Joni Ernst

Mrs. ERNST

Mrs. ERNST. Mr. President, I rise today to echo the sentiments shared by our senior Senator from Iowa, Chuck Grassley. Tomorrow morning, one of my constituents, Michelle Root, will be testifying before the House Judiciary Committee about the loss of her beautiful young daughter, Sarah Root. As a mother of three daughters myself, I cannot begin to fathom the pain and anguish Mrs. Root is experiencing. Earlier this year, 21-year-old Sarah Root was killed by a drunk driver. That driver, Edwin Mejia, was allegedly drag racing with a blood alcohol level more than three times the legal limit when he crashed into the back of Sarah's vehicle. Edwin Mejia is also an illegal immigrant. After causing the death of an American citizen and being charged with motor vehicle homicide, one would think he would clearly meet U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's so-called enforcement priorities. But no, citing the administration's November 2014 memo on immigration enforcement priorities, ICE declined to lodge a detainer and take custody of Mejia. During a recent Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing, ICE Director Sarah Saldana actually suggested that ICE neglected to issue a detainer because at the time they were contacted, Sarah Root was seriously injured, not dead. How twisted and convoluted has our immigration system become that an illegal immigrant who, while driving drunk and drag racing, hits and either seriously injures or kills an American citizen is not considered a priority for deportation? In fact, only after a floor speech, multiple letters, and hearing questions from Senators from Nebraska and Iowa, as well as media attention and concerns raised by the Root family, did ICE finally acknowledge that they should have taken Mejia into custody. It should not take all of those actions for ICE to determine that an illegal immigrant who kills an American citizen should be removed from our country. Tragically, after ICE declined to file a detainer against Mejia, he posted a $5,000 bond, was released, and has since disappeared. This is so despite the fact that he had a history of skipping court dates related to prior driving offenses. A few weeks ago, I spoke with Sarah's dad, who told me that before they could even lay their daughter to rest, Mejia was released. This is truly an injustice, and we must do everything we can to ensure that we get answers in this case and prevent a similar tragedy from being replicated elsewhere. While America has been and always will be a nation of immigrants, we are also a nation of laws. It is a privilege to live in this country, and anyone who comes here illegally and harms our citizens should without question constitute a priority for removal. For ICE to decide otherwise is baffling. In recognition of their clear mistake, they have since listed Mejia on their ``most wanted'' list and acknowledged they should have taken him into custody. The photograph of Sarah behind me was taken as she celebrated her graduation from Bellevue University with a 4.0 GPA and a bachelor's degree in criminal investigations and prepared to begin a bright future. The next day, she was killed. While nothing can bring Sarah back, her family and friends deserve clear answers as to why Mejia was allowed to flee. This tragedy further underscores the administration's failed immigration enforcement priorities and should serve to spur renewed discussion about their so- called priorities. I yield the floor.

Mrs. ERNST

Mrs. ERNST. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Eastern Iowa Airport Transportation Security Officer Michael Stoneking for recent actions he took to aid a choking passenger. Officer Michael Stoneking, while on duty at Eastern Iowa Airport in Cedar Rapids, IA, was on his way to take his break when he was alerted by another airport employee that a passenger was in distress. Officer Stoneking was directed to a female passenger who had her hands at her throat indicating that she was choking. Officer Stoneking performed the Heimlich maneuver and was able to successfully remove the obstruction from the passenger's throat, allowing her to breathe clearly. The passenger's family and the passenger, once able to speak, thanked Officer Stoneking and credited him with saving her life. Official Transportation Security Administration reports from the scene praise Officer Stoneking for his command presence and calm professionalism, stating that his ability to think clearly and react saved a life. At a time when transportation security is on everyone's mind, it is comforting to know that we have such capable security officers in our airports. Those who go above and beyond the call of duty, as Officer Stoneking did, are to be commended and serve as an example of what dedicated law enforcement officers can accomplish. I am very proud today to share Officer Stoneking's story with our colleagues and would ask that they join me in commending Officer Stoneking for his actions that saved a passenger's life. Thank you.

