Roy Blunt

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that K.C. Courtland, who has been a military fellow in our office, be granted the privileges of the floor for today's session of the Senate.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, Philadelphia, PA; Boston, MA; Washington, DC; San Diego, CA; Austin and Irving, TX; and Springfield, MO, are the seven cities represented by teams in the World Team Tennis, WTT, league. For the second year in a row, the Washington Kastles and the Springfield Lasers met in the Mylan WTT finals. With similar results as 2013, the Kastles prevailed at the Springfield home court, Mediacom Stadium in the Cooper Tennis Complex. The Springfield Lasers were the WTT Western Conference champions in 1999, 2001, and 2009. This year's Springfield squad, led by head coach John-Laffnie de Jager, made the finals with a changing roster of 12 different players rotating in and out of 4 spots on the team. The Springfield Lasers are a remarkable story. The franchise was purchased and donated to the Springfield-Greene County Park Board in 1996 by the Cooper family, who also donated funds for the municipal tennis complex. The complex includes 12 indoor tennis courts and 16 outdoor courts, including the center court stadium used for WTT events. Now preparing for their 20th season, the Lasers are one of the oldest teams in the WTT league, and Springfield, by far, is the smallest market in the 40-year-old tennis league. However, the Lasers play in front of big crowds--an average of more than 1,400 turned out for the first six home matches this season. The James Blake-Andy Roddick match drew more than 2,400 spectators. Harry and John Cooper and family continue to support the team as their biggest fans. The new Lasers' general manager, Paul Nahon, Jr., has worked on building a fan base with a growing demand for season tickets. Nahon has hinted at more innovations to grow that base for the upcoming 2015 season. The Springfield Lasers continue to make the State of Missouri proud with their success, and I wish them many more years of great tennis, growing and building the fan base for tennis in my hometown.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, I wish to honor Mrs. Jackie McKinsey of Springfield, MO, for her dedication and service to the Ozarks Technical Community College, locally known as OTC. Twenty-four years ago, McKinsey became a founding member of the board of trustees as the school began operations. McKinsey has been a guiding force in OTC's evolution into the dynamic school it is today, providing a wide range of technical, highly sophisticated curricula for post-secondary education for more than 14,000 students. Since 1990, OTC has transitioned into a modern campus with a series of new facilities in Springfield and the construction of a second campus with three additional education centers. McKinsey led the search committee that resulted in the hiring of the current school president, Dr. Hal Higdon, in 2006. She has served in every office on the board of trustees, including chairperson, and has been a tireless advocate for community colleges in Missouri. In fact, Jackie McKinsey has dedicated her life to activism in education. For 12 years she was a member of the Springfield School Board and spent 2 years on the Missouri School Board Association. She also served on the Missouri Special Education Advisory Board for 20 years. In 1996, she was appointed by the Governor to the Missouri Women's Council. Mrs. McKinsey is an experienced mediator and has served as a trained hearing officer in cases between parents of special education students and schools districts. Jackie McKinsey announced her retirement last summer, and the board of trustees honored her with the title of trustee emeritus. McKinsey is the fifth individual to receive this honor, joining other founding trustees Dolores Brooks, Don Clinkenbeard, Frank Farmer, and Don Wessel. This team of Springfieldians gave OTC the steady direction to be a successful open admission, 2-year college dedicated to technical education. Offering students the opportunity to earn a 1-year certificate, a 2-year associate of applied science degree, A.A.S., or an associate of arts degree, A.A., OTC is now widely praised for its professional faculty and diverse curriculum. I wish Jackie McKinsey all the best in this next chapter. Jackie McKinsey has played a major role in that success, and her legacy will continue to impact future generations through the foundations she help put in place at OTC. I wish her the best in her well-deserved retirement.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, today marks 13 years since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. At that moment, I do not think Americans would have been surprised that we would still be dealing with that 13 years later. But in the 13 years that have passed, there have been moments when we wanted to hope this had passed from us, that somehow it was no longer a danger. But it is a danger today as it was a danger then. We clearly should not forget those who lost their lives on 9/11. We continue and should continue to be grateful to our men and women in uniform. I appreciate the service the Presiding Officer provided to the country wearing that uniform. Intelligence professionals out there are doing what they are supposed to do. The first responder community is working diligently to be ready to respond in ways that keep us safe. I remember well, as others do, one of the things we learned on 9/11 was that those first responders were not properly linked in a way that allowed them to communicate with each other as they generally now are able to. The response they had was probably adequate in Washington and New York, might not have been adequate in terms of capability in some other place. But even in Washington and New York, we found the firemen could not talk to the policemen and the policemen could not talk to other first responders. We have done a lot to try to close that gap in a way that further protects those who protect us. As the President acknowledged in his speech to the country last night, there is no doubt that our Nation and freedom-seeking people everywhere still face a real threat from terrorist groups and from enemies who wish to do us harm, who cannot tolerate our ability to live together in a society where everybody does not have to be the same way, and everybody does not have to believe the same thing. We are reminded on this date that just 2 years ago four Americans were killed during a terrorist attack on the American consulate in Benghazi. There is a new book out, ``13 Hours,'' that provides some additional firsthand accounts of what happened there. It has also been surprising to me that we had that information available to us from the people who were there, and whether it was at the end of the first week or the end of the first year, we still had not heard much of that. We are beginning to hear that in a way that once again clarifies that that was a planned attack in the ongoing efforts to destabilize the world and move it toward some extremist view of the way people need to conduct themselves. We have seen what has happened with ISIS, sometimes referred to as ISIL. Whatever they are referred to as, they have managed to get themselves in a more powerful position than any terrorist group ever, a true terrorist army with natural resources that produces income, with looting of banks and financial institutions that produce income, and maybe the most terrifying, with the people from our country fighting alongside them. They have American passports and can return here. People in probably much higher numbers from European countries are fighting alongside these extremists and have access in ways they never had because they would be the homegrown terrorists--the terrorists who would have access to us in different ways that we have always been most concerned about. These terrorists are clearly not a manageable problem. The President must show it, and he gave real commitment last night to the understanding that this is a group that cannot be allowed to continue to exist. This is a group that we have to destroy--their capacity, their ability to attack us and to impact our way of life. I am hopeful that the President's resolve and his strategy will actually be sufficient in both cases to meet what was his stated commitment to destroy this extremist group. As a member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, the Armed Services Committee, and the Appropriations Committee, I am going to do everything I can to be sure those who serve us, our first responders who protect America, have the resources they need. On this day we should remember--and on every day we should remember-- the innocent victims, the first responders, and the families who lost so much on 9/11. We also need to remember that it is the strength of our society that is what puts the biggest target on us. It is the ability of Americans to live together, the ability of Americans to respect other points of view, the ability of Americans to share those points of view with each other--understanding we could do that in a free society that puts that big target on the United States of America. We are not a target of these extremist groups because of what we have done to them. We are a target of these extremist groups because of what we stand for. May we continue to stand and stand strong. We should always remember the price to be paid by individuals and families if terrorism is able to achieve its objectives, which is to scare us away from standing for freedom and standing for the kind of society in which we live. That is one of the things that certainly 9/11 every year brings back into focus as perhaps no other date does. Health Care I, as I am sure the Presiding Officer and others did, spent most of August and the early days September at home. I continue to hear from Missourians about their concerns about the impact of the direction we are headed with health care. We are now at the 1-year anniversary at the end of this month of the launch of the exchanges last October 1. The unpopularity of where we are headed continues to grow. Just 35 percent of the people who were polled by the monthly poll of the Kaiser Foundation released on Tuesday were supportive of the Affordable Care Act. How could it possibly be that we are at year-end of this discussion and only have that level of support? Maybe it is not so surprising. Premium costs continue to go up. PricewaterhouseCoopers finds the average insurance premium for health care is going to rise by 8 percent this year. The President's goal was for families to be paying--in fact, his promised goal--$2,500 less. Instead of that, it seems they are paying $3,000 more. That is a very substantial missing of the mark; so no wonder they are concerned. Healthcare.gov was supposed to have undergone many repairs but we learned just last week that at some point--and it is my understanding they are not exactly sure how much or when--there was a major breach into that system to find out information that people had put there. People trying to verify their personal information so they could continue to have the coverage they have is a challenge. People are trying to submit all kinds of documents--citizenship, immigration documents--in order to be able to keep their health care. Apparently it would be a huge imposition to prove who you are to vote but not a huge imposition to have to prove who you are to have government-assisted health care. A new Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services report offers the latest proof that there are problems by saying the combined effects of the affordable health care coverage expansion, faster economic growth, and an aging population are expected to fuel health spending growth this year and thereafter to where we are going to see 6 percent per year, according to the administration, from 2015 to 2023. This is one of the things that happens when the government believes it can do things that people rightly--we need to find better ways for people to have more choices--do for themselves. Hopefully this discussion will continue in a way that solves these problems, creates more choices for people, more opportunities for them to have people to have the insurance they want, the coverage they want, and what they believe their family needs and can afford. I hope we can get back to having that debate on a clear problem for millions of families in America today as opposed to having the debate we are having this week, which is, again, to do things that our friends in the majority know can't possibly happen. We are here without a budget, without a single appropriations bill being passed, and without dealing with the problems the country knows we should deal with. We are again going to spend the last 2 weeks we are here before the election voting day after day on things that can't happen. The one thing we will have to do is one more stopgap effort to keep the government funded after October 1, since we haven't done any of the other work to set our priorities and say what our government should be doing and what we can afford to do beginning October 1 of this year. It is a sad commentary on a Senate that is not working. I hope we all come back after the elections with a greater resolve to get back to the basics of how the Senate, the Congress, and the country are supposed to work. