to become nuclear weapons capable. Just last week, Iran called, as it has for decades, for the destruction of Israel and ``death to America.'' In fact, Iran's Supreme Leader stood by, calling for the need to fight the United States even if there is an agreement. I don't know that we have ever before entered into an agreement with another country that, while we are in the agreement, says: And by the way, no matter if there is an agreement or not, we want to continue to see the United States as an enemy we need to fight. This deal undermines the security of our friends and allies. It legitimizes Iran's unapologetic sponsorship of terrorism throughout the Middle East. It is interesting what could be included, by the way, and what couldn't be included. Iran has repeatedly refused to abide by international agreements that require inspection of nuclear facilities, details of facility designs, acquisition and production of nuclear materials. What makes us think Iran is going to change that behavior now? The negotiations themselves should lead us to believe the new Iran is still the old Iran. This is a bad deal. It is a deal that just hopes that in the next 8 or 10 years the Iranian Government totally changes, the Iranian attitude totally changes, our relationship with them totally changes, and it just hopes that in the interim--during the time we have that hoped-for change--the Iranians don't cheat. This is a hope, not a strategy, and it is a hope, not a strategy, wherein we would let the world become much more destabilized as a result. After months of negotiations, Iran hasn't released a single American prisoner, nor have they announced any intentions to do so. The Iranians, the Russians, the Chinese, the Syrians--or at least the Syrians who are still controlled by Assad--may like this deal, but this is a bad deal for the United States of America, it is a bad deal for world stability, and it is a bad deal for our friends. Frankly, I think the law that Congress passed that now gives the Congress of the United States 60 days to look at it will turn out to be 60 days that the President himself is about to find out what is in the deal he and the administration signed. This is a serious matter for every Member of the Senate. I was asked earlier today: Are you going to lobby Members of the Senate as to how they should vote on this agreement when it comes up? I said: I am going to do everything I can to talk about the real shortcomings of this agreement, the destabilizing effects of this agreement, but every Member of the Senate is going to have to answer for this agreement and this vote for a long time. Members of the Senate on their own are going to have to decide what side of this to wind up on. I predict that a majority--and maybe a substantial majority--of the Senate will wind up understanding that this is a bad deal for America and a bad deal for the future of the world's security. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate as in morning business.

Mr. BLUNT

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

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I wish to speak a little bit about an agreement that very well could be reached between now and the time that the Senate returns right after the Fourth of July. The agreement has been negotiated for 2 years now with Iran, although it seems to me that using the term ``negotiation'' is a stretch. As to most of what we said we wanted to achieve in this so-called negotiation, the Iranians have said they didn't want to achieve it. We seem then to move forward to the next point once we concede that point. Yesterday, I read in press reports that the State Department has now decided it will not demand a full accountability for the past nuclear research on the part of Iran before they conclude a deal. One of the early statements was: We want to know what Iran did, how long they had been doing it, what scientists were involved, what material, and what information they had achieved in their efforts to actually have a nuclear weapon. It appears now that we are happy if Iran is just nuclear-weapons capable, with a clock that would start at some time, and we seem to feel we suddenly have a new ability to monitor everything Iran does even though we don't appear to have the ability to get them to tell us what they have done. As I have said before, this is one of the areas where there is no question that no deal is better than a bad deal. According to the State Department, which recently reported again that Iran should still be considered a country that encourages terrorism; that, in fact, you can make the case that there is no greater encourager of terrorist activities in the world today than Iran--but all of those things seem to be off the table as we talk to Iran. The true nature of the regime, and why we want to have an agreement on just a nuclear program and not all of the other things Iran has going on, continues to be of great concern to me. The news reports today were that the Iranian Parliament, the Iranian legislature will now finalize legislation demanding that we not be able to look at military sites as part of our inspection. If the goal here is to stop Iran from having a nuclear capability, having a nuclear weapon, having a military capacity to use a nuclear weapon, why would we take military sites off the list of things we are supposed to pay attention to? Where would we expect them to be finally developing a weapon if not at a military site? The Iranian Parliament appears to have a whole lot more to say about this negotiation than the Senate. In fact, I am afraid we are going to find with the legislation that we did vote on that it is going to be a lot easier to prevent disapproval than it would have ever been to get approval of this agreement that looks like it is headed toward a very bad agreement. The Supreme Leader of Iran has ruled out any long-term freezes of nuclear activities and demands that sanctions be lifted immediately. A few weeks ago, when the United States said what our understanding of the framework moving forward would be--it seems to be about 180 degrees different from what Iran is announcing every day. They want immediate sanctions relief. We say they are only going to get sanctions relief when they begin to comply. They don't want to have inspections at military sites. We say one of the reasons we want to have this agreement is so we can ensure that nothing happens at military sites. Meanwhile, Iran advances violence and instability around the world. Supported by Iran, Assad in Syria is massacring his own people. So far, at least 190,000 Syrians have been killed in what is going on in Syria today. Iran is supporting that regime. Shiite militias support Assad. They promote division and wage violence outside of