Cory Gardner

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor today to talk about the broken promises of ObamaCare and the negative impacts this poorly written law have had on my State of Colorado. While there have been many broken promises of ObamaCare, there have been three major broken promises that are the center of focus for hundreds of thousands of Coloradans. I want to start with broken promise No. 1. If you like your plan, you can keep it. The President said over 35 times that Americans shouldn't worry about ObamaCare because if you like your plan, then you can keep it. And it wasn't just the President; time after time, supporters of ObamaCare came to the floor of the House or the Senate or before townhalls in their States or districts and repeated those words: If you like your plan, you can keep it. In fact, these words were used to justify the reason they supported ObamaCare in the first place. Coloradans quickly learned this promise was far from the truth. In late 2013, roughly 335,000 insurance policies in Colorado were canceled because of ObamaCare. These cancellations also affected my family health care plan. Unfortunately, the cancellations in 2013 were the very beginning. In January of 2014, the Colorado Division of Insurance canceled an additional 249,000 plans because those plans didn't meet the requirements of ObamaCare. The President said: If you like your plan, you can keep it. Supporters in Congress said: If you like your plan, you can keep it. But what he meant was, as long as the government approves of your plan, you can keep it. In 2015, an additional 190,000 plans were canceled. In total, according to the Congressional Research Service, over 750,000 health insurance perhaps plans in Colorado were canceled between 2013 and 2015. The fact-checking organization PolitiFact said this promise was ``impossible to keep'' and went on to deem President Obama's promise that if you like your health care plan, you can keep it the ``Lie of the Year'' for 2013. Supporters of ObamaCare will tell you that it is OK that this happened because these 750,000 individuals must have had inferior health insurance and that the government knows best. You see, that is the exact problem with government. That is the arrogance of government and the arrogance of ObamaCare--that people in the government, bureaucrats and others, believe they know better than the American consumers what is best for them. They believe it is OK to cancel 750,000 policies because they must have been bad, so go ahead and cancel them. They will also say that it is all right because there are additional plans they can choose from. But that wasn't the promise of ObamaCare. Broken promise No. 1: If you like your health care plan, you can keep it. Broken promise No. 2: ObamaCare will reduce the costs for families, businesses, and our government. Remember, when ObamaCare was passed, they said the family would save $2,500 a year relatively soon after its passage. Unfortunately, Coloradans have felt that broken promise as well. It is a broken promise that hit their pocketbooks and has broken the bank as well. For example, take the Western Slope of Colorado. I have a chart here. According to the Colorado Division of Insurance, individual insurance premiums for 2016 on the Western Slope of Colorado will rise by an additional average of 25.8 percent. There are people across America who are familiar with Colorado's Western Slope. These are the incredible mountain vistas, our forests, our national parks, our ski resorts. They received a 25.8-percent increase in their health care costs this year. That is far from the promise of lowering the health care costs that ObamaCare was passed with. No one can afford these high prices. In fact, in 2013 one of my Democratic colleagues in the Colorado delegation even tried to exempt one of the wealthiest counties in Colorado from ObamaCare, citing that health insurance premiums would be too expensive. Let me say that again. A Member of the U.S. House of Representatives, a Democrat, tried to exempt portions of his district from ObamaCare because it was making his constituents pay too much for their insurance. Here is a quote: We will be encouraging a waiver. It will be difficult for Summit County residents to become insured. For the vast majority, it's too high a price to pay. It doesn't matter whether you live in the Eastern Plains, Fort Collins, or the Western Slope, ObamaCare has simply made it more costly. Plans are getting more expensive, and promises are being broken. Broken promise No. 3: President Obama promised greater competition in the marketplace through consumer-run co-ops. Yet over 80,000 Coloradans are feeling the impacts of this broken promise. To date, 12 out of 23 co-ops created by ObamaCare have been shut down across the United States, including the co-op in Colorado, which failed in October of this year. Nationwide, the failed co-ops were loaned over $1 billion, which came from the hard-working taxpayers of this country. That taxpayer money was supposed to help get these co-ops off the ground, but now with these failures, that taxpayer money is at risk of never being paid back to the people of this country, and the health care of nearly 700,000 individuals across the United States is in jeopardy. ObamaCare allowed policies to be offered that were never actuarially sound because they assumed there would be a bailout by the government to help make them actuarially sound. By banking on a bailout, they sold the American people a bill of goods. Today we have a path forward that is turning away from the failed health care law that has been built on broken promises. The first step of this path forward is to repeal ObamaCare, and I urge my colleagues to support the repeal of ObamaCare that we will be voting on this week. Repealing ObamaCare will clear the way for a replacement plan and will put our country's health care on the right track. First, we have to restore the ability of individuals to choose what is best for themselves instead of having Big Government choose for them. Coloradans don't want Dr. Congress. They want to keep the doctor they were promised they could keep in the first place. The best way to do this is to ensure that people get to keep the health plans that they want, and that is why I am working with Senator Ron Johnson from Wisconsin on his amendment that simply says that if you like your health care plan, you can keep it. I heard from countless individuals in Colorado who lost the plans they liked and wanted to keep. They were certainly promised they could keep them, and just because ObamaCare can't fulfill the promise that it was sold under doesn't mean we shouldn't do our jobs to make that promise a reality. The amendment Senator Johnson and I have offered would allow individuals to continue receiving health coverage on plans that would otherwise be canceled because of ObamaCare. Second, we must ensure that taxpayer dollars are used responsibly. I filed an amendment that will help recover taxpayer money that was loaned to the failed co-ops. More than $1 billion in Federal loans were awarded to these failed co-ops. Congress has a duty to spend taxpayer dollars responsibly, and this amendment will ensure just that. Lastly, we must make sure individuals have certainty in the health coverage they choose. My final amendment will make certain that co-ops can't rely on bailouts when they are calculating insurance premiums, setting false expectations for consumers. Several co-ops counted on these bailout provisions to keep premiums artificially low. Because these premiums were artificially low and since many co-ops were planning on receiving the bailout, many could no longer cover their expenses. Allowing co-ops to rely on a bailout was irresponsible and has resulted in nearly 700,000 individuals nationwide whose health coverage is now uncertain. It is time to act. It is time to take the path forward. It is time to repeal ObamaCare, which is simply one big broken promise after another. This path to repeal ObamaCare will allow us to replace ObamaCare and will have fewer health care regulations for businesses and individuals. It will put us on a path forward for individual freedoms and a more prosperous America. I yield back my time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I wish to honor the voice of CU Buffalo football, Mr. Larry Zimmer, who will be calling his last game and celebrating his 80th birthday on November 13. Mr. Zimmer joined the University of Colorado broadcasting team in 1971. He has since led a career filled with many awards and distinctions, which highlight his dedication to CU sports. He is a five-time winner of the Colorado Sportscaster of the Year award and recipient of the esteemed Chris Schenkel Award, given to those who dedicate their talents to college football. Even more important than these awards, however, is the respect and admiration he has earned from the students and faculty at the University of Colorado and all those who tune in to Buffalo football. Over his long and distinguished career, he has truly become a hallmark of CU football games. I thank him for his many years of excellent broadcasting and wish him a very happy birthday.