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, when I was home last month, I heard a lot from Missourians, for really the first time over and over: What about all of the bills the House has passed that the Senate has not taken up? What about funding the government? My good friend from Michigan just mentioned the five things she would like to get done before we get to the end of the year. I think everybody on the other side of the aisle knows those five things, for various reasons, will not happen this year. But what are we not doing? We are less than a month away from the beginning of a new spending year. We have not voted on a single one of the appropriations bills. There is no budget. The fundamental work of the government is not going on while we continue to debate the same things over and over because there are some people who think there is a good title to the bill or a good headline: The five things we want to get done. Equal pay. Who is not for equal pay? The law requires equal pay. In fact, when the President signed the Lilly Ledbetter Act, he said: This solves the problem. Well, suddenly, it does not solve the problem because we want to get that title back out there again where we can talk about the title. Access to college. I am the first person in my family to ever graduate from college. I had the chance to be a university president. I believe people's lives are affected by the right kind of education after high school. Nobody is opposed to access to college. We ought to be talking about that. But we ought to be talking about that in a way that can produce the right kind of result. When the people of Missouri are saying: You are not getting the work of the country done, that is clearly right--just the fundamental things that need to get done, and here we are back in Washington, reminded by our friends on the other side that really we are here to just hold votes we have already had. Not a single thing was mentioned in the preceding remarks that we have not voted on already and not a single thing was mentioned in the preceding remarks that has any chance of passing both the House and the Senate and, frankly, has no chance of advancing in either the House or the Senate. But here we take these critical 2 weeks--the government is unfunded, no budget to talk about, with work not being done--to talk about these things. Right now, the joint resolution we are on--with all the critical challenges we have not solved, we are talking about changing the Constitution. The only person in the Senate who can decide what bill comes to the floor is the majority leader, and the majority leader has brought a joint resolution to the floor, an amendment to the Constitution, an amendment that would take 67 votes in the Senate to pass, an amendment that has 45 sponsors, all from the other side--not very close to 67. Nobody believes this is going to happen. To amend the Constitution, two-thirds of the Senate has to agree. That will not happen. Two-thirds of the House has to agree. That will not happen. Two-thirds of the States have to approve the amendment. That will not happen. More importantly, it should not happen. We are talking about amending the Constitution of the United States when there is no chance of doing it. So the only thing we are surely talking about is just trying to score some kind of last-minute election-year points. But if people are paying attention, the points that will be scored will be scored by those defending the Bill of Rights and those defending the Constitution. What is being proposed here would have a chilling effect on the First Amendment, which says ``Congress shall make no law . . . abridging [among other things] the freedom of speech.'' We are thinking, for the first time ever, we would amend the Bill of Rights? Now, nobody really thinks we are going to do that so apparently everybody thinks, as long as it is just a show vote, it does not matter. But if you can take these freedoms today and decide they are worth bandying around as a show vote, I suppose you could take them tomorrow and actually think about taking these freedoms away. The Constitution would not have become the Constitution of the United States without the promise of the Bill of Rights. The Founders got a lot of things right. They did not get everything right. But one of the things they got right was the Bill of Rights. One thing that the States demanded when the Constitution was shown to them was: We can do that, but we are not going to do that unless we are promised that these fundamental rights that make us who we are and have the potential to make us more than we are--that these fundamental rights are guaranteed. We have never amended the Bill of Rights. So suddenly 45 Members of the Senate--with no enthusiasm for this anywhere else that I can find in the country--45 Members of the Senate have decided that for the first time ever we would amend the Bill of Rights. Now, what does the Bill of Rights give us? It gives us freedom of religion--the first right. There will be another debate, I assume, late in the next 2 weeks to once again talk about how important is that right of conscience, that the Constitution in the Bill of Rights guarantees--the very first freedom it gives us is the freedom to believe what we believe. In fact, President Jefferson said in the decade after the Constitution was written that of all the rights, that is the one we should hold most dear: the freedom to hold our beliefs and not let the government decide how you conduct yourself in ways that violate your faith beliefs. But right after that comes--what we are talking about--freedom of speech, the second of all those freedoms. There may be people here not at all offended by the fact that we can just bandy that around with no chance we are going to change this amendment. It is not like there are 67 cosponsors of this amendment. I find it offensive we would talk about this as if it is a freedom so easily discussed and so easily utilized for political reasons that we just bring it up here a few weeks before the election and talk about it, even though there is no chance it could possibly be changed at this point and shouldn't be changed in the future. The right of conscience, the freedom of speech, the freedom of press, the right to peaceably assemble, the right to petition the government-- those are the five freedoms given in the First Amendment to the Constitution, and here we are talking about them as if they are nothing more than political talking points. They are who we are as a nation. The chilling effect this discussion has on the First Amendment is concerning. I suppose part of it is to convince people: You don't want to participate in the system because you are going to be criticized if you participate in the system. One of the great rights we have as Americans is the right to criticize those who are participating and, if we do participate, the right that others have to criticize us. This is an effort that if it occurred would certainly be a great thing for the current occupants of public office because you begin to write the rules in a way that makes it harder for those who don't hold public office to challenge those who do. No one likes being criticized, but in our country it is a fundamental part of who we are. The Constitution wouldn't have been agreed to without the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights, as I said before, hasn't been changed. The freedom of the press is one of those rights, but it is not the only one. This amendment would go a long way toward making the press the only way people get their information and news. The press--the media generally--has a guaranteed right to do what they do, but individuals have a guaranteed right to say what they want to say, to participate as the courts and the Constitution allow in this great debate we call America. To see that dealt with in this way--I actually wonder what people would think if they thought this was going to happen. Nobody believes this is going to happen because it is not going to happen. We are taking the people's time. We are taking the time given to us by the Constitution and the people to do the people's work, to instead talk about things that shouldn't happen, to talk about things that will not happen. To suggest there is a real debate going on in Washington, when this is exactly what people are tired of--people in Washington not doing their job and trying to convince the people whom Washington should be working for that somehow great debates are going on, when all we are doing is getting ready for the next election, I am tired of that. I think most citizens of our country are tired of it. For those who want to defend the Constitution, count me on their side. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, Kraft Foods has a long history in Springfield, MO, and is observing two anniversaries this year. Kraft started production of processed cheese in 1939 on the second floor of a building on West Mill Street. After 15 years, Kraft made the decision to expand and build a ``modern new plant'' on property on the outskirts of town off Bennett Street east of Glenstone. This plant is now home to more than 800 employees who enjoy good-paying jobs. The 780,000-square- foot plant turns out hundreds of millions of pounds of product annually, including Kraft American Singles, Kraft Macaroni & Cheese in boxes and microwaveable cups, and Kraft natural cheeses. The dozens of different products made at Kraft Foods-Springfield are distributed throughout the South, the Midwest, and the mountain States. The current Springfield plant was expanded again in 1976, adding 219,000 square feet of modernized production space for new lines of pasta products; shredded cheese joined the product mix, and a 100,000- square-foot warehouse was completed in 2000. Kraft-Springfield receives raw products by the train car load every day, and a fleet of trucks sends the finished products to the marketplace. In 2010, working with the city of Springfield, bonds were issued to allow Kraft to expand, which included an $18 million pasta press, drying equipment, and a natural cheese project. Another $20 million funded new technology for Kraft Singles, and a third project funded improvements to the EZ Mac cup line. Critical to the success of the Kraft-Springfield operation is the offsite warehouse in the Springfield Underground. Opened more than 50 years ago when below-surface storage was untested, offsite space today boasts reduced energy costs and performance sustainability. At 36 degrees Fahrenheit, the Kraft Foods space in the underground stores cheeses, Oscar Mayer meats, and Jell-O puddings. Kraft officials believe that the facility uses about 65 percent less electricity than a comparable surface warehouse. It is another part of the emphasis Kraft places on its environmental stewardship. The Kraft facility achieved the Ozarks GreenScore Green Level in 2013--the highest level of environmental achievement--and the Ozarks GreenScore Gold Level in 2011. Kraft employees and the company also give back to the community through product donations, employee time and fundraising to support the Ozarks Food Harvest, Boys & Girls Clubs of Springfield, United Way Day of Caring, and Park Board Dairy Days, among numerous other organizations. I remember touring the plant during our Congressional Agriculture Tour in 2000 and later at the Underground. It was a remarkable facility then and is even more advanced now. The commitment Kraft Foods has made to Springfield is reflected in the commitment Springfield has made to Kraft. On this 60th anniversary of the plant and Kraft's 75th year in Springfield, I hope this unique public-private partnership survives for many generations to come.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, I wish to pay tribute to Richard Struckhoff, the county clerk of Greene County, MO. He has been a quiet, tireless and efficient servant to the citizens of my home county for a record 27 years. He was appointed when Ronald Reagan was President and John Ashcroft was Governor. Then Governor Ashcroft wisely chose Struckhoff for the position he still holds today. Richard was on the staff of another member of this body, U.S. Senator John Danforth, serving in the Senate district office in Springfield, MO. I met Richard when I was the Greene County clerk and he was a news reporter for KWTO Radio in Springfield. Richard, with his trademark beard, was then as he is today--easy to work with, soft-spoken, insightful and a keen student of local politics. Struckhoff was part of a pack of journalists who visited my office every day looking for nuggets of public interest and features about elections and county news. He won awards for his public affairs broadcasts at KWTO. Later he went to work for Senator Danforth, and in 1987 when the Greene County clerk resigned, he was appointed. Richard says Danforth was a role model with his principled leadership, openness to many viewpoints, and a devotion to his religious faith, all of which had an impact on Struckhoff's decision to seek elective office. During his 27 years as clerk, he has seen a host of changes, but none more dramatic than the implementation of the Help America Vote Act after the 2000 presidential election. As the chief election official in Greene County, Struckhoff guided the effort to switch from more than 20 years of punch-card voting to computerized scanner machines and a statewide voter registration system. Struckhoff's small cadre of staff has overseen elections, voter registration and education, tax law, licenses, and county archives. He is seen as a role model by his colleagues, pursuing public service in place of partisan politics. Other community leaders have praised his hard work, collaboration, and good humor. That in itself is a remarkable record. Struckhoff has been married to Micki for more than 40 years, and they have three children and a host of grandchildren. Richard spends his free time between elections on the road, seeing grandkids, singing in the band, the ``Geezers,'' or playing music at church. In more recent months, Richard and Micki have begun traveling to shooting competitions in various locations, and they have both become good shots. Richard is also a man of faith--deeply involved at Immaculate Conception Catholic Church in the music program. He was born in St. Louis in 1952, came to Springfield in the late 1970s and graduated Missouri State University in 1988. We have been blessed by his leadership ever since. Family, faith, music and guns: is there any doubt why we like to be around Richard Struckhoff? He is a funny guy with a charming smile and a quick wit. He is a true public servant and my friend. I know he won't be looking for things to do in retirement. His plate is full with grandkids to mold, songs to sing and guns to shoot. We have Richard Struckhoff to thank for more than 27 years of fair elections in Greene County. I hope retirement brings many rewards to Richard and his family.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, early this week I joined with Senator Boxer to introduce the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2014. This is an updated version of bipartisan legislation we introduced in March of last year. It is designed to help the economic strength, the security cooperation between our two countries. As of right now, Senator Boxer and I and 79 of our colleagues, including the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Menendez, are cosponsors, so 81 Members have cosponsored this legislation at a very important time. I think it sends a message to the world and it sends a message to Israel that our partnership is strong. It sends the message that the Congress, starting with the Senate, is committed to that partnership. It says that not only do we want to have the kind of defensive understanding we have had so we have joint defense agreements, so we have the kind of equipment and supplies stationed in Israel that we need and use in a time of crisis or they could borrow from us in times of crisis, but also the economic partnerships in water, energy, in cybersecurity and other information. Certainly looking at what is happening in Gaza, looking at the unique relationship between our two countries, where at least two of the members of the Israeli Defense Forces who have been killed in the last few weeks have also been American citizens. Those two individuals, along with a number of others serving in the defense forces for Israel, backed up and supported by other Americans who go to Israel to support the defense of their country--this is a particularly important time to send this message. It is a message that there is broad agreement on in a bipartisan way, with virtually 81 Senators agreeing. I will turn to my friend with whom I have worked on this for 2 years now, Senator Boxer, to make a unanimous consent request so our bill can be done and this message sent to Israel and the world before we leave this week.