Syria, now into Iraq, encouraged by Iran. Supported by Iran, Houthi rebels have seized key territory in Yemen and seek to overthrow the government. By the way, I remind the President that this was something which less than a year ago President Obama said was a great example of how our foreign policy under his leadership was working, that Yemen was an example. Only a few months later, we are fleeing the country and closing our Embassy. Actually, the President may have been right. Maybe Yemen is a great example of how our foreign policy is working. Hezbollah and Lebanon wage terrorism against Israel, encouraged by Iran. Palestinian terrorists in Gaza, encouraged by Iran, continue to lob mortars and rockets into Israel. Last April, Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard stopped a Marshall Islands-flagged ship in the Strait of Hormuz. Iran continues to hold hostages without any reasonable charge. Three American citizens--Pastor Saeed Abedini, former U.S. marine Amir Hekmati, and Washington Post journalist Jason Rezaian--are being held by Iran. A fourth American, former FBI official Robert Levinson, is missing and is in Iran, with no assistance from Iran to find him. In fact, they don't know exactly where he is. I have repeatedly called, as others in the Congress have, on the administration to just stop negotiations until there is a show of good faith to let these Americans go. I saw a few days ago that Pastor Abedini was beaten again in the prison he has been put in, the most dangerous prison in Iran. How could we not get three people whom they are holding under charges that will not stand up to any public view? How could we allow them to continue to hold these people while we continue to have talks about something like letting this country become nuclear capable? Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian was arrested after security forces raided his home. His case was referred to a Revolutionary Court on January 14 of this year, but details of his charges and details of his court date have not been released. His mother is concerned--as we all should be--about his health, which is deteriorating as he is being imprisoned. Recent reports would suggest that this Washington Post reporter is being charged with espionage. Pastor Abedini was imprisoned in September of 2012. In January of 2013, he was sentenced to 8 years in prison for ``practicing his religion.'' That is his crime--practicing his religion. The Iranian Government charged that Pastor Abedini was undermining the Iranian Government by creating a network of Christian house churches and attempting to sway Iranian youth away from Islam. In August of 2013, his appeal was denied. He was then put in the worst prison in the country. He has been beaten up in prison. I think he was beaten in the hospital when he had to be taken there, as his life had almost ended with prison beatings. Why do they still have him? Why do they have Amir Hekmati, a former U.S. marine who was arrested while visiting his family in Iran in August of 2011? The Iranian Government sentenced him to death for espionage. Fortunately, his death sentence was overturned by an appeals court in March of 2012. However, he was still convicted of aiding a hostile nation--that would be us, by the way--and was found guilty of espionage. Bob Levinson, who is a retired DEA and FBI agent, disappeared in March of 2007 while visiting Iran's Kish Island. It is very likely, many people believe, that Mr. Levinson is currently a prisoner in Iran. Just 3 weeks after he disappeared, Iranian state television reported that he was in the hands of Iranian security forces. Why are we assuming that the Iranians will agree to something much more complicated when they will not let these four people go? Why wouldn't we insist on that? Finally, Iran is responsible for killing and maiming thousands of American service men and women in Iraq and Iran from deadly, armor- piercing improvised explosive devices that originated in Iran. They don't deny it. I think they take pride in it. The destabilizing impact of a nuclear weapons-capable Iran is hard to overstate. If you want to do one thing to cast a huge shadow over the next decade and perhaps decades of this century--unless that shadow somehow is removed before the end of the decade, it is hard to imagine. Sanctions, with the credible threat of military force, were doing good until we decided we would ease those sanctions if Iran would come to the negotiating table. That began 2 years ago. Two years ago we said things we would insist on. Two years later, none of those things appear to be things that are still being discussed in these Iranian so-called negotiations. Sanctions should stay in place until Iran fundamentally changes its course and its behavior. I am greatly concerned that the agreement on Iran's nuclear program will not be presented to the Congress in a way that allows the Congress to really weigh in, and I am concerned that this program as it will be presented to the Congress will establish Iran as a nuclear-capable, nuclear-threshold state. When that happens, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Jordan have all stated they will claim the exact same rights to do whatever it is we allow Iran to do. If we come up with an agreement that says Iran will be within 6 months of having a nuclear weapon and that they have to tell us when they start that 6-month clock, other countries will also want to be within 6 months of a nuclear weapon. If we believe we can monitor Iran within 6 months or 12 months or whatever the number is, I think we are kidding ourselves, and most of the world doesn't believe we can do this either. Turkey and other countries outside of the immediate neighborhood will also want to view nuclear weapons capability as a new status quo in a dangerous world. An agreement that doesn't change the terror threat from Iran, an agreement that doesn't allow inspection of military facilities, an agreement that doesn't disclose past secret research for nuclear weapons, an agreement that doesn't ensure long-term inspections, an agreement that doesn't maintain sanctions in place until important compliance benchmarks are made is not an agreement that would be good enough. We are facing a dangerous time. Iran is one of the chief perpetrators of terrorism in the world today. How we let that country that has one example of bad behavior after another, one example of hatred for Israel after another, one example of contempt for the United States after another, how we let that country become nuclear capable is amazing to me, as it is to the world. That is why our friends question whether they can depend on the United States of America any longer and why our enemies aren't afraid of us, as you would want your enemies to be. I hope we don't settle for a bad deal. I will say again that a bad deal is worse than no deal at all. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I wish to honor Ralph Shower of St. Louis, MO, on his upcoming 100th birthday on July 6, 2015. As a dedicated family man, heroic World War II veteran, and successful business professional, he has made his family, community, and the entire State of Missouri proud to call him one of our own. Born and raised in St. Louis, Mr. Shower attended Soldan High School, where he participated in varsity track and field. His dad ran a hotel and restaurant supply business, and in his younger years, he worked with his father at the family business. As mentioned before, Mr. Shower honorably served in the U.S. Army's 517 Signal Company, 17th Airborne Division, during World War II. While serving, he suffered from serious injuries in a paratrooper glider accident from which he fully recovered, and he has continued to live a full and healthy life. To this day, he has remained actively involved in his community through the local veterans service organizations. After leaving the Army, Mr. Shower began a career in public relations management, serving various charity organizations, including the Leukemia Guild of Missouri and the City of Hope Hospital in Durate, CA. Even with his military and professional successes, Shower has always prioritized his family above all else. He and Ethel, his late wife of 70 years, had three children. Michael Shower, his son, held an esteemed position as the executive secretary and counselor to the executive director of UNICEF up until his passing in 1994. Mr. Shower has two beloved daughters, Suzanne Shower and Michelle Proctor, along with two granddaughters and five great-granddaughters. Forty-seven of Mr. Shower's relatives will be traveling to the St. Louis area to celebrate his long and accomplished life. It sounds like it will be a truly special celebration. Ralph Shower has touched the lives of so many people over the past century, and his service to his country and community deserves our recognition and appreciation. I congratulate Ralph Shower for his service to his family, community, and this great country. Happy Birthday!

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I wish to honor Lincoln University of Jefferson City, MO, on the 125th anniversary of the signing of the Second Morrill Act of 1890, which provided Lincoln University and many other historically Black colleges and universities with land-grant institution status. Lincoln University has provided student-centered, post secondary education opportunities to countless students from a variety of backgrounds for more than a century. On January 14, 1866, Lincoln University, at the time called the Lincoln Institute, was founded by soldiers and officers of the 62nd United States Colored Infantry, following their service in the Civil War. After its incorporation and the establishment of its board of trustees, the institution opened its doors to the first class in its history on September 17, 1866. Lincoln Institute moved to its current campus in 1871, where it would eventually gain land-grant university status under the Second Morrill Act of 1890. Since then, Lincoln University, which changed its name from the Lincoln Institute in 1921, has continued to provide a wide variety of educational specializations with over 50 bachelor's degree programs along with master's degree programs in education, business, and the social sciences. Outside of its well-known, grant-funded research programs, Lincoln has also distinguished itself with its popular nursing program and state-of-the-art aquaculture facilities. Lincoln University is an outstanding and diverse educational institution that continues to impact future generations by looking forward without ever forgetting its roots. I congratulate Lincoln University on more than a century of successes.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. I wish to make one other comment on one other amendment I have that I will speak more about later in this debate. It involves a concern I have for Iran's growing influence in Iraq and the failure we have had in maintaining the commitment we made to those Camp Liberty residents whom we promised to protect. More than 100 residents have been killed at Camp Liberty. I recognize the State Department's ongoing efforts, but they are not good enough. I believe the Secretary of Defense needs to certify to the defense committees that the central government of Iraq is taking appropriate and sufficient steps to ensure the safety and security of Iranian dissidents housed in Camp Liberty in Iraq. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUNT. I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, someone already asked unanimous consent that U.S. Army MAJ Justin Gorkowski, who is a fellow in my Senate office, be granted floor privileges for this debate. I just wanted to explain how pleased and lucky we have been to have the major with us to help with these issues. He is a graduate of West Point. He currently serves as an information operations officer. He served as an adviser to the Iraq Army during the surge in 2006 and 2007 and returned from Afghanistan in January of last year, where he had been responsible for psychological operations, electronic warfare and military deception for Kandahar Province. He has been a great addition to our office during this debate, and in my view this debate is the most important debate we have. The No. 1 priority for the Federal Government is to defend the country. We can spend all the time we want talking about all the other priorities and all the things we should be doing and whether there is some sudden mystical balance between all of those priorities and defending the country, but in most of our States, and certainly in the State of Missouri, the one thing you can get the least argument on as to what the Federal Government should do that we can't do for ourselves is defend the country. That is why for 54 years straight the Senate has passed a defense authorizing bill every year. There are very few things that get authorized every year, very few things that get debated every year, very few things that get looked at every year, but our national defense is one of those, and it is one of those for a reason. We hear all kinds of reasons not to move forward with this bill, and then you hear: But I am for the bill. Well, that is because people understand that this is one of the things the Federal Government is supposed to do and in my view the top thing we can't in any way do for ourselves. Local government can't do this, State governments can't do this, individually we cannot do this, and that is why this debate is always so important and why the Armed