Mrs. ERNST

Mrs. ERNST. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleagues--the Senators from Missouri, North Dakota, and Wyoming--for their colloquy. This is a big deal, not just for those of us from these States but for all Americans. We have a choice today. We do have a choice. We can stand with our farmers, our ranchers, our small businessmen, our manufacturers, our homebuilders, or we can stand with an overreaching Federal agency that is committed to expanding its reach to over 97 percent of our lands in Iowa and, as my colleague from Missouri stated, 99.7 percent of the land in Missouri. I know what I am going to do. I am going to stand with my constituents. I am going to stand with Iowans who have told me time and again that their voices were not heard in this process and that their livelihoods are being threatened. Instead of listening to those who will be most impacted by this rule, the EPA thought it would be better to use taxpayer dollars to illegally solicit comments in an effort to falsely justify their power grab. A little over a week ago, President Obama, in his State of the Union Address, pledged a willingness to work with Congress on cutting redtape. This bipartisan legislation presented a great opportunity to do just that, but instead he sided with unelected bureaucrats and an unchecked Federal agency. So apparently he must have already forgotten what he had said. I would also like to remind everyone that in November, 11 of my Democratic colleagues voted to uphold President Obama's rule at the behest of liberal special interests. Then immediately they ran for cover by sending a letter warning the EPA that they may oppose the rule in the future if it is not fixed. Only in Washington could someone reserve the right to do their job at a later time. Here we are 3 months later, and this rule is not fixed. Well, I say to those colleagues: Today is that later time. Join me in helping to fix this rule today. In closing, we all want clean water. That is not disputable. I have continuously emphasized that the water we drink needs to be clean and safe. However, this rule is not about clean water; it is a regulatory power grab that harms our farmers, ranchers, small businesses, manufacturers, and homebuilders. Stand up for them today, not for a Federal agency gone wrong. I urge all of my colleagues to vote to scrap this ill-conceived waters of the United States expansion. With that, I yield the floor.

Mrs. ERNST

Mrs. ERNST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess as under the previous order.

Mrs. ERNST

Mrs. ERNST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes in morning business.

Mrs. ERNST

Mrs. ERNST. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the Searching for and Cutting Regulations that are Unnecessarily Burdensome Act--more affectionately known as the SCRUB Act. This past summer, my colleague Senator Hatch and I introduced this legislation to help free American families and small businesses from the unnecessary burdens of our regulatory system. I am pleased to mention that the bill passed the House last week on a bipartisan basis. For too long, our Nation's innovators and employers have been trying to comply with a swath of outdated, duplicative, or obsolete regulations that hamper their growth and creativity. Many of these regulations also come with stacks of paperwork requirements that force our small businesses to spend time on filling in the blanks rather than filling in jobs. The SCRUB Act would peel back these types of regulations so our businesses can focus on doing what they know best: innovating and creating jobs. The purpose of this bill is to take an objective and in-depth look at major regulations that are at least 15 years old and could be repealed because they have, No. 1, achieved their goal and there is no threat to the problem reoccurring; No. 2, technology or market changes have made the regulation unnecessary; or No. 3, they are ineffective or overlap with other Federal or State regulations. For decades, lawmakers and Presidents on both sides of the aisle have recognized the need to unleash our small businesses and job creators from rules and regulations that don't make sense. When new rules are proposed, there is very little, if any, attention paid to how the new rule will work with the hundreds of other rules that came before it. This buildup of rules is a cumulative burden on our businesses which ultimately slows job growth and hits families even harder who are already struggling to make ends meet. In fact, according to one study, if the cost of all of these regulations was considered in an independent country--all of the costs of these rules and regulations-- it would be about the 10th largest economy in the world. Let's face it: The more expensive it becomes to make a product or deliver a service, the more money the consumer will have to dig out of their own pockets to pay for it. It is those families who are working multiple jobs to provide for their kids who are going to be hit the hardest. This bill is how we start to solve that problem. The SCRUB Act establishes a bipartisan, blue ribbon commission to give a fair and thoughtful review of our Nation's existing regulations. Once the commission is finished with their review, they would provide recommendations to Congress and we would have an opportunity to vote on them. If an agency wants to impose a new regulation, they can do that under the SCRUB Act, but they would have to offset the cost of that new regulation by repealing an existing one that is of equal cost and has been deemed unnecessary or outdated by the commission. I know Iowa families do this. They know how to prioritize. Why can't our Federal agencies? We simply cannot allow the buildup of unnecessary and costly regulations over time. I will end with just one last comment. Rules and regulations often have unintended consequences. It is our responsibility as lawmakers to not only recognize when this happens but to then proactively fix it. The SCRUB Act is a commonsense solution that forces lawmakers and our agencies to be honest about their regulatory system by fixing the rules that need fixing and dropping those that have outlived their useful purpose. I thank Senator Hatch for his leadership on this, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mrs. ERNST