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I join my colleagues here to talk about some of the stories we are hearing from the people we work for. I have been to the floor many times talking about the stories we are getting from families, from moms, from people trying to get that first job, from people who suddenly are no longer working the 40 hours they used to work because of the impact this has had on the 40-hour workweek. Let me mention, as I am here between Senator Boozman and Senator Johanns, just two recent contacts we have had. We have had one from Joanne in Fulton, MO. She said her premiums went up from $110 a month to $311 a month--an increase of $201 a month. She said: Our monthly premium has gone up to $311 a month. It is a large increase for us--it is nearly triple of what we paid before my husband's retirement. It really takes a bite out of our budget. She believes this would not have happened without what is happening in our health care system. I had a list of employees from one of our counties in Missouri the other day. Because it is a small county, they rate their employees. Each one of them pays a different premium, even though the county helps some with that premium. Everybody who is over 50 had their premium--that is going to be the premium next year--at least doubled. If you were 19, 20, 21, your premium was about what it had been the year before. If you were 51 or 61, your premium was twice what it had been before. Then we got a letter from Jerrold of Kansas City, who said he has seen significant increases in his out-of-pocket costs, both for what he pays in premiums and what he pays for prescriptions. Jerrold said that instead of retiring at 65, he has had to keep working to help pay for his medical and prescription costs. Jerrold says: I started paying $131.00 a month for health and $31 for prescriptions. As soon as ObamaCare was phased in my premiums went up to $149.00 for health coverage and my prescription plan went to $49. Like many other people, he expects his plan to go up even more next year. So these are real impacts on the lives of families, people who are paying more for the care they get and finding the choices they have as to where they get their care are less than they have ever been before. These stories keep coming. This is affecting the health care needs and the health care of individuals and families. We need to do something about it. I thank Senator Johanns for letting me tell those two stories before he took time to speak.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, I want to talk principally in the next few minutes about a bill that Senator Boxer and I have introduced this week on Israel and talk about what is going on in Israel, but on the work that is the bill before us right now, I am always hesitant to disagree with the chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee, my chairwoman, my good friend, Senator Mikulski. I just think we are headed in the wrong direction here. Providing money, and not trying to solve this problem, not sending the right message, I think is a mistake. People are leaving these dangerous countries--if they are dangerous to be in, they are also dangerous to travel through, they are dangerous to leave. One of the concerns I have had during this whole debate is how many kids leave their home country and never get to the American border? What happens to those kids? We have heard stories in briefings that were not classified about kids who never get here because they get sold into some sort of terrible situation, even kids whose organs are harvested and sold that way. This cannot be something we need to continue to encourage. In fact, if you do qualify for asylum in the United States, there is a way to do that. That is why we have embassies. That is why we have consulates. Surely, it is safer for someone in Guatemala City to go to the American Embassy in Guatemala City than it is to leave Guatemala City and try to come through their country, through other countries, through Mexico to get here, under the control of people who have tried to make the most of the President's announcement that if you get here, you can stay here. This is not the Red Cross bringing kids here. This is not some altruistic group bringing kids here. These are people who are taking advantage of misinformation in their country about what happens if you get here. And some of these kids do not get here. Doing this in this way--money without policy; acting like somehow it does not cost anything if it is an emergency, and so we can continue to do everything the chairwoman mentioned that needs to be done in the United States, but we can also do this because it is a supplemental, it is an emergency, and it is more money we borrow from somebody else--life is full of choices, and for our government we have choices. There are things that need to be done right now to send a message: Do not leave your home country. The door is not wide open, no matter what the President's announcement in 2011 led people to believe. The law needs to be changed so that immigrants from all countries coming to our borders are treated just like immigrants from Mexico and Canada coming to our borders. They have an immediate hearing within 7 days or so. Almost all of them are told: You have to go back. Once that happens, almost all of them stop coming. It would be a mistake to do this in this way, and I believe this bill never winds up on the President's desk. The House of Representatives does not share this view, even if a majority of the Senate does. We need to send a message to Guatemala, to El Salvador, to every other country that the door is not open. Just getting here is not enough. This is not a safe ``Disneyland-type'' ride to the United States of America. This is a very, very dangerous thing for you to try to do, and you should not try to do it. When you get here, it is not going to be successful. Again, let me say, if you have a case that you should have asylum in this country, there is a way you do that which is much safer than showing up at the border. We should not encourage the danger that these kids go through. I think the case is very dramatic on the side that cares for the lives of these kids. We should send the message strongly and now: Do not come the way you are coming now. The kids who get to the border--we are concerned about what happens to them as a country because of who we are. We should be equally concerned about the kids who never get to the border because of this false message we have sent. U.S.-Israel Strategic Partnership Act But, Madam President, let me spend a few minutes talking about a bill that Senator Boxer and I introduced this week, the U.S.-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2014. This is an updated version of legislation we first introduced in March 2013. This bill that was introduced this week is already backed by more than three-quarters of the Senate. I am hoping we figure out how to get this done and get this done this week. There has never been a more important time to send a message to the world and to Israel about this relationship, about what it means to us, about how committed we are to it. This legislation reaffirms our unwavering commitment to Israel's security and the strong relationship that goes back to the founding of Israel. It supports deepened U.S.-Israel cooperation on defense, including continued U.S. assistance for the Iron Dome. By the way, the Iron Dome assistance in the Defense appropriations bill that the Appropriations Committee approved, that is the way to fund the Iron Dome. Do the work for the fiscal year that begins October 1. We are 2 months and a couple days from the time this fiscal year is over. We should be having bills on the floor that talk about the Iron Dome, but it should be the Defense bill. It should not be some bill that we are talking about because we are unwilling to go through the regular process. But we do in this bill talk about the Iron Dome. We reiterate our support to negotiating a settlement, a political settlement that the Government of Israel is for where you would have two states, but both of those states have to recognize each other. You cannot have two states where Hamas and others that are significant parts apparently now of the coalition on the other side deny that Israel has a right to exist. But we do support the Israeli concept that we want to have two states peacefully coexisting. That is reiterated here. But it is also clearly understood that you cannot have one of those states say the other one does not have a right to exist. We have a longstanding relationship here. Really it dates back to the very moment that Israel was founded. My fellow Missourian, President Truman, in great leadership, decided we would immediately recognize Israel, and that moment, that decision, that commitment from the United States continues today through security, through energy, through trade. We would like to make that clear and make that clear this week. What does the U.S.-Israel Strategic Partnership Act do? First of all, it authorizes an increase of $200 million in the value of U.S. weapons held in Israel, to a total of $1.8 billion. What does that mean? Does that mean we are spending $200 million more? No. It means we are putting more of our equipment in Israel, with the clear understanding that it is there for us to use in the time of a crisis. It is also there for Israel to have access to when they need it. And when they use it, they pay us back and replenish that stockpile that we have strategically placed in Israel for our future use and for an immediate challenge to Israel where they may need to look at that stockpile of our weapons there. It requires the administration to take steps to include Israel in the top-tier category for license-free exports. The top-tier category of looking at the technologies we share with any other country we would suggest you should also be able to share with Israel. If they are uniquely held in our country, technologies that we do not want to share with anybody, they are not considered in that category. It authorizes the President to carry out cooperation between the United States and Israel on a range of policy issues. They include defense; water, things like the water salinization efforts that Israel is, frankly, ahead of us in and we need to understand, as we look forward to water needs; homeland security, alternative fuel technologies, more cooperation in cyber security. All those things are authorized in this bill. There is new language that encourages the administration to work with Israel to help the country gain entry status in the Visa Waiver Program, which would make it easier for Israeli citizens to travel to the United States without first having to get a waiver, but it would also make it easier for people in our country to go there. It requires the administration to provide more frequent and more detailed assessments of the status of a qualitative military advantage that we have committed that Israel would always have. This bill that Senator Boxer and I have introduced just says we are going to check that even more often and in more detail to be absolutely sure in that troubled part of the world that Israel's adversaries look at Israel and can clearly understand that Israel has an advantage that makes up for the difference in its size. It strengthens the collaboration between the United States and Israel on energy development. It encourages increased cooperation in academic, business, and governmental sectors. This legislation amends previous legislation related to how people can travel between our two countries. We do have a unique situation. In the recent fighting in Israel, two American citizens, members of the Israeli Defense Forces with dual citizenship in this country and in Israel, were killed in that fighting. This is one of the unique relationships we have in the world where people actually leave our communities, go to another country they also care about, fight in the uniform of that country, because this country is our ally. We need to look for ways to continue to emphasize that. It authorizes but does not require the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to waive the nonimmigration refusal rate requirement for Israel, but only if Israel meets all of the other program requirements, and then it is still authorized but not required. This is a particularly important time to send this message. This is an important time to send this message of continued support between our two countries. Israel--we see, looking at the Gaza situation today, during recent months uncertainty in Egypt, support from terrorist groups all over the world, weaponry, missiles taken into Gaza, money that could have been spent on concrete that could have been used to build houses, schools, hospitals, and places for jobs, was used to build tunnels so that people could come into Israel and attack Israel. Certainly the Government of Israel and the citizens of Israel look at this moment and think: No time to quit now with this job partially done. Some of the messages that have been sent from our country have not been helpful and encouraging in regard to what has to happen in the middle of this conflict. But this kind of legislation sends a message, the message we should send. I hope we can get to it this week. I am pleased that three- quarters of our colleagues--I think that number is right at 80--have cosponsored this legislation. The legislation was just introduced this week. So if there is any question to our friends in Israel, and maybe more importantly others around the world, where the Senate, and hopefully by the end of the week the Congress, stands, this action sends that message. I cannot think of a more critical time to send that message. I hope we see this bill on the floor and send that message this week. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUNT

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

Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, I wish to speak for a few minutes and start by talking about these court cases yesterday that create more complications particularly for the President's health care plan. The idea that the law is specific, which is what the Washington, DC, Federal Court of Appeals said--the law specifically says, in the case they dealt with, that people can only get the taxpayer subsidy if they work through the State exchanges. There is no question that the law, in dealing with this issue, in clear language makes that case, and the judges agreed that was the case made. What happened was that not only did many States decide not to set up the exchanges because of the expense involved and the problems involved and the complications of the law, but even the States that did set up the exchanges couldn't get them to work. I don't know that any State spent more money than Oregon did--certainly they spent a lot of money-- and in the first 6 months did not sign up anybody--nobody. Not a single person was able to sign up through the exchange they set up. Massachusetts--a State which actually had experience with its own law and which I would have thought would have been the easiest possible exchange to set up--also admitted they failed. Massachusetts has to go through the Federal exchange. I think 36 States have either not set up the exchange or tried to and failed. So in 36 States the only option people have to get insurance in an exchange as an individual--many of their policies were previously canceled because of the law--is to go to the Federal exchange. Now, through a ruling in the DC court, they say you can go to the Federal exchange. We should understand this. I have been on record saying I think people should try their best to have insurance. If the insurance people need is what the Federal Government prescribes people should have--and that is insurance people can afford--obviously the exchange can be a place to get it, and it is a place to get insurance whether it is subsidized or not. But many people will find that those new higher rates at the exchange, without taxpayer assistance, just don't work for them. The law was poorly written. It was poorly structured. It was crammed down the throats of the minority in both the House and in the Senate and, in my view, the health care providers and people who want insurance in this country, in the way it was passed. There are many lessons to be learned from the Affordable Care Act, and one is never pass a piece of legislation this way because the Richmond court said yesterday that there are other places in the law-- even though they surely said it was clear where the law refers to subsidizing people to get insurance through the exchange, and they surely knew that was clear, they said there are other places in the law that indicate maybe that is not the way it was. Why is that? Why wasn't that debated on the floor of the Senate and on the floor of the House? It wasn't debated because one side decided they were going to do this exactly the way they wanted to do it and they were going to do it by themselves. There was that brief moment where there were 60 Democrats in the Senate. They passed the current law that I fully believe nobody expected would be the health care law. The way we used to pass laws in the Congress, through the entire constitutional history of the country, was that the Senate would pass a bill, the House would pass a bill, and then we would go to conference and figure out, No. 1, how the two bills came together and, No. 2, what didn't make as much sense--when we had time to step back and look at it--as it seemed to make in the heat of the floor debate. That didn't happen with this law. Why didn't it happen with this law? Because by the time the Senate passed the bill and it was time for the House to deal with it, there were suddenly 59 Senators on the Democratic side in the majority of the Senate. We remember the Scott Brown election in Massachusetts. Everybody was surprised except maybe Scott Brown, but he was elected, so there were no longer 60 votes in the Senate, which is what it takes to do whatever the majority wants to do. So apparently the message to the House of Representatives, controlled by the Democrats and Speaker Pelosi, was the only way we are going to pass a health care bill that goes anywhere near this floor is to pass the bill the Senate passed. There will be no conference. There will be no cleaning up this piece of legislation. There will be no discussion as to what we can do to actually make this work. We are going to pass this bill. Not a single Republican in the Senate voted for it, and not a single Republican in the House would vote for it. What is the unintended consequence of that? How do we go back and clean up the bill? People decided, if they participated in that process, that their momentary power was so important they were not going to involve anybody else's ideas in a way that would get a single vote from the other side. One of the great lessons to learn is if we are going to mess with everybody's health care and we are going to impact 16 or 18 percent of the entire economy, they better have buy-in from more than just one group of Americans who represent one political party or one point of view. So now we have this confusion that will go on until I assume the Supreme Court determines the difference in these two Federal courts of appeal decisions, but it will be months before that happens. We will see if taxpayers subsidize others getting their insurance. We will see what happens to people who got a subsidy if the subsidy turns out to be one that was inappropriately given. And we will see how we move forward. Then there is also this discussion going on--some of which we had on the floor last week--about religious freedom as it relates to that law. There is a so-called accommodation for religious groups who don't believe they should have to pay for certain things. The Little Sisters of the Poor--who, by the way, were listed on one advocacy group for the law as it was being applied--the Little Sisters of the Poor were listed as one of the 100 dirty employers in America because they worked with 100 church groups and others who tried to take this idea to court that people could be forced to do things that violate their faith principles. If we have come to a point that the Little Sisters of the Poor are one of the evil employers in America, we better think about how we got to this point. Actually, Justice Sotomayor gave, on her own--the Little Sisters of the Poor said: Not only do we not want to do that, we don't agree with the so-called accommodation that if we sign a paper saying we don't want to do this but our insurance company will--what did the Little Sisters of the Poor think was wrong with that? What could possibly be wrong with that? All they are asked to do is to sign a piece of paper that says they believe it is wrong but it is OK with them if somebody else pays for it. That is obviously not right. Justice Sotomayor, on her own, gave the relief the Little Sisters of the Poor asked for, but then only a few weeks later she is outraged when the rest of the Court gives the exact same relief to Wheaton College. Wheaton College--a Christian college near Chicago and the President's home State--has a long-term commitment to their faith principles, and they basically said: We are just like the Little Sisters of the Poor. We don't believe this is right, and we don't want to sign a piece of paper that says we think it is wrong but it is OK with us if somebody else pays for it. Then, in a story I just read today, there was the constant concern that the health care plan narrows one's ability to get health care because it restricts the network one can go to. In at least one State, half of the hospitals in the State don't participate in anything people could get access to through the Affordable Care Act as an individual or a family. So people have to drive by their old hospital, drive by their old doctor's office to get to a doctor or a hospital that may or may not see them. I think the hospital has to see you; I don't think the doctor does. But people have to drive by the old to get to the new. We just had this big discussion. I had the great opportunity to speak at the national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars on Monday, and obviously, as did everybody else there, I had on my mind what was happening with the Veterans' Administration. At the same time we are talking about how to give veterans more choices, we are talking about how to give everybody else fewer choices. This is a great quote: Networks help to contain costs. Well, of course they do. If a person can't get to see the doctor or it is inconvenient to go to the hospital, of course it contains costs. Then we have the bill on the floor this week about economic opportunity, economic advancement. One of the great attacks on economic opportunity has been the attack on the 40-hour workweek. What happened to the 40-hour workweek for many people working in this country? The Federal Government, for the first time ever, said employers have to provide insurance and this is what it has to look like. Whether you can afford it as an employer or not, whether your employees want to take it or not, you have to provide insurance. This is what it is supposed to look like for everybody who works 30 hours or more. Actions have consequences. No matter what the administration might think about EPA rules on water, EPA rules on the utility bill, HHS rules on health care, actions have consequences, and a lot of people who used to work 40 hours now may be working 50 hours, but they are doing it at two different jobs, neither of which has benefits. The 40- hour job that in more cases than not had benefits that both the employer and the employee thought were good--and 85 percent of everybody who got health insurance at work thought it was good, thought it met their needs--85 percent. Most people had insurance at work, but now many people go to work without insurance, while the only people at the place they go to work who get insurance are the managers and the longtime employees or the people who work more than 30 hours. The chances to advance if you are in a part-time job are a lot less than the chances to advance if you are in a full-time job. I suggest if we were really trying to get people to work here this week, instead of making political points, we would be talking about the 40-hour workweek, we would be talking about the advanced manufacturing bill the Senator from Ohio Mr. Brown and I have that others are very interested in--and it is bipartisan interest--we would be talking about the BRIDGE Act that allows more infrastructure building that Senator Warner and I have--another bipartisan piece of legislation--we would be talking about the Build America Act that helps State and local governments with infrastructure by allowing companies--the very companies, apparently, that are being talked about this week in a piece of legislation everybody knows cannot pass that has no bipartisan support--we would be talking about companies that would be allowed to bring profits they have made overseas--they pay taxes on it overseas--that they would be allowed to bring those profits here in a way that would encourage State and local governments to expand their infrastructure and maintain their infrastructure, making their sewer system, their water system, their road and bridge system all work better. The unintended consequences of not thinking through what is the constitutional responsibility of the House and the Senate are significant. We need to understand the impact of what we do and the impact of what we fail to do. Failing to have a health care system that meets people's needs, failing to have a 40-hour workweek where we figure out how to encourage rather than discourage--failing to get people into that first job is a failure that lasts for a long time. If you do not advance in your twenties at work as you should, when you get to be 30, somebody else in a better economy in their twenties is likely to pass you because the opportunity you had was disrupted by circumstances that the government could not control or in many cases today circumstances the government could control and actually works in a way that makes those circumstances worse, not better. I would like to see us do the kinds of things that get people to work, talk about the kind of legislation that is bipartisan, that could pass both Houses of Congress. There are plenty of them out there. I continue to hope we figure out how to get to it. I yield the floor. If nobody is prepared to speak, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, last month, as my friend from Massachusetts just mentioned, the Supreme Court ruled that the Obama administration's Health and Human Services mandate infringes on the First Amendment guarantee of religious freedom. This is a guarantee that Americans have enjoyed for the entire history of our country. It is the first freedom in the First Amendment to the Constitution. The first sentence has the words ``freedom of religion.'' In the very recent past, the Congress of the United States voted for a bill that protected freedom of religion unless there was some extraordinary reason not to have freedom of religion in our country. It is important to try to maintain some sense of good humor and be willing to work with people on other issues. As it is, people come to the floor and just say the same things over and over that are not true. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion on religious freedom. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion on the President's health care bill. Everybody is not entitled to their own facts. If we were dealing with the facts as they truly exist right now, this would be a much different debate. In fact, just a couple of days ago the Washington Post Fact Checker said that what the Senate Democrats are saying in their rhetoric is just wrong. He said: They are simply wrong. He said the court ruling does not outlaw contraceptives. The court ruling does not prevent women from seeking birth control. The court ruling does not take away a person's religious freedom. In fact, all the court ruling does is say that although many people are exempted from this law, we are going to find a way to have people's religious rights upheld. In America you should not be forced to choose between giving up your business for your faith or giving up your faith for your business. Under the Constitution and under the political heritage of this country and the foundation this country was built on, the government has no right to ask people to make that choice. There are plenty of protections in the Religious Restoration Freedom Act that passed just a few years ago that don't allow this to be taken to some unacceptable extreme. Religious freedom has historically been a bipartisan issue. In fact, the law the Court based their decision on was introduced in the House by then-Congressman Chuck Schumer--now Senator Schumer who sits right over there--and the late Senator Ted Kennedy. They were the people who proposed this legislation. President Clinton signed the bill into law. The Vice President of the United States, Joe Biden, voted for the bill. The minority leader of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, was a cosponsor of the bill, and this was just considered something that was easily done. It was unanimously passed in the House. It got three no votes--the vote was 97 to 3 in the Senate. This was in 1993, not 1893. This was a dozen years ago when the understanding was clear that there was a principle in our country that if you are going to violate that principle, you better have taken every step possible not to violate the principle of religious freedom. People on the other side would say it was only a handful of years ago when the bill passed and they didn't know that was what it meant. Of course they knew that was what it meant. One of the reasons they know that is what it meant is because they knew at the time that this principle was a principle the government would adhere to. In fact, the specific language in the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act that I introduced in the 112th Congress plus the specific language that Senator Kennedy put in the Health Insurance Consumer's Bill of Rights Act in 1997 exempted the protected religious faith. It says that based on the religious or moral convictions of the issuer, the issuer didn't have to do things they thought were wrong. In the 103rd Congress Senator Moynihan introduced the Clinton health care package--sometimes called Hillary care--which said that nothing in this title should be construed to prevent any employer from contributing to the purchase of a standard benefits package which excludes coverage for abortion or other services if the employer objects to such services on the basis of a religious belief or moral conviction. It can't get much clearer than that. According to Senator Schumer--when the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was introduced it said the government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability unless it demonstrates such a burden is, one, in the furtherance of a compelling governmental interest or, two, is the least restrictive means of furthering that governmental interest. This is not a law--the Affordable Care Act--that people are not exempted from. In fact, every woman and man in America who works for an employer that has fewer than 50 people employed is exempted from this act. There are entire religious faith groups exempted from this act if they don't believe in government health care. There are waivers the President has issued over and over that exempt people from this act-- many of whom were employees of fast-food restaurants and other places that had minimal packages. The President said we are going to exempt them for a while. People who work for employers with under 50 employees are exempted forever until the law changes. There are millions more people who work for employers with under 50 employees than work for employers that will have a sincere faith-based interest in not doing the wrong thing. The majority of people who worship in this country in a given week go to worship in a church where they say this practice is wrong. It doesn't mean it is illegal. It doesn't mean anybody who hears them or appreciates them can't do whatever they want to do. But it does mean you can easily go to church and be told this is the wrong thing to be a part of. The companies involved in the court case have a great tradition of following their faith. When you get a full-time job at Hobby Lobby, your starting wage is $14 an hour--almost twice the minimum wage. You have to work a couple of hours to have the extra $10 a month that some of these particular medicines, procedures, and birth control pills would cost. They are closed on Sunday. They close earlier at night than their competitors so people who work there can have a family life. In fact, the government conceded these were companies that were clear in their belief. Now, if you have millions of people who are not covered by the law, why can't you find a way to exempt people from providing a small portion of health coverage that they feel is the wrong thing to do? What did the government say? The government said: Well, you have a way out; you don't have to provide insurance at all. So if you are an employer of faith and you want to do everything you can to provide the best benefit--probably in excess of the government-required benefits in almost all areas you want to provide--your choice is to not provide insurance at all. In fact, the suggestion was made that they would save money by not providing insurance at all because it would cost $2,000 per employee not to provide insurance at all. That was the penalty in the law, and the government suggested that was probably a lot less than these companies were paying for insurance. They said: Why not just pay the penalty? You don't have to violate your faith. You can just violate your belief to take special responsibility for your employees. You can pay the $2,000 penalty and save money. While I'm on the $2,000 penalty, I will say that one of the egregious overreaches of what the government was trying to do here is to say if you don't provide insurance at all, your penalty is $2,000. If you don't provide the exact insurance the government says you have to provide--whether it is based on your faith or otherwise--your penalty is $36,500 per employee. You can provide better insurance in every other area than what the government says, you can provide insurance in areas that the government didn't even require you to provide insurance, you can do anything you want to do beyond what the government says to do, but if you don't do everything the government says, you have to pay $36,500 per employee per year. And that was in the regulation. That is the law that Members of the House and Senate voted for. I was not one of them. I was against this law. But the law said you have to pay $2,000 if you don't do anything at all. But the Obama administration said you have to pay $36,500 if you didn't do exactly what they said you have to do. It is the wrong application of religious freedom. The idea that people could not have access to any FDA-approved product is just wrong. Somehow if your employer can keep you from having access to anything you want to have access to that has been approved by the FDA is wrong as the millions of women and men who work for companies who aren't covered under the law prove every day. They prove it every day. If we listen to our friends on the other side, one would think we would be driven backward--we are talking about on behalf of religious freedom, being driven back into the dark ages of December 2013--when everybody who could buy a product in December of 2013 can buy that same FDA-approved product today. This is about religious freedom. It is not about money. In fact, this bill proposed in the last Congress--I had a provision in that bill that a few Democrats voted for--more Democrats voted for the bill than Republicans voted against it. There was bipartisan support for the bill. I offered an amendment that said if the Department of Health and Human Services wants to, they can promulgate a rule that requires an employer to add a benefit of equal value for any benefit the government requires that they don't want to offer. That is an easy way to say there is no economic motive at all. Maybe the government doesn't require mental health coverage, and if an employer can offer that mental health coverage of equal value to a benefit the employer's faith prohibits being a part of--the bill that most Democrats in the Senate voted against had that provision in there. This is not about our pocketbooks. This is not about what something costs. This is about whether the government has done everything possible to accommodate people's deeply held religious beliefs. The first freedom in the first sentence in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution mattered when it was put in there, it mattered when 16 or so of the current Members of the Senate voted for the Religious Freedom Act, it mattered when Ted Kennedy and Senator Moynihan put this exact same ability in the health care laws they proposed less than 20 years ago, and it matters today. I hope we move on to solving problems based on the real facts rather than continuing to talk about facts as my friends would like them to be rather than facts as they really are. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I wish to honor CW5 Daniel Sandbothe of the 1107th Missouri National Guard in Springfield, MO. As a soldier, he has dedicated 40 years to serving in the Missouri National Guard. Over those years, through his commitment and service, he has risen to a unique rank signifying his expertise in flying and maintaining the rotary aircraft of the U.S. Armed Forces. CW5 Daniel Sandbothe's career started in 1972 in the 1038th Maintenance Company. Throughout the next four decades, he mastered the ability to fly a variety of airframes commonly used by the U.S. Army, logging more than 5,000 military flight hours. He has earned the respected designations of instructor pilot, maintenance test flight evaluator, and rotary wing instrument flight examiner as he progressed. His profession has sent him to four overseas duty stations in Central America and Japan. He also participated in three combat tours, including Operation Desert Storm in 1991, Operation Iraqi Freedom with 1107th Aviation Classification and Repair Depot in 2005, and Operation Enduring Freedom with 1107th Theater Aviation Sustainment Maintenance Group in 2010. In addition, Daniel Sandbothe was selected to lead a team to assist the Lebanese Armed Forces in improving their aviation maintenance program. CW5 Daniel Sandbothe has also been appointed to the Missouri Army National Guard Senior Warrant Officer Advisory Council. His job will be to help pick the future non-commissioned leaders of the Missouri National Guard's air elements. This distinction represents his commitment to his profession as a United States serviceman. His legacy will be felt by future generations of the National Guard in Missouri, including those he has trained, led, and mentored over the last four decades. For his years of committed services, CW5 Daniel Sandbothe has earned his retirement. I wish him well in his next opportunity and thank him for his years of service to Missouri and the Nation.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I wish to speak for a few minutes about the EPA rules on water. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy is in Missouri today to discuss the EPA's proposed rule which would significantly expand the authority of the United States under the Clean Water Act. In a conference call with reporters yesterday, Administrator McCarthy called some of the questions about the rule ``silly'' and ``ludicrous'' and said that her trip to Missouri was part of a broader campaign to reassure the agricultural community and set the record straight. I hope she is spending at least as much time in my State listening as she is talking. If she does that she will find out that some of these concerns are very real but they have lots of impact and not just for the farm community across the country but for lots of people who are affected in lots of different ways by what happens if you expand the authority of the Federal Government as this rule would to deal with water almost everywhere and almost all water. Not only did she say that these questions were silly and ludicrous, but the Missouri farm bureau expressed the concern that ``virtually every acre of private property potentially falls under the Clean Water Act jurisdiction. . . . Things that you normally do on a farm would be called into question.'' According to the Springfield News-Leader, ``McCarthy says that's hog wash.'' If the way to actually deal with the people we work for is to say your ideas are silly, they are ludicrous, and your comments are hog wash, I think once again we are certainly seeing the Federal Government at its worst, not at its best. This is a big organization. It is a well-run organization. It has represented Missouri's agricultural interests for a long time. There are folks who stand and say virtually every acre of private property potentially falls under the Clean Water Act jurisdiction if this rule is finalized, and at least 40 members of this body believe that to be the case. That is what they said, and she said it was hog wash. According to the paper, she rattled off what she said were ``some of the most dubious claims made by the rule's critics.'' This is a rule which has critics because it is a rule that deserves to have critics. It draws concerns from farmers. In fact, just today I said: Before I come over, let's be sure I know that we haven't had an epiphany of understanding here and suddenly Administrator McCarthy said: I have listened and you are right. These are problems to which we need to find the answers. But what I found when I looked was that the farmers she met with today--there was no press in the meeting that included the farmers and there were no farmers in the meeting that included the press. So farm families were concerned that when you take the press out, away from everybody else, and you go out on this farm and talk about--I assume-- all the great benefits that more Federal control of that farmland would produce, but then when you have a meeting with the farmers, no press is in that meeting where anybody can hear the concerns that these farmers have. I think the Members of the Senate have been pretty clear as we cosponsored bills that would require the EPA to withdraw this rule and try again. It is clear that this is really a blatant overreach into the private lives and private property rights of the American people by the administration--and not just farmers but anybody who owns land anywhere. If I were just hearing from farmers, I would be concerned, but I am hearing from farmers, I am hearing from builders, I am hearing from realtors, I am hearing from local governments: What happens if the Federal Government has this most broad definition of waters of the United States? The proposed rule would give the EPA, the Corps of Engineers, the most extreme of environmental groups a powerful tool to delay almost anything to prevent development, to prevent land use on property owned by municipalities, property owned by individuals, property owned by farming families and by small businesses, because all that property includes water in some way or another. The law was clear when it was written that the EPA under the Clean Water Act would have authority ``over the navigable waters of the United States.'' This rule, in fact, makes the jurisdictional assertion that navigable waters now means ``any water that could go into navigable waters.'' Any water that could eventually flow into the Missouri River, the Mississippi River, the Ohio River, the Gulf of Mexico, the Atlantic Ocean, the Pacific Ocean and all water everywhere, eventually some of it heads to those places. So every drop of water everywhere is potentially under the jurisdiction of the EPA. Navigable waters means what it means. There was an editorial today in the Washington Post which actually supported the rule, but I thought the most interesting sentence in that editorial today that supports the rule was right in almost the exact middle of the editorial. It said: ``It's true that the agency's plan would expand the scope of the Clean Water Act regulation.'' Now, the way it expands the scope of the Clean Water Act regulation is it expands