Services Committee voted this out 22 to 4 after all kinds of discussions, such as, well, maybe the minority would not vote for this for the reasons we just heard. But at the end of the day, the vote was 22 to 4 out of the committee. Chairman McCain and Ranking Member Reed have done a good job of bringing this bill to the floor with bipartisan support and looking for ways to reform defense so we really focus our defense where the defenders are rather than where the defenders are not. This bill is focused on eliminating wasteful spending. It focuses on finding ways to reduce bureaucracy and streamline the critical military functions we have. It puts a focus on the fighting forces, not the bureaucratic forces in the defense structure. The bill identifies $10 billion in excessive and unnecessary spending and reallocates those funds to our true military capabilities. It also modernizes the military retirement system so that many more who served have a retirement benefit from serving. The current retirement system benefits less than 20 percent of those who served in the Armed Forces because the people who benefit from the retirement program are people who serve 20 years and retire at that point. This bill would create a system where servicemembers and taxpayers join together to create a retirement benefit which estimates that 75 percent of the people who served in the military would leave with a retirement benefit rather than only 17, 18, 20 percent of the people who leave the military. It is a reform that really honors all of those who served in a good way and doesn't penalize anyone who served. It still allows people who have been serving under the old system to stay under the old system. Obviously, the longer you stay in that system, the better you are going to do. But the options now are basically no retirement benefit or a retirement benefit that comes with substantial service and only with that kind of service. This bill creates retention bonuses to keep people in the military longer than 20 years. We have men and women retiring at the height of their capacity with technical skills that are not easily replaced. This bill recognizes that and looks for ways to encourage them to continue to serve. Our State, the State of Missouri, has a real commitment to the military. More than 17,000 Active-Duty servicemembers serve in Missouri. We have important bases in our State. We have 8,000 civilian Department of Defense employees and more than 20,000 members of the Reserve and the National Guard. This bill authorizes funding to build a Consolidated Stealth Operations and Nuclear Alert Facility at Whiteman Air Force Base. It preserves and prevents the retirement of the A-10 plane that has wide support in the Congress, but more importantly the A-10 has wide support from the ground forces it supports from the air. When you talk to people who serve on the ground, General Odierno and others, will say that in their view there is no plane that does what this plane does. Of course, those who fly it and support it are very important. Whiteman Air Force Base, again, has the 442nd Fighter Wing. It is an A-10 fighter wing which just returned from a deployment. This bill also authorizes upgrades in our cargo aircraft, such as the C-130 aircraft, which will help the main force as well as the National Guard and Reserves. In fact, Rosecrans Air National Guard Base in St. Joseph is a great training facility not only for our forces, but that base also serves as a training facility for our allies. At least 16 of our allies trained at this facility last year so they could figure out how to get supplies, how to get troops, and how to move things with those cargo planes in ways that they would not otherwise be able to do. This bill also takes an important step in moving forward with the new bomber. There is money here that would continue to fund the new plan for the idea out there for a long-range bomber. We have to have that. We have to have a precision bombing capability that is better than anybody else's. The planes we are using now have been the best planes in the world for a long time, but they will not be the best planes in the world forever, and it is time to begin to move forward, as we have been, toward that new plane. Those are all important projects. There are key initiatives here, such as promoting accountability and promoting the standards we need to have for performance in the military and how we reward those standards. This bill maintains critical quality-of-life programs for men and women who serve and their families. This bill addresses the needs of our wounded, ill, and injured servicemembers. This bill continues to provide critical assistance to our allies, particularly our ally Israel, where we have significant common research efforts. As we have all seen in recent years, the David's Sling and Iron Dome weapon systems are critical not only for Israel's security, but they have been a critical proving ground for the kind of response that was once looked at as some kind of unachievable ``Star Wars'' capacity. Both David's Sling and the Iron Dome have proved that capacity is, in fact, truly achievable, and we continue to move forward with that kind of defense system in this bill. This also goes a long way toward combating threats of cyber space and cyber security by evaluating what those vulnerabilities are and dealing with those vulnerabilities. I want to mention a few amendments I filed and intend to offer before we move on with this bill. I believe my amendments will strengthen the bill. First, I believe the military's mental health screening process can be improved. We learned a lot about mental health and behavioral health over the past 15 years. I believe we can continue to adapt and, frankly, last year's Defense authorization bill had important steps in this direction. I was able to get on the bill when I was a member of the committee last year--not just the defense appropriating committee I serve on now but the defense authorizing committee I served on then. The amendments I will offer will improve the predeployment health assessment and postdeployment health reassessment by requiring that all servicemembers be screened and that they don't have to meet some criteria that every member of the service may not meet. While people are serving, it is important to establish the things that have happened to them, so if they need help years later, perhaps, and come back and ask for assistance in what truly was a post-traumatic event which was caused by their service but didn't show up for a number of years, having the incidents and things that might have affected their mental health is important. The National Institutes of Health says that one in four adult Americans has a diagnosable and almost always treatable