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

Mrs. ERNST

Mrs. ERNST. Mr. President, I rise today to honor my good friend and the Governor of Iowa, Terry Branstad. Monday marks his historic milestone as the Nation's longest serving Governor with 7,642 days in office working for our great State of Iowa. Our Governor has devoted his life to public service and has worked tirelessly through his 99- county tour to ensure that Iowans' voices are heard. I have also had the great honor of serving under the Governor during my time in the Iowa Army National Guard. Through the years, Governor Branstad and I have had countless conversations about the military and our veterans. We both know these men and women are well trained and have selflessly sacrificed in defense of our freedoms and our way of life. That is why we must ensure that our veterans are properly prepared to transition back to civilian life. As a veteran himself, Governor Branstad recognizes just that. It was Governor Branstad who led significant efforts to help veterans find work across Iowa, following their launch of the Home Base Iowa public- private initiative in November of 2013. Since then, Home Base Iowa has succeeded in helping over 1,500 veterans in Iowa find work, getting 900 businesses to join the Home Base Iowa initiative. There are also 24 Home Base Iowa communities around the State, and we have 16 educational institutions that are working with the initiative and have been deemed Certified Higher Academic Military Partners. All that great participation and success is thanks to the Governor's leadership. Through the years, our State has been incredibly fortunate to have a Governor who truly cares about the people and our veterans. The fact that he continues to wear his uniform for various veterans' events in Iowa further illustrates his support, his leadership, and his commitment to our men and women in uniform. Our Governor is someone who truly cares about serving others, and we are incredibly fortunate to have a leader such as he. In light of his major and well-deserved milestone, we honor Governor Branstad's steadfast commitment and leadership to the people of Iowa. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. ERNST

Mrs. ERNST. Mr. President, promises, promises, promises. Day in and day out, I hear stories of the broken promises of the President's failed health care law in Iowa and across the country. President Obama promised health insurance premiums would go down by $2,500. They haven't. In fact, the President's own administration admits that nationwide, premiums in the exchange for the next year have increased by more than 7 percent. The outlook for my State is even worse, with Iowans facing more than a 12-percent increase in premiums. President Obama's promises don't pay these bills. Real folks in Iowa and across the country do. Mark from Urbandale shared with me that the double-digit premium increases his family faces for 2016 are unsustainable and that it may be more cost effective to pay the individual mandate penalty instead. Similarly, Angela from Centerville said that the plan she had hoped to purchase for 2016 increased by nearly $200, and that was the cheapest option for her. If she keeps her current coverage, her family will be strapped with a nearly $1,000-per-month bill for health insurance. She asks: ``How is it possible that the Affordable Care Act has made health care so unaffordable?'' Let me say that again: How is it possible that the Affordable Care Act has made health care so unaffordable? It is a question I get when traveling all across the State of Iowa. The answer is pretty simple. ObamaCare is wrongly rooted in a Washington-knows-best mentality. Instead of empowering families and individuals to determine what they want and need in their health care plans, Washington has replaced choice with new one-size-fits-all mandates and taxes. It is another costly example of the Washington way failing everyday Americans. The sad reality is that the consequences of this failed law go far beyond these unaffordable premium increases. Americans were promised job creation and economic growth, but instead we have seen employers reduce employee hours in an effort to avoid ObamaCare's employer mandate. Small businesses, such as employers at a marina in Okoboji, have halted their plans to expand and create new jobs because of the mandate. They have even quit hiring folks to fill open jobs and had to cut back on hours for their existing employees to bring them to part time. As employers brace themselves for the impending Cadillac tax, employees are already feeling the effects: rapidly increasing out-of- pocket costs. In fact, Ryan, from Newton, recently learned that his deductible will be doubling next year in anticipation of the tax going into effect. ObamaCare is not helping these folks; it is hurting them. At a time when we want to see job growth and rising wages, this is simply the wrong approach. Broken promises don't cut it. Today we have the opportunity to roll back some of ObamaCare's most harmful provisions. Today we can provide much needed relief from the individual and employer mandates and stop the law's trillion dollars in tax hikes--like the health insurance tax, the medical device tax, and the Cadillac tax--from being passed on to the American people. Today we can put patients and doctors back in the driver's seat when it comes to their health care decisionmaking. Today I will stand up for Iowans and people all across America to fulfill our promise to them. I am committed to stopping this failed law and paving the way to implement patient-centered options that ensure folks have affordable coverage and access to needed health care services. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. ERNST

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

Mrs. ERNST. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes on the joint resolution that is before us.