the scope of the Clean Water Act. We actually have a procedure for that. It is the procedure that everybody who took a civics class learned when they took that civics class. The House passes a bill or the Senate passes a bill. The two come together. I know this doesn't happen as often as it needs to anymore, but that is not the way it has to happen. The two come together. They agree on a bill. It goes back to both Houses. They vote on that bill one final time. It goes to the President's desk and gets signed into law. That is how you expand the Clean Water Act. You don't expand the Clean Water Act by somebody saying: You know, we just really think that the Congress should have done something here that they didn't do, and so we are going to do it. Then your friends who actually support the goal are so lulled into the idea that the government won't work that they even forget the constitutional process and say: Well, there is no question; the truth is this expands the regulations under the Clean Water Act. If you ask anybody at the Washington Post or anybody else that uses words all the time to define navigable waters of the United States, nobody would say that is any water that flows into any water that might eventually flow into water that you can navigate. Nobody would say that. Nobody would say those are the navigable waters of the United States. But that is the authority that the EPA has. Now we are talking about the authority the EPA would like to take. That is why I and a number of my colleagues--I think 29 of us--joined Senator Barrasso in a bill that would say you can't do this. We are going to protect the water and property rights and stop the EPA from going beyond the wall. Senator Barrasso is also going to file that as an amendment that I intend to support on the bill before us now, the sportsmen's act. That has lots of water implications, many of which I have supported--the wetlands act. There are many things in there that I can be supportive of, but I am not supportive without any congressional authority of the EPA's deciding they are just going to take property rights from people who have those rights. I am particularly not supportive of that when the law was designed to define what the EPA could do. If anybody wants to go out and do any kind of survey of the American people--let alone the legislators who voted for the Clean Water Act-- and ask what ``navigable waters'' is, nobody thinks that is every drop of water that eventually flows to a source that could at some point in the distant distance be navigable. We know what the law says. We know the authority the EPA has been given. I think we can have a legitimate debate about whether that authority has been properly used or not. But there is no legitimate debate about whether the EPA is trying to go way beyond what the Congress has authorized. This idea the administration has that the pen and the phone will replace the Constitution of the United States is not worthy of this country. It not worthy of what we do. It is a disastrous course to set, to believe: OK, Congress, you deal with immigration for the next 60 days or I will just do it on my own. Congress, you change the Clean Water Act or we will just change the Clean Water Act with regulation. Congress, you change the Clean Air Act or we will change the Clean Air Act. There is a reason for the constitutional process, and I hope Missourians in the next 24 hours are given the chance to remind Administrator McCarthy of what that reason is. And there are reasons that the Congress is looking for ways to remind the President of what that is. That is why I am supporting the Enforcement Law Act that has already passed the House of Representatives. What the Enforcement Law Act would do is give individual Members of Congress standing if a majority of either House of the Congress believes the President wasn't enforcing the law as written to go to a court and ask the court to decide if the President is enforcing the law as written. In my view there is no way in the world that you could look at this proposed rule by the EPA and believe that the EPA and this administration is in any way complying with what is the clear intent of the law. If they don't like the law, there is a way to come to the Congress and ask it to change the law. That is their job. It is not their job to do the job of the Congress. That job the Constitution left to somebody besides the Executive, whose job it is to execute the law-- not to improve on the law, not to write the law, not to make the law. And we see all those things being attempted by people who believe they know what is better for the United States of America than the people of the United States believe is good for the United States of America. I would yield the floor.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. I thank my friends who have been here talking about this. Both Senator Thune and Senator Barrasso spent so much time on figuring out ways this could work better and obviously it is not working as well as people hoped it would. There is a series of headlines I saw on my desk today. CNN Money said: ``Were ObamaCare applications accurate? Who knows?'' Reuters says, ``Obama care exchange is not properly verifying applicant data.'' The New York Post: ``Obamacare data errors could jeopardize coverage for millions.'' The Washington Times: ``ObamaCare markets foul up eligibility and verification parts in applications.'' The New York Times: ``Eligibility for health insurance was not properly checked audit finds.'' Wall Street Journal: ``Reports Fault Controls of Health Exchanges.'' This is simply not working. It wasn't as though there was a lot of time to make it work either. It was from early in 2010 until the law was implemented in the end of 2013, and there is one problem after another, which is a good indication of what happens when the government tries to do more than the government is capable of doing, when the government tries to prescribe all kinds of decisions that would be so much better left to individuals as long as the government has done what it could to ensure a more aggressive, active, competitive marketplace. But that is not what happened here. The Associated Press this weekend had a headline that read: ``Senate Democrats try to pull focus from ObamaCare.'' Of course they would, because every Democrat who is in the Senate when this bill passed voted for the bill. You know, if there is one long-term political lesson to learn here, surely it is that when you do something this big, you should do it in a way that no matter what you have to do you find a way to get people on both sides involved. Don't do this in a way that shoves it down the throats of the country or your colleagues. More bad news, more broken promises, higher premiums. The anticipation this fall is that premiums, notices of which are going to go out later this year, are going to go up. They are going to go up in double digits. The promise in 2009 was not only that families would pay less money but they would pay $2,500 less money. Somehow the people who were for this bill in the administration knew so much about health care and so much about the impact of what government having more control of people's health care would do, told us not only that the premiums were going to go down, but that they were going to go down $2,500 per family. Now most families are finding that there is a $2,500 number, but it is the number that you would feel lucky to have if your insurance for your family just went up that much. July 1, Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General released a report that was the subject of all those headlines I just read. The report said they didn't do enough to verify, haven't checked this closely enough, don't know if people are eligible for the government assistance they are getting for their insurance. It said the administration was unable to put safeguards in place to protect taxpayers and prevent incorrect subsidy payments from happening. The report also found the administration didn't even follow its own eligibility verification in many instances. They didn't go through the procedures they had set up for themselves. In fact, of the 2.9 million verification inconsistencies, they were unable to resolve 2.6 million of them. They wind up with 2.9 million problems when they find out their verification inconsistencies, and 2.6 million of the 2.9 million--hey, we cannot figure this out. We didn't get enough information. We don't know why the system is not working, but it is not. In January 2014, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Secretary Sebelius, certified to Congress that the ObamaCare exchanges could verify that individuals receiving tax credits and cost-sharing assistance were actually eligible to receive taxpayer-provided assistance. Now apparently by July of 2014, 6 months later, the people who check to see if that was true or not find out it is not true at all. Middle-class Americans have enough pain with this law already without finding out their tax dollars are going to pay bills of people who don't qualify to have that much of their bill paid or maybe not even any of their bill paid. Recently I spoke on the floor about a contract in Missouri and three other States with a British company, Serco, about the lack of transparency and accountability in the act. As the St. Louis Post-Dispatch recently reported: ``Whistleblower allegations last month claimed that workers slept, read or played games at Wentzville''--this is the Wentzville facility--``played games at Wentzville and provoked a flurry of questions from congressional delegation[s].'' Further quoting, ``We played Pictionary. We played 20 Questions. We played Trivial Pursuit,'' one employee told the Post-Dispatch. She estimated she processed six applications the entire month of December. CMS didn't acknowledge these allegations but they said they had ``adjusted Serco's work to accommodate changing operational needs.'' Two months ago Senator Alexander and I called these reports into question and we sent a letter to CMS and said: What are you doing there and why is this not working? I don't know if we said it in the letter but we could have said: Why did you contract with a British company that was already in trouble with the British Government for not providing these services? These are not particularly technical services. If there is only one country in the world that can provide services to the United States, we found the one place in the world where we found a company that was already in trouble with their own government for not providing services and said you're the company for us. We want you to be the ones that provide these services for people who cannot apply over the Internet and send in their applications in some other way. So to Senator Alexander I say: What about these charges that people simply don't have anything to do and rather than admit that they have nothing to do, you see library books stacked up on the table. Here is the Trivial Pursuit game. Touch your computer every once in a while. Refresh your computer once every 10 minutes so it looks as though you are doing something. Two weeks ago we finally received a reply after 2 months of having this question out there, and I think I put that reply in the Congressional Record. It was so much of a non-answer answer. It was more like: We got your letter. We are going to look into this and see if we can figure out what's happening. I don't think it would be that hard to figure out. I recently learned that CMS determined that Serco had met the terms and conditions of the contract which apparently involved, if you believe these employees, playing board games and reading library books, and CMS decided this British company does such a great job they were going to exercise the first option of the contract and on June 28 they awarded an extended contract to the company through what they said was ``a full and open competition'' to provide these services. The lesson here is that the government needs to think long and hard before it gets into the world of making decisions for people that people can better make for themselves. The government doesn't need to think long and hard to believe there is a government responsibility to ensure a certain amount of consumer protection, that what companies say they are going to do they are required to do, that they clearly tell you what they are going to do. Families can decide what they want in their insurance policy better than the government can decide what they want in their insurance policy. I am sure every Member in the Senate gets stacks of letters--I know I get them--from those who are retired and don't understand why they need pediatric dental care and policies that cover a half dozen things they could never possibly use. They don't understand why those policies are now so expensive that they can no longer afford to have the policy they had. They don't understand the reason for cutting Medicare and starting a new government program. It doesn't make sense to them. It doesn't make sense to cut funding to a program--a program which is clearly facing challenges as our society gets older--by $600 or $700 billion over 10 years in order to start a new program where the costs will be so much more than anybody anticipated. I am pleased to join my friends today who have been here for the better part of this last hour talking about the challenges we face. We know there are better solutions. More competition and buying health care insurance across State lines would have been a couple of solutions. Associated health plans where a small business or an individual can find some group to become part of--the government could have made that easier instead of making it illegal and impossible. There should be more transparency by providers. I would like to know what hospitals and doctors charge and what their results are. And they know. There is no reason that cannot be made available. In fact, one of the better provisions in the Affordable Care Act said the government is supposed to do that, but of all the things the government could have done, that is something the government has not found time to do. They could address medical liability reform. There was a double handful and maybe even just a single handful of things we could have done to say: Let's try these things and see if they don't make the system work better and see what lesson we learn by injecting these two or three or four or five things into a health care system that was the best health care system in the world; it just didn't have the amount of competition, transparency, and access it needed to have. I will continue to hope we will move forward, learn the hard-learned lessons of the implementation of this plan, and go back and find what was working so well and figure out what we need to do to make that work even better. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. I yield the floor and ask unanimous consent that we move to the quorum call and that the time be equally divided.