behavioral health issue. I asked the Surgeon Generals of the Armed Forces if that number applies to the Armed Forces, and without hesitation they said yes. They said: We recruit from the general population and there is no reason that number wouldn't apply to people serving us in uniform. The key is diagnosable and treatable--diagnosable and treatable in a way that people aren't held back by their behavior health issues any more than they are held back by their physical health issues. They just need to be dealt with. We will look at mild traumatic stress injury potential, post- traumatic stress injury potential, and look at the things that might affect somebody as they move forward from their time in the service. What happens in the service and what can happen years after really matters. I think those amendments on mental health meet the evolving needs of servicemembers and hopefully the evolving needs of how we understand behavioral health as it relates to all other health. I have another amendment that would not allow the Army to go below the currently authorized end strength level of 475,000 soldiers. There are threats around the world, and we need to increase our national security. We heard General Odierno, Chief of Staff of the Army, testify earlier this year before the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee about the risk associated with going below 490,000 soldiers. This amendment would say you can't go below the 475,000 soldiers until the Secretary of Defense tells the Congress how he plans to reduce excess headquarters elements and excess administrative overhead. Just this morning, I read an article from military.com discussing Navy Secretary Ray Mabus's recent comments about excessive bloat--his term--in the DOD headquarters functions. The article states: Secretary Mabus said Pentagon and Congressional budget cutters should look at eliminating extra bureaucracy before slashing funds for sailors and ships. Mabus said 20 percent of the Pentagon budget is spent on what he called ``pure overhead''--items not directory linked to readiness or ongoing operations. He [Mabus] referred to this ``overhead'' as the fourth estate, specifying entities such as the office of the Secretary of Defense, defense agencies and organizations funded by the Under Secretaries of Defense. Here is a direct quote from Secretary Mabus: There are other places to look rather than taking tools from the warfighter. To the extent you can, protect the stuff that actually gets to the warfighter. I think my amendment would ensure that the Secretary of Defense has to take that quote to heart.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I want to talk today about one of the things we need to do before we leave here--the extension of the highway bill. And nobody is satisfied with a short-term extension of the highway bill. I would be among the group who would be least satisfied with that. But as we look at what has happened so far this year, we moved in a positive way in a number of areas. We don't have time while we are here to do what we need to do to have a truly long-term highway bill. The last two bills under the two previous Congresses--the two previous Senates--were very unhelpful and unsatisfying in many ways: a 6-month extension of the highway bill--you cannot build roads and bridges 6 months at a time. Not only can you not do the work 6 months at a time, you cannot get the kind of competitive bidding process and planning to do this work in the right way. Before that, we only had a 2-year bill. I will be very disappointed if we cannot beat both of those standards. The reason to do the 2-month bill today will be the important reason that, one, we have enough money left, because of winter conditions, that we can do 2 months of further construction with the money that is available, and that way we don't do anything to slow down construction here at the best building time of the year. We need to work really hard in the next 2 months--and we should be working right now, and I know we are working right now--to come up with that long-term solution that lets us look at the transportation needs of the country in a way that allows us to compete. So many great things are out there in the next few decades for our country, but they all involve a transportation system that works. I think the country is clearly ready to make things work again. I was so pleased in the last Congress that we were able to add the advanced manufacturing bill to the arsenal of things we had. Senator Brown and I worked together and passed that bill. Now we have the arsenal we need to be in the position of making things again. The right kind of energy policy can clearly get us to where we make things again. Certainly what is going to happen in agriculture, manufacturing, and health care technology--all great opportunities with great potential, but we have to have a transportation system that works. We are the best located country in the world to deal in the commerce of the world. We are the best located country in the world to connect with the marketplace of the world, but we have to have a transportation system that allows us to do that. I hope we are working hard, and I believe we are, to find what we need to do to fill that gap between what the current gas tax creates-- at the Federal level I don't think there is any likelihood of increasing that tax in the next few years. We need to look at what that tax creates and what funding source is out there that helps us fill the gap between the gas tax and reasonable aspirations for our transportation system. This is one of the areas the American people think the government address. There may be an argument about whether it should involve the Federal Government or the State government or how this works in terms of the government, but we know this is something we can't do for ourselves. Since the very earliest days of the Congress, what the Federal Government could and should do regarding interstate commerce and transportation--and the Constitution itself talks about building postal roads and it talks about interstate commerce. Hopefully, we will take this vote today or tomorrow or whenever we take this vote, to be sure that we continue the construction already underway, but don't stop for a minute in working on this process until we get a highway and bridge and construction bill for transportation that allows us to move forward and to move forward for a significant future of what we need to do. We are going to lose the advantages we have if we don't maintain and improve the transportation network we have. I look forward to seeing that happen and encourage my colleagues to vote for that 2-month extension, but don't give a moment's relaxation seeking the multiyear highway bill--the multiyear