Mrs. ERNST. Mr. President, we have a choice today to stand with our farmers, ranchers, small businesses, manufacturers, and homebuilders, or stand with an overreaching Federal agency pushing an illegal rule greatly expanding its power. That is an easy choice for me. I am standing with my constituents. I am standing with Iowans. Rolling back this harmful WOTUS rule is hugely important to my State and, I know, to many others. I especially wish to thank the junior Senator from Wyoming and the senior Senator from Oklahoma for all their hard work on this issue. I also wish to thank those from the other side of the aisle who recognize the harm this rule will have and are supporting this bipartisan effort to halt an expanded WOTUS. I am proud to stand with them and all of my other colleagues who have decided to act today to push back against yet another power grab by the EPA. This is what the American people expect. They expect us to take the votes and debate the issues of the day, not simply put in writing how we may do our job tomorrow when it is more convenient or wait for the courts to solve a clear problem. Every community wants to have clean water and to protect our Nation's waterways. No one is disputing that. I grew up on well water. I understand that clean water is essential, but that is not what this vote today is about. To build on what the junior Senator from North Dakota, my colleague from across the aisle, said yesterday, to suggest that 31 States, agricultural groups, the Association of Counties, our Governors, municipalities--that we are all wrong is absolutely insulting. Look at this grass waterway behind me. This is from Iowa. This was taken by one of my staff members as he was out on RAGBRAI, the Register's Annual Great Bicycle Ride Across Iowa. This is what we are debating. This is what the rule is about. Should Washington, DC, bureaucrats control the land in this farmer's field? The clear answer is no, they should not. As so many of my colleagues mentioned yesterday and this morning, this confusing WOTUS rule threatens the livelihoods of rural communities and middle-class Americans. It threatens to impede small businesses and manufacturing. It impacts middle-class Americans. These people are the backbone of this country. How can these industries flourish when under this rule they will be faced with excessive permitting requirements that will delay future projects and conservation efforts? They can't. Yesterday we saw many of our colleagues across the aisle block a commonsense bipartisan measure designed to stop the harmful impacts of this rule. They claimed this rule is grounded in science and the law. Science and the law? Really? The Army Corps' memos show that the science was blatantly ignored by the EPA in favor of politics, and two Federal courts have already called into serious question the legality of this WOTUS rule and the science behind it. This claim is in spite of the fact that Members on the other side voted for Senator Barrasso's legislation yesterday. This is in spite of the fact that Members of the other side also support this legislation, and this is in spite of the fact that 11 Democrats sent a letter to the EPA yesterday stating their concern over serious issues with this rule. Yet this administration continues to unilaterally enforce its harmful agenda on the American people. We must take a stand, put our constituents first, put American jobs first, and say: No more, Mr. President. It is time to put politics and ideology aside and start listening to the commonsense voices of the American people. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. ERNST

Mrs. ERNST. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate my friend, colleague, and Iowa's outstanding senior Senator on casting his 12,000th vote in the wee early hours of this last Friday morning. In fact, there are only 17 other Senators in history who have cast more votes than Senator Chuck Grassley. On top of that, he has the longest existing voting streak in Congress. This farmer from Iowa serves as the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and is one of the highest ranking members in the Senate. But that has not gone to his head--not for Chuck Grassley. Back home in Iowa, he travels all 99 counties every single year, and he has done this every year for 35 wonderful years. Today his travels across the State to all 99 counties have a name. It is called ``the full Grassley.'' It is something that now our elected officials and even the Presidential candidates who visit Iowa try to complete as well. Senator Grassley has set a high bar, and I am very glad that he has. Over the years I have learned quite a bit about my friend Senator Chuck Grassley. He is extremely thrifty. Because of that, he is always looking out for our taxpayer dollars. He fights tirelessly for accountability and transparency in Washington. I can always count on Senator Grassley to stop by my office for doughnuts and coffee and to meet all of our wonderful Iowa constituents who happen to be visiting Washington, DC. He says he comes to visit the constituents. I actually think it is for the free doughnuts, but we are glad he stops by. Senator Grassley is the epitome of the Iowa way, and he has faithfully upheld these values in the Senate. He is a workhorse and has dedicated his entire career to serving Iowans. Iowa has no greater friend than Senator Chuck Grassley. Congratulations, Senator, on your 12,000th vote. Congratulations to Barbara, also. Get your Twitter ready because at noon we are going to celebrate. I thank the Acting President pro tempore.