Mr. BLUNT. The other matter I wish to talk about for just a few minutes deals with the disappointing answer Senator Alexander and I got this week from a request we made several days ago about a processing center near St. Louis where the employees have stepped forward and basically said this was a processing center for the Affordable Care Act. One group that may not be able to afford the Affordable Care Act-- among many others--may be the taxpayers. These employees stepped forward and said they were really not doing anything. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported this morning: Whistleblower allegations last month that claims workers slept, read or played games at Wentzville invoked a flurry of questions from Missouri's congressional delegation. Moving on with their story, they cite one of the whistleblowers as saying: We played Pictionary. We played 20 Questions. We played Trivial Pursuit. She estimated she processed six applications the entire month of December. CMS, while not acknowledging any of those allegations, said it ``has adjusted Serco's work to accommodate changing operational needs.'' That is sort of a nonanswer answer. If we want the government to work more effectively, the government has to be responsive to the Congress. Mr. President, I unanimous consent to have my letter printed in the Record. This letter is dated June 17, but we had to call them yesterday to see if they were ever going to respond. They stamp-dated this a few days ago, but we certainly have not received anything. I understand the Affordable Care Act is not going the way the administration had hoped, but that doesn't mean they can continue to pretend there are applications where there are no applications or work where there is no work or contracts that have not performed. This is a British company that was already in trouble with the British Government that has not performed there. It appears to be one of the considerations to get a $1.25 billion contract here. I wish to have answers to these questions. I know many in the Congress wish to have answers to their questions. They wish to ask questions rather than to have to listen to whatever information the administration would like to give. I think the entire Missouri congressional delegation is interested in this, as are people who are wanting the taxpayers to be protected and for people to have access to health care they can afford and that meets the needs of their family.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, I wish to talk today about a couple of issues. This first issue I will address concerns the first freedom and the First Amendment in this country, a matter which people in other parts of the world are seeing in jeopardy, and that is freedom of religion. I read an article from the BBC about the current status of Meriam Ibrahim. Just 2 days ago she was acquitted of her death sentence in Sudan, and many people in this building and around the world applauded her release. She was sentenced to death because she would not disavow her Christian faith. In fact, for months she had been held in prison. She gave birth to a child while she was in prison, and she had a young child with her while she was in prison. The birth of the baby, and then the early months of the baby's life, was the determining factor as to when she would be first beaten and then hanged because she would not disavow her faith. Two days ago, she and her two children were set free. She is the wife of a naturalized U.S. citizen. She had been imprisoned by this government, and unfairly so. Many of my colleagues have been working to secure her release. Last month Senator Ayotte and I sent a letter to Secretary Kerry urging him to offer and provide political asylum for her immediately. We should not have to provide asylum for her family. Her husband is a U.S. citizen, and because of that both her children are U.S. citizens. Because of her faith, she had been sentenced to death. The State Department wondered how much jurisdiction it had in this case, and so Senator Ayotte and I sent another letter to both the State Department and Homeland Security--that agency has the ability to allow people to leave a country or come into a country. On Monday, it looked as though the situation was moving in the right direction. She had reportedly been acquitted and was set free. She was allowed to join her husband and their children at the airport, but yesterday when they tried to leave the airport, news outlets reported she was rearrested. I hope by rearrested they mean she was detained for paperwork, but the Sudanese Government needs to let her go. If they are so concerned about the issue of faith and don't want someone there who is willing to promote another faith--or at least live another faith--they should at the very least let her leave the country. I think asylum in the United States for her U.S. citizen husband, her U.S. citizen children, and her is appropriate. That way the danger they feel they face by someone who is willing to profess another faith would be gone. I cannot imagine why the Sudanese Government would not allow her to leave the country, and I encourage them today to release them. NBC News reported: The NISS, a shadowy and feared institution, said on its Facebook page that Ibrahim and her family had been attempting to travel to the U.S. with documents from the Embassy of south Sudan, which split from its northern neighbor in 2011 after years of civil war. It said she was carrying a U.S. visa, and that her attempts to use the documents were considered a ``criminal offense.'' Apparently the documents were purportedly--at least according to this news report--from South Sudan. But those documents should have been enough to let her leave and should not have been considered another criminal offense. These authorities have told reporters that Meriam Ibrahim was using a valid travel document issued by the Embassy of South Sudan, and then suddenly her valid travel documents were deemed not valid. The State Department, I hope, is doing everything it can to work with the Sudanese Government to ensure that this family is able to come back to the United States. This continued harassment over someone's faith has to end. We need to be doing everything we can. Her husband is a U.S. citizen and her children are U.S. citizens. This is an American family and Sudan should let them leave and let them leave now. If this were the only time something such as this happened, it would be a terrible problem, but this injustice takes place in so many countries around the world. Apparently the one faith you can't profess is the Christian faith. When news of Meriam's death sentence came to light, it was about the same day there were reports of another American citizen, Pastor Saeed Abedini, who had been beaten badly in a hospital in Iran. He was there because of his faith. He was taken to an Iranian prison that was notoriously known as the most dangerous prison you could possibly be in in Iran. Last year I joined with 11 of my colleagues--at the time Secretary Clinton was leaving--urging Senator Clinton to use every resource we had to release him as well. Our government condemned the Iranian Government for his prosecution. He converted to Christianity as a teenager before moving to the United States with his wife. He established some churches that were underground churches in that country. In 2009, he was arrested for so-called Christian activities. He was released on bail. He agreed not to continue his work with the underground churches, but as he was traveling back and forth between the United States and Iran in recent years, he was working to establish nonreligious orphanages in Iran. In September of 2012, he was detained after he lawfully came into Iran through Turkey. He is now serving an 8-year jail sentence on charges related to his Christian faith, and all the while he has been interrogated intensely and beaten to the point where he was taken to the hospital and then he was beaten in the hospital. After that, he was taken to the most dangerous prison you could take a person to in Iran. The activities I have just described cannot be allowed to continue. I don't know how we can move forward with talks with the Iranians and not ask them for such a simple gesture that would allow this U.S. citizen to come back to the United States--and don't kill him in one of your prisons or hospitals. It would show a sign of a good-faith effort as we continue to have these discussions. I hope the President will step forward, along with the Secretary of State, and talk about these grave abuses of human rights. Last year the Senate Foreign Relations Committee reported out a bipartisan bill to appoint a special envoy for the purpose of promoting religious freedom among religious minorities in the Near East and South Central Asia. The House has already passed this bill. This continued violence--particularly against Christians--against all religions that governments are in disagreement with is deeply disturbing. It defies the freedoms we hold dear. When people's rights to their own religious beliefs are abused in the Middle East or Sudan or anywhere else, the United States of America should be the first country to step up and say: We are going to do whatever we can to ensure more religious freedom, and in this particular case, to ensure that the Ibrahim family--in prison in Sudan--is able to leave and Pastor Abedini is able to leave Iran.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, I wish to honor Lynn Wolf Gentzler, who has had a remarkable 42-year career with the Western Historical Manuscript Collection at the University of Missouri-Columbia and the State Historical Society of Missouri. Next month, Lynn will leave her position to enjoy a well-deserved retirement. I have served on the board of trustees of the State Historical Society for some time, and I can tell you that Lynn has played a critical role in the promotion of the history of our State of Missouri. As a native of DeKalb County, Lynn Wolf Gentzler attended the University of Missouri-Columbia and graduated with honors and a degree in education. She then went on to earn her master's degree and began a career as a manuscript specialist at the Western Historical Manuscript Collection in Columbia. Over years of dedicated hard work, she rose to the position of senior manuscript specialist and assistant director of the Western Historical Manuscript Collection. She eventually assumed the positions of assistant director of the State Historical Society of Missouri and associate editor of the Missouri Historical Review in 1990. A year later, she became the associate director of the State Historical Society in Missouri, while continuing in her role as the associate editor of the Missouri Historical Review. In 2003, the board of trustees for the State Historical Society of Missouri asked Lynn to take up the role of acting executive director. Lynn Wolf Gentzler is a leader who has demonstrated an incredible understanding and commitment to the past, present, and future of her community. Outside of her work with the Missouri Historical Review, Lynn's impressive authored and editorial works include entries in the ``Dictionary of Missouri Biography,'' the ``American National Biography,'' and the State Historical Society's publication entitled ``Marking Missouri History.'' In addition, she edited every single book published by the State Historical Society of Missouri over the past decade. In 2004, Lynn received the State Historical Society's Distinguished Service Award and Medallion for her outstanding decades of service to the cultivation and promotion of Midwestern history. Her enthusiastic and determined leadership as an administrator, writer, and editor has played a vital role in the preservation of our State and Nation's history. Lynn has provided an incredible service to the State of Missouri for over 40 years, and I wish her well on her retirement.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, I thank my good friend from Nevada for yielding a few minutes to me. He is going to speak on an amendment which requires the Senate to pass a budget I am supportive of and support his efforts to do that, but I wish to speak in support of this great explanation of what the committee did as we just heard from the Senator from Maine. The committee debated this. We looked at the facts as Senator Collins has repeated. That full debate, that full discussion in the committee ultimately had a bipartisan vote of 21 to 9. This was something the committee thought about. I think the committee reached the right decision, and I was glad to be part of the 21 votes that said this should be part of the underlying bill. There is a wide consensus that further study is needed. That consensus goes even to the administration. As the Senator from Maine has already pointed out, the ``restart rule'' allows drivers to restart their weekly on-duty time calculations by taking at least 34 hours off duty. In July of 2013, new restrictions were placed on the restart provision, and the changes, frankly, have had unintended consequences and unintended effects for drivers, for their families, for customers in the supply line, and even other users of the road. The new restrictions state that a restart period has to include two back-to-back periods in the middle of the night--from 1 a.m. to 5 a.m. I am usually up not too long after 5 a.m. I am almost never up between 1 a.m. and 5 a.m., but many people are. The Federal Government can decide a lot of things, but what is the best work and rest pattern for people should not be one of them, particularly when that work pattern forces people to do their work at a more dangerous time. I believe that is what this rule does. That is what the accident reports would verify; that back-to-back rest periods can only be used in a way that disrupts the ability to get the job done in a way that works for these drivers and their families, and works for safety on the road. This rule would push more trucks onto the road during the daylight hours, and accidents are worse when there is more traffic. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration just admitted that this wasn't studied as it should have been. I asked the Secretary of Transportation over 1 month ago to tell what studies were done on this issue. We still haven't gotten a report. He very nicely said, ``I would like to take that for the record.'' Apparently the record is pretty hard to complete here because we haven't had a report yet about the research done on what would happen if you took truckdrivers off the road in the middle of the night and put them on the road in the middle of the day, the middle of the afternoon, the very rush hour hours the Senator from Maine has talked about. I have heard from a lot of drivers in our State. We are in the middle of the country. We are a transportation hub. We have lots of drivers in our State. One constituent of mine, a driver from Energy Transport Solutions in Bates City, MO, said a lot of drivers are losing a whole day on the road and a whole day with their family. Many drivers choose to drive at night or early in the morning so they can be home when their kids come home from school. If a driver wants to be home when their kids come home from school and if they want to drive during safer parts of the driving 24-hour cycle, why would the government tell them they can't do that without any study to indicate it somehow would be safer? The fact is this provision would in no way affect the hours-of- service rule. The Senator from Maine once again has explained what wouldn't change. It wouldn't change the daily driving time limit; it wouldn't change the daily working limit; it wouldn't change the daily break requirement; it wouldn't change the weekly work limit. This rule only says: We are not going to move forward with more dangerous traffic times required by law until there is some proof that somehow this works out to their advantage. Drivers still can't work longer than the maximum 14 hours in a shift. They can't drive longer than 11 hours at a time. By the way, that is what the rules say now. They would still be required to take at least 10 consecutive hours' rest before starting the next shift, and they have to take at least 30 minutes before the 8 hours they come on duty. These safeguards will remain in place. The provision the committee is offering as part of this bill merely suspends the two restrictions on the restart rule, which is only one subset of a larger part, a rule that would still be in effect. During that suspension, the Federal motor safety group would be required to adequately study the effects of what they have required to happen here. It is also worth mentioning again that they have said they need to make this study. So why don't we let them? Traffic accident reports would indicate we are forcing people to drive at a more difficult time. Talking about the terrible accident we saw lately, the fact is, somebody who drives 24 hours straight, whether it is their own car or a truck, is in violation of every rule that is out there now. The rules the Senator from New Jersey says we should protect because of the recent accident are the rules that were in effect during the recent accident. Those were the rules in effect then. If anything, we should say what rules were in effect a few days ago and how would we reevaluate them so this wouldn't happen again, rather than saying we have to have exactly the rules in effect we had in effect when the tragedy occurred. That makes no sense at all. There are reasons to research this. There are reasons to look at it. One of the reasons to keep the current rules in place is not that they would have prevented the accident that happened, because the current rules were in place when the accident happened. Reports have stated the vehicle was traveling too fast, and the person drove in their own vehicle long before they got in the other car. There is nothing in the amendment the Senator from New Jersey proposes that would have done anything about those violations of the rules our bill would leave in effect that Senator Collins and I are advocates for. We don't want to put truckdrivers and others on the road in danger unnecessarily. The more cars that are out, the more likely you are to have an accident; the more cars and trucks that are out there, the more likely you are to have an accident. This overnight rest rule has clearly put trucks on the road at a busier, more congested time. We believe that is not good. The committee, by a vote of 21 to 9, believes that is not good. I hope the Senate decides to stay with the decision the committee has brought to the floor. Let's have a study. It should have happened before these rules came out, and it absolutely should happen now. I see now Senators from Nevada on the floor. I do wish to mention again I am grateful to Senator Heller for letting me make these remarks before we get to the amendment he wants to talk about. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, I am pleased to join the Senator from Arkansas in introducing this bill. He has been a great person to work with. I also fully associate myself with his comments about our colleagues' ability to amend these bills. Senator Mikulski and Senator Shelby have been real advocates for us getting back to the process the way it essentially worked in the country for a couple hundred years. We got out of the habit of bringing these bills to the floor, letting Members come to the floor and offer better ways to spend this money or if they want to propose not to spend it at all, that is one of the proposals they can make. The Senator from Arkansas and I have worked to make the tough choices, but seldom is a bill so perfect that it can't be improved, and there is nothing wrong with defending the decisions we have made. I believe one of the real losses for the country and the Senate of these bills not coming to the floor in recent years is that Members of the Senate haven't had to hear the debate. Members who bring a bill to the floor haven't had to defend the bill. Before we know it, if we don't have to defend what we are for, we have a hard time remembering why we are for what we are for. This process makes sense if we do it the right way. Certainly, Senator Pryor has wanted to approach this in that way, and maybe, more importantly, from both our points of view, Senator Mikulski and Senator Shelby have been advocating that we bring these bills to the floor and we debate these priorities. I am particularly pleased to join with Senator Pryor in introducing this bill and bringing this bill to the floor, the fiscal year 2015 Agriculture appropriations bill, for agriculture, for rural development, for the Food and Drug Administration, and the things that relate to those agencies. The Senator made a good point already about how important this industry is. In Missouri as in Arkansas, agriculture is the No. 1 industry. In my State it is responsible for 16 percent of the State's workforce. Frankly, as world food needs develop, I believe the percentage of our workforce that will have jobs because of agriculture--growing, producing, and processing it, figuring out how to get it to markets around the world--will be an even higher percentage in the future. I think agriculture is the No. 1 industry in most States. If it is not the No. 1 industry, it is right there at the top. For 150 years now the Federal Government, through what would become the Department of Agriculture after a bill President Lincoln signed in 1862, has been doing many of the things we want to continue to do in this bill. This is not a newfound obligation on the part of the Federal Government. This is not something for which the Federal Government just decided it needed to have some responsibility. This is something that 150 years ago the Federal Government said: You know, we don't need to have--as the land grant universities were founded, the Federal Government said: We need to help these universities manage the research they are doing so that what they are doing can be shared throughout our country, so it is not needlessly duplicated, so it is properly not only allocated but funded. So the activities in this bill include one of my priorities, which is agricultural research. It includes conservation activities, housing and business loans for rural communities, domestic and international nutrition programs, and food and drug safety. Certainly all of those have a top priority on the list of different individual Members of the Senate. It would be hard to find a Senator who didn't have near the top of their priority list one of the things this bill does. The Senator from Arkansas and I have made difficult decisions in drafting this bill. Aside from the disaster recovery efforts, the bill is $90 million below last year's bill. I think it represents a responsible approach to the funding of these priorities but at the same time tightening our belts as we work to live within our means. We have prioritized programs that protect public health and maintain the strength of our Nation's agricultural economy. Agriculture is one of the few sectors in our economy that consistently enjoy a trade surplus. Last year was our strongest export year in ag products in the history of the country. Recent information from the Department of Agriculture indicates that 2014 is going to set a new record. We need to continue to work through the U.S. Department of Agriculture to open new markets, and we are doing that--particularly markets in Asia and Europe that need to be more open to our products. Expanding agricultural exports is vital. Every $1 billion in agricultural exports supports an estimated 8,000 American jobs. If we need to have a domestic priority in the Congress today, it is more private sector jobs. One way to do that is to continue to do what we are doing in this bill and to do it even better. Opening export markets is only one piece of the puzzle that maintains our agricultural economy. The American farmer is the best in the world at producing products that are desired worldwide in the global marketplace. Smart investment in ag research has helped us get to that point. We have products with a quality, with a market sensitivity, and with a health and nutrition value that people all over the world want. This bill places significant emphasis on maintaining research at our land grant universities and our non-land grant university systems that have a commitment to agriculture and funding competitive research beyond that in things such as the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative. These programs are critical to our increased production. Every dollar spent in agricultural research results in around a $20 return to the U.S. economy. By the way, that comes year after year. Once you create that notch and work to try to improve it, it continues to come. This bill will also provide our rural communities with even more ability to compete both here and abroad. In a bill where many items didn't get the funding that was requested, we fully funded the Food and Drug Administration request. It is important to the chairman, important to our committee, and important as we look at the health and safety of the products for which the Food and Drug Administration is responsible. Again, I thank the Senator from Arkansas for his leadership. I thank our chairman and ranking member of the full committee for working so hard to see these bills debated on the floor. I look forward to working with our colleagues as they come up with ways to improve this bill. It is one of the three bills that are on the floor this week. I hope we can return to a day very quickly where all the appropriations bills are on the floor in as small a group as possible and where they are all open to amendment. We have to get back into the practice of remembering why we are for what we are for and why we have decided to propose that the hard-earned dollars of American families should be spent for these things as opposed to not spending them all or spending them on something else. It is a process that will work if the Senate shares the commitment of the chairman and Senator Shelby and I think everybody on the Appropriations Committee to try to get back into the business of doing this business publicly and openly and in the right way. Madam President, I will yield for Senator Pryor.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I want to join our Republican leader in recognizing the birthday of the 41st President of the United States, George H.W. Bush. It is possible that nobody ever came to the Presidency with a preparation that exceeded his in both diplomacy--he served as the first U.S. emissary to China in those decades and he served as the head of the CIA. He served as Vice President. I was just reading a few days ago another and new retelling of what happened as the Soviet bloc fell apart--the importance of both President Reagan and President Bush, who brought his unique background to that time when it was so unpredictable what might happen. Frankly, the results turned out to be carefully managed by this President as the Berlin Wall fell, as these countries came together, and President Bush's skills were in great evidence, as they were when the coalition was put together to push back what the Iraqis had done in Kuwait. But probably his greatest example to all of us is an example of a man of kindness and generosity--some would say an almost too forgiving nature to have risen in politics as he did. But on his 90th birthday it is a good time for Americans to reflect about his service to the country. His wife's birthday was just a few days ago, and on her birthday we also want to think about their family and what their family has meant to the country. My understanding is that President Bush has announced that he intends to jump out of an airplane for the third decade in a row as he did on his 70th birthday and 80th birthday, and will do on this 90th birthday. I am not sure the judgment to do that is quite as good as the judgment he showed in managing the future of the country. But if you are 90, you only get to be 90 once, and I am sure he is the only 90-year-old President to have jumped out of an airplane in 3 different decades. We appreciate the service of George H.W. Bush to his country, from signing up to be the youngest pilot in World War II until the service that he continues to provide as a former President of the United States. I was thinking about him and the other World War II veterans as we see them leave us as heads of families, as examples we could turn to, and of the thought of another veteran whom one of my colleagues was mentioning just a few days ago, Senator Moran's father Raymond Moran. Raymond Moran died on D-day at 98 years old. Senator Moran and I have been good friends for a long time. I know we speak on this floor in the Senate about ``my good friend, our long time relationship.'' This is a case where we really have been close friends. We have been so close that in the couple of decades now that we have known each other, I have heard a lot about Jerry Moran's father and his mother. Jerry was lucky enough to have both of his parents until just a couple of years ago, and his mom and dad were together until just a couple of years ago. Jerry's father was a staff sergeant in North Africa and in Italy. He was not part of the D-day invasion, even though his death on June 6, the 70th Anniversary of D-day, is a significant day for all the veterans of that conflict. The stories I heard about Senator Moran's father were the stories that you would think a man from Plainville, KS, would be part of-- quiet, unassuming, church-going, passing along the values that he stood for to his family, and working hard and believing in some way that somehow his children could do anything they wanted to do. Then he had the opportunity to see his son in the Congress of the United States representing that huge district in western Kansas and then in the Senate of the United States. These two stories are very different--the stories of George H.W. Bush and Raymond Moran. But the lives that these two men led are very similar in the values that they stood for and the values of their generation--the generation that Tom Brokaw called ``the greatest generation.'' These are fundamental and foundational values to what we are all about as a nation.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I wish to honor Jim Anderson, who has been the president of the Springfield, Missouri, Area Chamber of Commerce since 1988. Later this month, Jim will leave that position to pursue other opportunities. Jim has played a role in nearly every major development that has shaped Springfield over the last 25-plus years. Over that time he has been a great friend and an important advisor on all things Springfield--my hometown and Missouri's third largest city. Jim Anderson was lured back to Springfield from Jefferson City, MO, to run Springfield's Chamber of Commerce, a role he had already played in Jefferson City for nearly a decade. With his background as teacher and administrator, his quick smile and sharp mind for details, and a wealth of contacts and government know-how, Anderson has been a spirited leader at the Springfield Chamber. His knowledge and experience have helped as he has devoted his efforts to economic development, job creation, civic involvement, and advocacy efforts at both the local and state levels. Jim Anderson is a leader who knows what it takes to make his community an attractive place for businesses and consumers. From 2001 until 2009 Anderson served on the Missouri Highway and Transportation Commission and rose to the chairmanship in 2007 and was vice chairman the following year. During that period Jim became a supporter of infrastructure programs to fix bridges, expand capacities, and grow a safer transportation network to promote economic development. Jim's keen intellect on economic development issues earned him an appointment in 1993 by Gov. Mel Carnahan to the Missouri Business Council and to the Total Transportation Commission in 1996. In 2005 Jim's peers honored him with the Springfieldian Award, a recognition given to the person whose contributions leave a lasting mark on Springfield. Jim has certainly left his mark. That same year Anderson was a recipient of the Missourian Award. In 2007 he was the recipient of the Lifetime Achievement in Business Award from the Springfield Business Journal. And last year Anderson received the Career Service in Economic Development Award at the Governor's Conference on Economic Development. These awards only scratch the surface of Jim's impact on the region. Jim has amassed many awards and accolades from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. But Jim is also grounded in his local community--Springfield. He served as chairman of United Way of the Ozarks and president of Urban Districts Alliance. He is a member of the Springfield Rotary Club and has been recognized for his work with the Boy Scouts. Jim is a past chairman of the board of directors of Springfield Innovation, Inc., at the Roy Blunt Jordan Valley Innovation Center. Anderson is an active member of First & Calvary Presbyterian Church. Jim's contributions to the Springfield area have strengthened the fabric of the community. I know he will be glad to have more time with his wife Janet and their daughters Rachel and Rebecca. I wish him well in his next opportunity and thank him for his years of service in Springfield.