transportation bill--that the country really needs. Memorial Day and Choices for Veterans Also, Mr. President, I wish to talk about one other subject before we take this work period for Memorial Day. This is an important time to honor those who have served, those who have sacrificed, people who have given their all for the country or even those who have served and were able to live a full life after service. We honor them on Memorial Day as well. As I am thinking about Memorial Day this year, I am continuing to be frustrated with how we treat our veterans. The Veterans' Administration system is not what it should be, and it continues, it seems to me, that the Veterans' Administration wants to focus on what is good for the Veterans' Administration instead of what is good for veterans. I am tired of it. I think many people in the country are tired of it, and we need to do something about it. We got a report in our State this week about one of the St. Louis facilities--the John Cochran Hospital. This hospital has had seven acting directors in 2 years. It is a hospital with problems. It is a hospital that is not serving veterans the way it should, and it has had seven acting directors in 2 years. I cannot contact the same director twice before they are gone, and the new director is trying to figure out what the problems are. It seems to me, before they can figure out what the problems are, there is another new acting director. We just had an inspector general report on that hospital, and the inspector general report found 45 areas that needed improvement at a Veterans' Administration hospital. These are issues such as dirty patient care areas, expired medication, and inadequate staff training. We are not talking about having the most expensive or the best or the most up-to-date equipment; we are talking about getting the medicine off the shelf that is retired or having patient care areas that are clean. Certainly, like everywhere else at this facility, just simply getting patients scheduled to come has been a problem. The Director of the Veterans' Administration, Mr. McDonald, needs to change the VA, not manage the VA. He came to this job with well- heralded management experiences, but this is not just a management job; this is a change job, and he needs to make those changes. There is no excuse for a 2-year vacancy in a troubled facility. There is no excuse for not looking at every way they can to provide more choices for veterans. It is clear the Congress wants to have more choices. Senator Moran, from Kansas, has a bill I am proud to cosponsor that emphasizes one more time--just in case we were not clear enough last year that we want veterans to have choices--that we want veterans to have choices. There is no reason for veterans to drive by a facility that could do a better job than a veterans facility only to stand in line at a veterans facility. There are a few things the VA system should be better at than anybody else. They should be better at dealing with post-traumatic stress and they should be better at prosthetics, the replacement of arms and legs. This is something that--at least since before the Civil War--the Veterans' Administration has always been pretty good at because they had a lot of tragic reasons to be good in this particular area. There is no reason to believe the Veterans' Administration hospital is necessarily the best place to get your heart stent put in. There is no reason to believe the Veterans' Administration is necessarily the best place available for you to have your cancer treatment. There is no reason to believe the Veterans' Administration is the best place to go and have your kidney surgery. We ought to let veterans go to the best place. We ought to let veterans have more choices, particularly young veterans. Last year, I sponsored a bill called the Excellence in Mental Health Act. By the way, we are launching that program right now and looking for the first eight States that are properly qualified facilities and want to treat mental health just as they do all physical health. The Excellence in Mental Health Act brought forth the mental health community and the law enforcement community. Veterans group after veterans group--particularly young veterans--said they want to have more choices. They want to be able to go to places where they can take care of their health care problem in a way that works with their family and in a way that works with their work. These are important choices and Congress has spoken but apparently not quite loud enough. The Veterans' Administration wants to say, if a veteran is within 45 miles of any facility, whether it provides the service they need or not--the most technical reading of the law would suggest it really doesn't matter if they need a heart transplant. If they are within 45 miles of a facility where they can get their blood pressure checked, then they don't qualify for the program that gives them more choices. That is a ridiculous interpretation of the law. We will do our best to try to make the law clearer, but I think the Veterans' Administration could make it clearer if they wanted to. They are afraid to compete, and we should wonder why they are afraid to compete. We looked at the problems at the Cochran Hospital and other facilities. We should understand why they are afraid to compete. This is not the way veterans should be treated. This is not the way we should be honoring our veterans. It is not the way we should be going home on Memorial Day, and I hope we commit ourselves to do a better job on this topic and, more importantly, to force the Veterans' Administration to do the job it is supposed to do. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I wish to honor Diane Juergensmeyer of St. Elizabeth, MO, for her dedication and service to St. Elizabeth High School, her community, and the entire State of Missouri. From 1980 through 2010, Juergensmeyer coached St. Elizabeth High School's women's softball team to 489 victories, including 358 fall championship wins, while also teaching reading skills, English, speech, and drama in the classroom. Overall, the St. Elizabeth Lady Hornets won eight conference titles under her leadership, not to mention three Class 1 State championship titles in 1992, 1994, and 2002, and another as an assistant in 2011. As the daughter of Leonard and Marie Schanzmeyer, Juergensmeyer grew up in a large family on a farm where a fundamental respect for hard work and competition were instilled in her at a young age. She played on St. Elizabeth's first softball team and has remained a key contributor to the growth of the sport's popularity as it is seen in Missouri today. After graduating from St. Elizabeth High School in 1976, she attended Central Missouri University. Shortly after graduating from Central Missouri University, she returned to her local high school to coach, teach, and even drive the bus. Her dedication to her community has remained constant and has remained a force in her efforts to make the St. Elizabeth Lady Hornets the respected softball program that it is today. In addition to her coaching and teaching careers, Juergensmeyer served on the Missouri Softball Advisory Committee for 8 years and the National Federation Softball rules committee for 4 years. She was also named the 115th District's Outstanding Missourian in 2004. Diane Juergensmeyer has played a major role in the success of the Lady Hornets and the St. Elizabeth community, and her legacy will continue to impact future generations through the foundations she helped put in place, so her induction into the Missouri Sports Hall of Fame comes as no surprise. I congratulate Coach Juergensmeyer on her many successes and wish her the best in her future endeavors.