Mrs. ERNST

Mrs. ERNST. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about this ill- conceived and harmful waters of the United States rule--better known as WOTUS--and how its implementation threatens the livelihoods of many of my fellow Iowans. As the Presiding Officer knows, recent court decisions have forced this rule--EPA's latest power grab--to come to a screeching halt across the country because of the likelihood that EPA has overstepped its authority. To be clear, it is not just me saying that; it is the court. As my colleague and friend, the senior Senator from Iowa, Chuck Grassley, often says, Washington is an island surrounded by reality. There is not a more perfect phrase to describe how the events and processes have unfolded surrounding this confusing rule. Only in Washington do unelected bureaucrats take 300 pages to simplify and provide clarity. This rule is so complex and so ambiguous that folks in my State are concerned that any low spot on a farmer's field or a ditch or a puddle after a rainstorm may now fall under the EPA's watch. We all want clean water and clean air. That is not disputable. Time and again, I have emphasized that the air we breathe and the water we drink need to be clean and safe. Statements suggesting otherwise cannot be further from the truth. It is unfortunate that the EPA continues to fuel that line of false attack through their election-style tactics and controversial lobbying efforts on social media. This rule and this debate are not about clean water. The heart of this debate is about how much authority the Federal Government and unelected bureaucrats should have to regulate what is done on private land. You can see the map behind me. Look at my State of Iowa. This rule would give the EPA extensive power to regulate water on 97 percent of the land in the State of Iowa--97 percent. If you compare that to Iowa's Federal land percentage in acreage of 0.3 percent, it is quite a shift in the current makeup of Federal authority over the land in Iowa. I spent the weekend going back through letters my fellow Iowans have sent me on this issue. So many of them are frustrated with the lack of common sense coming out of Washington. They are taking this issue personally because their livelihood depends on it. Many of the letters I get are from farmers who spend their days working land that has been in their families for generations, some going back over 100 years. They have an incentive to take care of their land and conserve it for future generations. Caring for the land and conserving is a way of life in the heartland. It is as if the EPA turns a blind eye to that fact. One Iowan wrote: This proposed rule is so vague, long, and very unclear, that I feel they are wanting farmers to fail so a large fine can be assessed. Why am I taking this so personal? Because for me and my family, we live off this land. If we don't take care of it, it will not take care of us. So I will do whatever I can to protect this land and water for my children. My family lives on well water. My cattle drink from the same wells. I don't want either to get sick. That is what one Iowan wrote. I believe the same exactly. This rule would give EPA the authority to expand its power over family farms, small businesses, ranches, and other landowners in our rural community. Iowans are so concerned about this rule because they know it will actually create a negative impact on conservation and it is contradictory to the commonsense and voluntary work that is taking place in communities across Iowa today. In Iowa, we have had a State-level clean water initiative in place for several years now. It is a partnership between the State legislature, the Department of Natural Resources, the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, Iowa State University, and a myriad of stakeholders across the State. The voluntary Nutrient Reduction Strategy is based on extensive research and provides a path forward for conservation efforts that individual farmers can pursue with matching funds from the State. This science-based approach provides incentives for farmers and other landowners to make sustainable decisions on their own land rather than be forced to adhere to a one-size-fits-all regulation that would do far more harm than good. A farm in Iowa is not the same as one in Montana, and the rolling plains of Texas are very different from the hills and valleys of Pennsylvania. This is simply one more reason this WOTUS rule is the wrong approach. A one-size-fits-all solution from inside the beltway could have disastrous effects nationwide. As I mentioned, I have heard from constituents across the State of Iowa who have grave concerns with the ambiguity of this rule. They are holding off on making conservation improvements to their land for fear of being later found out of compliance with this WOTUS rule and facing significant fines. Maybe it is because we are so ``Iowa nice'' that we are inclined to work together collaboratively rather than simply issuing more onerous regulations. Take the Middle Cedar Partnership, for example. This project in Eastern Iowa uses local dollars and State funding, coupled with Federal grants from the USDA, to organize and advocate for land practices that improve water quality downstream. The coalition is made up of city, county, and State officials, businesspeople, farmers, environmentalists, and other concerned citizens. Together they are making meaningful progress on multiple watershed projects within the Cedar River basin and sharing what they have learned. This approach is now being adopted by other municipalities within the State. Contrary to what some claim, Iowa has done all of this on its own, not at the behest of the EPA. In fact, the EPA has asked the leaders of Iowa's efforts to come to DC and explain how they are able to get such grassroots buy-in on voluntary conservation projects and programs. The other States in the Mississippi River Basin look to Iowa as a leader on water quality and are modeling their own State-level efforts after ours in the State of Iowa. While there are clear indications that this WOTUS rule is illegal and likely to be scrapped by the courts, that process could take years to play out--and all at the expense of the average American. Let's not wait around for the inevitable and force our small farmers and businesses to operate in the dark while they wait. Let's fix this now and give American families the certainty they deserve. We can do that by passing the legislation before us. I have led the charge in the Senate on this joint resolution of disapproval which would scrap the rule entirely. My legislation is the necessary next step in pushing back against this blatant power grab by the EPA. We will send this to the President, and he will be forced to decide between the livelihood of our rural communities nationwide and his unchecked Federal agency. I also voted for S. 1140, which provides the EPA with clear principles and directions on how best to craft a waters of the United States rule. It spells out steps they should have taken prior to finalizing this rule to guarantee they can take into consideration the thoughtful comments from folks such as farmers, ranchers, small businesses, and manufacturers. Congress is acting because it is evident that the EPA did not seriously consider the comments and perspective from those whom this rule will directly impact, and it is clear they are far outside the bounds of the congressional intent of the Clean Water Act. Iowa is bounded by rivers. The very shape of our State is dictated by the mighty Mississippi and Missouri Rivers. Take one look at commerce and recreation happening on them, and it is easy to see why these are considered navigable waters. When Congress passed the Clean Water Act, this was the type of water it intended to protect, not a grass waterway running across a farmer's field or a ditch bordering it. This rule ignores congressional intent and is nothing more than a power grab by the EPA. The EPA continues to run roughshod over Iowans, acting as if they are a legislative body--something they have no business doing. It is no wonder they have lost the trust of the American people and many in Congress. Every community wants clean water and to protect our Nation's waterways, but we simply cannot allow mounting, unnecessary regulations to overwhelm the commonsense voice of hard-working Americans, especially when they are not based on sound science. Again, it is not just me saying that, the courts and the Army Corps have both called the EPA on their shaky data, or lack thereof. Yet unelected bureaucrats remained committed to making a political decision instead of the right decision. As Iowa's U.S. Senator, it is my responsibility to speak for the folks I represent and hold the Federal Government accountable when it is clear they have gone too far. And make no mistake--they have here. With that, I yield the floor.

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

Mrs. ERNST

Mrs. ERNST. Madam President, I wish to take a quick moment and thank my friends, my colleagues for supporting this effort, and I look forward to some lively discussion on the EPA's overreach and this WOTUS rule. I encourage my fellow Republicans and my fellow Democrats to carefully consider what this overreach by the EPA does to their home States. Just as it does in Iowa--it covers 97 percent of our land. I encourage them to listen to their constituents very carefully as we move forward on this debate and this vote. Again, I thank my colleagues for supporting this effort.

Mrs. ERNST

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

Mrs. ERNST. Mr. President, a short while ago, I had the opportunity to meet with a very special family from Newton, IA. Micha Pickering, an adorable, energetic 3-year-old boy was born prematurely at just 22 weeks gestational age--the equivalent of 20 weeks after fertilization, the method of measurement in the bill before us. You will notice the picture I have in the Chamber. This is Micah, that energetic 3-year-old boy. He was just in the office when this picture was in there, and Micah ran up and said: That's me. And then he said: That's a baby. This is Micah when he was born. We are talking about 5 months. Think about that for a minute. Micah's parents and the doctors and nurses at the University of Iowa hospitals and clinics were dedicated to his survival. Micah's mother Danielle has recounted the first time she got to meet her son in the hospital: The second I was able to meet Micah changed my life. He was so small. I didn't know what to expect. Would he look `normal'? Could I bond with this baby? Those questions were a mess in my head as I was wheeled into his room two hours after his birth. The sight I saw was a perfectly formed baby. We didn't understand at the time that Micah was right on time, but now we do. . . . You can be knowledgeable on every part of prematurity, but that does not change the fact that Micah was just as much full of life at 22.4 weeks as he is now at almost 3 years old. I can attest that this little boy pictured behind me is indeed full of life. The bill before us today--the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act--would protect up to 10,000 lives like Micah's every year by preventing abortions after 20 weeks or about 5 months of development. As Micah proves, at 5 months babies can live. The United States is currently only one of seven countries in the world that allows abortions after 5 months. We are currently in the same company as China and North Korea. We must do better. Substantial medical evidence indicates that at about 5 months of development, unborn babies can feel pain. This means that thousands of unborn lives end painfully through abortion in our country every year. Is this really whom we want to be as a nation? We are a country that stands for life. Just earlier I heard a colleague across the aisle talking about how God intends that we should protect bumblebees and pteropods but what about human life. In order to rise to meet that commitment, we must protect the most vulnerable in our society, particularly those who cannot protect themselves. The majority of men and women across this great Nation agree. According to a Quinnipiac poll from last November, 60 percent of those surveyed support a law prohibiting abortion after 5 months of pregnancy. Although passionate advocates on both sides of this issue of life often disagree, there should be no disagreement when it comes to protecting the life of an unborn child who has reached the point of development at which he or she can feel pain. As we can see from the photo behind me, an unborn baby in its fifth month of development is not just a clump of cells; he or she can suck his or her thumb, yawn, stretch, and make faces. They have 10 fingers and 10 toes. They can also feel pain, and as Micah proves, they can survive outside of the womb. As a mother and a grandmother, I urge my colleagues not to deny these babies the right to life. Micah's mom has said it best: ``I bet that if Micah could have gone up to everyone who opposes this bill and gave them a big hug, he could change all their minds.'' Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. ERNST