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, on May 14, 2015, the Joint Committee of Congress on the Library organized, elected a chairman, a vice chairman, and adopted committee rules for the 114th Congress. Members of the Joint Committee on the Library elected Senator Roy Blunt as chairman and Congressman Gregg Harper as vice chairman. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the committee rules be printed in the Record.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, on May 14, 2015, the Joint Committee on Printing organized, elected a chairman, a vice chairman, and adopted committee rules for the 114th Congress. Members of the Joint Committee on Printing elected Senator Roy Blunt as vice chairman and Congressman Gregg Harper as chairman. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the committee rules be printed in the Record.

Mr. BLUNT

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

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 15 minutes.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, on another topic, I would just like to say that I hope we can move forward with the ability to have trade agreements. I was disappointed yesterday that we were not able to move forward and not vote on a trade agreement but to vote on the framework that at some point in the future would allow us to negotiate a trade agreement. You cannot get the final negotiation on a trade agreement unless the people with whom you are negotiating know that the trade agreement is going to be voted on--yes or no--by the Congress. It cannot be an agreement that the Congress can go back and look at and say: Well, we do not really like that provision. We do not like this provision. Let's send it back, but let's not do what they said they were willing to do as part of this negotiation. Trade is good for us. Trade is in almost all cases about tearing down barriers to our products, because we have very few barriers to those that we trade with. So trade is almost always an opportunity to sell more American products in other countries, particularly as it relates to the most likely first agreement we would get if we would get trade promotion authority. That agreement, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, will make a huge difference in the way that part of the world develops, if they develop based on a trade relationship where the rule of law matters, a trade relationship where everyone is treated in a way where you are looking for a way to come back and have more ability to work together in the future, where you are working on trade relationships where not every ounce of profit has to be made on any one deal, because you are always thinking about what happens next. We have great opportunities there and they do too. That part of the world will be dramatically different 10 years from now and even more different 20 years from now, if our system becomes a system that becomes the basis for how they move into their economic future and create economic opportunity for them and for us--as opposed to the other alternatives, which are much more colonial in nature, much more cynical in nature, much more likely to be one big trading partner, and there is one little trading partner in every deal. That is not the way this works. That is not the way it should work, but we can't get to that final opportunity for American workers unless we have an agreement where we understand what happens to that agreement once it has been negotiated. The best thing, the best offer does not come until the people on the other side of the negotiating table know they are doing this under trade promotion authority, an authority that every President since Franklin Roosevelt has had, and every President since Franklin Roosevelt asked for, until this President, who didn't ask for it until his second term and then clearly didn't do anything to push for it until after the congressional elections last year. But this is a 6-year ability to create more opportunities for American workers and jobs that provide good take-home pay for American workers. I hope the unfortunate decision not to move forward and get this done is a decision the Senate quickly has a chance to rethink, revote on, and move forward. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, all across the country right now people are honoring the men and women who serve in law enforcement as we honor National Police Week. I was the cochair of the Senate Law Enforcement Caucus. Senator Coons and I founded that caucus when we came to the Senate a little over 4 years ago. I am proud to be able to speak on behalf of those who serve and their families. I just had a meeting with the Federal Law Enforcement Association to talk about the challenge of these jobs and the challenge to families and the importance of understanding the moment you are in. One of the observations I made to them--going back to some legislation I worked on a few years ago to allow police officers to carry their weapons when they went from State to State--is that you may not remember everybody that you arrested, but everybody you arrested remembers you. The vulnerability of police and their families is sometimes equal to and sometimes exceeds the vulnerability of those of us whom the police, every day, step up to protect. This is a week when we really take a moment to recognize that. We take a moment to recognize those who serve. I want to pay tribute today particularly to two Missouri officers who were killed in the line of duty last year: Deputy Sheriff Matthew Chism of the Cedar County Sheriff's Office and Officer Eddie Johnson of the Alton Police Department. Deputy Sheriff Chism, of Stockton, MO, was tragically killed in November of last year. He was 25 years old. Deputy Sheriff Chism was shot and killed while conducting a traffic stop. He had served with the Cedar County Sheriff's Office for just under 2 years. Deputy Sheriff Chism is survived by his wife and his young son. Clearly, that family has paid a tremendous price for the willingness of their husband and father to step up and defend us. Officer Eddie Johnson, Jr., of Alton, MO, was involved in a fatal vehicle crash while responding to a structure fire on October 20 of last year. In addition to being an officer with the Alton Police Department, Officer Johnson also served as the fire chief of the volunteer fire department and as a reserve deputy for the Oregon County Sheriff's Department. He was 45 years old. He is survived by his wife and their three children. So difficult things happen to those who serve. We saw two of our officers, the St. Louis County police officers at Ferguson, MO, who were shot recently as someone was shooting into a crowd there expressing concern about police activity. But the very people trying to be sure that the crowd was able to express that concern were then the victims of violence that has not yet been really figured out--why the person who fired those shots was shooting at a crowd, whether he was shooting specifically at police in that crowd or just shooting into the crowd or what that person was doing. The desire of people who serve and put on that uniform every day is to serve and protect. That is their No. 1 goal, I am confident, in virtually every case in taking that job. The No. 1 hope of their family is that those people come home safely at the end of their shift. You know, life is uncertain in many ways, but more uncertain when you actually decide you are going to pursue a service to others that puts you intentionally in harm's way--people who are not only prepared to serve but willing to serve, prepared to stand in the way of danger to others but willing to stand in the way of danger to others. It is a determination of what to do that other people don't make and don't bear the responsibility the same way. So it is important for us right now to think about those who serve. I was glad to join Senator Cardin as a cosponsor, with others, of the National Blue Alert Act--the Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu National Blue Alert Act. This bill created a national alert system to apprehend violent criminals who have seriously injured or killed police officers. These two officers were killed while in their squad car. This alert system would be used to quickly get that information to other police agencies and to the public, as they are trying to find someone who would think about doing that sort of thing. We passed that bill on April 30. The House of Representatives passed it yesterday. It is now on the way to the President's desk. It is a good thing for us to step up and be willing to do. This is a job where you go to work every day not knowing what is likely to happen that day. We saw events in my home State, in Ferguson, MO, last August that brought attention to the danger that police face. I heard even the President talking about Baltimore just a few days ago. He made the comment that we have difficulty in communities and difficulty in people's lives--people who are not prepared for opportunities and they do not get opportunities. The President said something like this: And then we send the police into those environments, and we act surprised when bad things happen, when unfortunate things happen, when violence occurs, when police are in the middle of a situation that suddenly does not work out the way any of us would want it to. Police are dealing with major problems. I cosponsored with Senator Stabenow last year the Excellence in Mental Health Act, trying to be sure that we are dealing with people's behavioral health problems like we deal with all other physical health problems. One out of four adult Americans has a behavioral health problem that is diagnosable-- according to the NIH, almost always treatable--and then one out of nine has a behavioral health problem that severely impacts how they function as an individual, according to the National Institutes of Health. We have no greater support of that effort to try to begin to try to treat behavioral health like all other health than the police organizations around the country that stepped forward and have said: This is a problem that we deal with all the time, and there are better ways to deal with it than expecting police officers to deal with someone whose behavioral health problem leads them to violence or into another situation. By the way, people with behavioral health problems are more often the victims of violence than they are the perpetrators of violence. So often this is part of what we ask police to respond to. We expect police to be psychiatrists and psychologists and first responders and experts at protecting others. Then, we can easily begin to want to question what equipment they used, what uniform they were told they needed to have on for the exercise that they were about to participate in, the public safety moment they were about to be part of. These are hard jobs. They are difficult jobs that often come into the moment of difficulty in other people's lives--people who for whatever reason do something that they would normally not do, react in a way that they might normally not react or react out of incredible frustration because of the situation they found themselves in. But we expect the police to step forward and immediately be able to respond to that situation in a way that protects others. Does every police officer do the right thing every time? Probably not. Does almost every police officer do their very best to do the right thing ever time? Absolutely, they do. It is the exceptions that get attention, as they should. But for those of us who every day benefit and benefit in this building from the work they do--I remember on 9/11. One of my memories of 9/11 is that I am one of the last people to leave the Capitol Building and the police officer who is there telling me to get out as quickly as I could. As she says that to me, I realize, as I am leaving the door to try to get to a safer place, she--the police officer who says that I need to get out of here right now--is still standing at the place where she told me: You need to get out of here right now. Whoever else might have been left in the building, she was trying to be sure that they got out of the building, too. That is what we expect the police to do. That is what their families know every day when they go to work, that they may be called on to do extraordinary things. For those who serve, we are grateful. This is an important week to be grateful to police officers whom we see and police who are helping us whom we do not see. So I am pleased to be here to thank them for their service.