Mrs. ERNST. Mr. President, as we come together and debate President Obama's agreement on Iran, I believe it is one of the most consequential national security decisions we may ever face. I have heard my peers talk many times about the things that trouble them, the things they fear, the ``things that keep us up at night.'' I will tell you that this nuclear agreement is one of those things that keeps me up at night, as a mother, as a grandmother, and as a soldier. Having proudly worn our Nation's uniform for over 20 years and having deployed to the region, I can tell you that protecting and defending this country is something I take very seriously and very personally. I had hoped our President would approach the American people with a deal that reflected the high ground our Nation has stood on against Iran for decades. Unfortunately, now that I have seen the available details, I believe the President has not negotiated a good deal with Iran. The agreement before us fails to dismantle Iran's nuclear program and does not end Iran's support of terrorism. The President has squandered his opportunity to enhance our national security and the security of our Israeli and Arab allies by failing to live up to his own goal of ending Iran's capability to build a nuclear weapon. The administration is asking the American people to accept a deal which will, at best, freeze Iran's nuclear program for 8 years--that is, if the Iranians actually live up to their end of the bargain. One of the major failures in this deal is the lack of anytime, anywhere inspections to ensure that they do. In April, the President's own Secretary of Energy, Dr. Moniz, a nuclear physicist whom the President often refers to as a leading authority on nuclear programs. He said: ``We expect to have anywhere, anytime access'' when referring to what our country needed to ensure Iran was abiding by a nuclear agreement. How can we ever be certain of compliance if Iran decides to cheat and we have a weak inspection regime as part of this deal? I would argue that we can't. Another part of this debate that has been very troubling to me is that the President continues to tell the American people there are only two options: his agreement or war. During one of his major speeches on this deal, he actually mentioned the word ``war'' 50 times in an attempt to hammer this false choice home. Despite this misinformation campaign designed to pressure the American people into agreeing to a bad deal, our military leaders and distinguished former administration officials clearly denied that our choice is either support the deal or go to war with Iran. In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff GEN Martin Dempsey disagreed with the President's assessment that the American people face a choice of supporting the agreement or going to war with Iran. Later that same week, the President's pick to lead the U.S. Navy said war was not the only alternative and that we need to use the full set of capabilities that the joint force and the Navy can deliver to deter that. The military contribution is also just a subset of a whole-of- government approach, along with our allies in the region. It is not just leaders within our military saying this. Gen. Michael Hayden, former Director of the CIA and NSA, said: There is no necessity to go to war if we don't sign this agreement. There are actions in between those two extremes. Dr. Richard Haas, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, said: ``I would echo that'' during the same hearing. Ambassador Edelman, a former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and Ambassador to Turkey, said: ``I agree with you, I don't think those are the only alternatives.'' Ambassador Nicholas Burns, a former top U.S. negotiator with Iran on its nuclear programs and former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, said: ``I don't believe that war would be inevitable. . . .'' Rather than misrepresenting the facts and our country's options, I challenge the supporters of the agreement to explain to the American people why they are supporting a flawed and bad deal today, when we should be putting our citizens' interests and their security first. I would also note that this administration was willing to leave the negotiating table without securing an end to Iran's support of terrorism. Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terror. We are giving them a free pass in this deal to continue those efforts. In addition to the billions of dollars in sanctions relief, which leaves Iran poised to double down on its support of terrorism, the President also agreed to lift the U.N. arms embargo for advanced conventional weapons and ballistic missiles. As a veteran of Kuwait and Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, I am beside myself, as are many other Americans who served in Iraq, regarding the President's support for sanctions relief for one terrorist in particular: the leader of Iran's elite covert force, the Quds Force, General Qassem Soleimani. General Soleimani is directly responsible for the deaths of several hundred Americans and the wounding of thousands more during the Iraq war. Throughout the Iraq war, we lost many Americans, killed in action, and many more wounded by Iraq Shia militia who were supported or controlled by General Soleimani. In 2010, Ambassador James Jeffrey, then-U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, said: ``Up to a quarter of the American casualties and some of the more horrific incidents in which Americans were kidnapped . . . can be traced without doubt to these Iranian groups.'' One of the significant tolls to attack American servicemembers was an improvised explosive device, IED, known as an explosively formed penetrator or EFP. These EFPs were provided by Iran exclusively to groups they controlled in order to kill Americans. If you ask American servicemembers who served in Iraq during the war, they will tell you these types of IEDs used by Iranian-supported Shia militias were some of the most deadly and devastating types emplaced by any of the Iraqi insurgency groups, including Al Qaeda in Iraq. While many of my colleagues share the concern regarding General Soleimani and Iran's targeting of Americans during the Iraq war, we seldom hear from Americans who have firsthand experience in fighting these Iranian- supported Iraqi Shia militias. My staff recently spoke to a currently serving U.S. Army officer, originally from Waterloo, IA, who deployed with the 1st Calvary Division on a 15-month deployment to Iraq during the surge. This Iowan described to us the impact Iran's effort in Iraq had on him and his tank platoon in Baghdad saying: The threat of EFPs was quite real during our deployment to Iraq. Understanding the pipeline from Iran into Iraq, the abundance of the munitions and the lethality on US Forces, the sense of peril never left our psyche. While I was never fearful of losing a limb, I knew if I was struck, I would follow certain death, one that I welcomed ten months into a fifteen month deployment. Removing sanctions on Soleimani is an embarrassment for this administration and in the words of some of our Iraq veterans, ``a slap in the face.'' Then there is Luke, a retired Army servicemember with the storied 101st Airborne Division. While on patrol during the division's second tour to Iraq, Luke lost his leg in combat, after his vehicle was hit with an Iranian-made EFP. He told us that ``we come home blown up and try to put our lives back together only to hear that our country is going to be lifting sanctions that will free up billions for Iran to kill more innocents. We may not be at war with them, but they're at war with us. I'm a wounded veteran and I spend a great deal of time helping other guys like me. I can assure you that this deal directly affects us. It is a slap in the face to all veterans. All those who served. . . .'' We owe it to veterans and our current servicemembers who have sacrificed to stop Iran's support of terror. I urge the President and my colleagues to consider Iran's true intent and not to underestimate Iran's will to enhance its capability to destabilize the Middle East, threaten American security, and the security of our allies in the region and around the globe. In closing, the decision we make on this agreement will have lasting results for our Nation, the world, and future generations of Americans. I urge all of my colleagues to reject the President's bad deal and put the security of the American people, our allies, and the global community first. I yield the floor.

Mrs. ERNST

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

Mrs. ERNST. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on an issue that has shaken the moral compass of our society. The phrase ``it's a boy'' is one we often use when celebrating new life. Instead, this was spoken by a Planned Parenthood employee as the body of an unborn baby boy was picked apart and harvested for organs, such as a liver, kidneys, and heart. We have watched as other Planned Parenthood employees talked about ``less crunchy'' techniques to preserve baby organs for buyers and grumbled about a ``war torn'' unborn baby before being sold for parts. While it would be easier to ignore these videos, today we are standing up and shining a light on what is really happening. This is human life, and Planned Parenthood--the Nation's single largest provider of abortion services--is harvesting baby body parts. The American people are shocked and horrified by the utter lack of compassion and disregard shown by Planned Parenthood for these women and their babies. This gruesome footage resonates with our collective conscience and goes against the very principles we stand for. As a mother and grandmother, I believe the gravity of Planned Parenthood's callus and morally reprehensible behavior cannot be ignored. I am committed to defending life because protecting the most vulnerable is an important measure of any society. I am proud to stand before you today with 45 cosponsors and offer legislation that will defund Planned Parenthood while safeguarding funding for women's health services. This legislation prohibits Federal funding for Planned Parenthood, protects Federal funding for women's health services, such as prenatal and post-partum care, cervical and breast cancer screenings, diagnostic laboratory and radiology services, and guarantees there will be no reduction in overall Federal funding available to support women's health. This legislation redirects Federal funding taken from Planned Parenthood to other eligible entities that provide health services for women, such as community health centers and hospitals. There would be absolutely no reduction in overall Federal funding available to support women's health. Community health centers provide more comprehensive primary and preventive health care services--except abortion-- regardless of a person's ability to pay. Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood facilities do not perform in-house mammograms. The American taxpayers should not be asked to fund an organization such as Planned Parenthood that has shown a sheer disdain for human dignity and complete disregard for women and their babies. These videos are hard for anyone to defend and pull back the curtain on Planned Parenthood's careless practice of rummaging for unborn baby organs to be harvested and sold at a price. I leave you with this one question: Who do we want to be as a nation? Before us today is an opportunity to vote for legislation that will protect the most vulnerable and women's health. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. ERNST. Mr. President, the question before us today is clear: Who do we want to be as a nation? It is hard for anyone to defend these morally reprehensible videos as Planned Parenthood callously harvested the organs of unborn babies to be sold at a price. The American people, Republicans and Democrats alike, are horrified by the blatant disregard and utter lack of compassion shown by Planned Parenthood for these women and their babies. It is wrong. The American people know it, and they should not be asked to foot part of the bill. We can no longer turn a blind eye. This is human life, and Planned Parenthood, the Nation's single largest provider of abortion services, is harvesting baby body parts. Before you now is a critical opportunity to vote for legislation that will protect the most vulnerable in our society and fund women's health. With that, I yield the floor.

Mrs. ERNST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

Mrs. ERNST

Mrs. ERNST. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. ERNST

Mrs. ERNST. Will the Chair notify me after 30 seconds?