Mr. GARDNER

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

Mr. GARDNER. Madam President, there is a saying by Thomas Hornsby Ferrill engraved on the walls of the Colorado State Capitol that reads, ``Here is a land where life is written in water. . . . '' I come to the floor to talk about the most precious natural resource in the West; that is, of course, our water. Water in the West has helped shape communities, agriculture, tourism, and industry. The management of that water has been traditionally controlled at the State and local level, not the Federal Government. Colorado is the State of origin for four major river basins: The Colorado, the Arkansas, the Platte, and the Rio Grande. These water basins help make for a robust agricultural economy throughout the State. According to the Colorado Department of Agriculture, this industry contributes nearly $41 billion to the State economy and employs nearly 173,000 people. Colorado has more than 35,000 farms and ranches and more than 31 million acres for farming and ranching. The State ranks in the top five nationwide for production of products ranging from potatoes and cantaloupes to sunflowers and wheat. Unfortunately, the Environmental Protection Agency has decided to put forth a rule that would endanger many of these farms as well as the jobs and local economies they help support. The waters of the United States rule, known as WOTUS, would significantly expand the definition of navigable waters under the Clean Water Act. With this rule, the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers have unilaterally decided that isolated ponds and irrigation ditches may be subject to the same Federal oversight as the Mississippi River. They are doing all of this based on authority passed by Congress more than 40 years ago. Instead, this rule could have significant negative impacts on agriculture, industry, local utilities, and water districts, merely by the uncertainty it creates with local entities trying to determine if their water is subject to Federal oversight. According to the Colorado Farm Bureau, an additional 1.3 million acres of land and an additional 170,000 stream miles in Colorado alone could be subject to Federal Government jurisdiction. It is important to point out that Colorado is a lower 48 State, one of the only lower 48 States that has all water flowing out of it and no water flowing into it. Farmers and ranchers would likely be subjected to increased permitting requirements under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act to canals and ditches on their own land. Even if their land is exempted, as some would have you believe from the WOTUS rule under the proposed exclusions, there is already an air of uncertainty for these farmers and ranchers who will have to try and navigate the Federal bureaucracy to determine if they have to apply for the increased permitting requirements. It is no secret that the Environmental Protection Agency often works very slowly in the regulatory and permitting process. Two water projects in Colorado with bipartisan support, the Northern Integrated Supply Project and Gross Reservoir Expansion, have languished in the regulatory process for more than a decade. The waters of the United States rule is simply not the answer. The Federal Government should not be passing expansive new laws without the consent of Congress to regulate every drop of water. The EPA wants you to believe that the proposed WOTUS rule is not a major expansion of power and that this rule does not add any new requirements for agriculture or interfere with private property rights or include the regulation of most irrigation ditches. Fortunately, our Nation maintains a separation of power. On October 9, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued a nationwide stay for the waters of the United States rule after a lawsuit was filed by 18 States, including the State of Colorado. The order of stay specifically states that the rule effectively redraws the jurisdictional lines over our Nation's waters and that the States and others would be harmed if the justice system did not act. I applaud the Sixth Circuit for their action and for the 18 States that moved forward to protect control of the water within their boundaries. Now I believe it is time for Congress to act. Unfortunately, yesterday we watched as a strictly partisan minority blocked S. 1140, the Federal Water Quality Protection Act authored by Senator Barrasso of Wyoming. This legislation, which had moved through the Senate under regular order and in a bipartisan fashion, would seek to have the EPA and others make significant revisions to the WOTUS rule and would throw out the current rule. It calls for significant consultations with State and local governments who actually control the water. I believe this consultation process is a significant step forward. I have heard from many water districts and utilities throughout Colorado. They all have major concerns with the WOTUS rule in its current form and the unintended consequences of the rule. But because of this partisan minority of Senators blocking the legislative vehicle to try to address the many shortcomings of the WOTUS rule, I believe we have no other choice but to move forward in disapproving of the rule in its entirety. I applaud my friend and colleague Senator Ernst of Iowa for her work in introducing S.J. Res. 22, which provides for Congressional disapproval of the waters of the United States rule. That is why I have come to the floor today, to urge a ``yes'' vote on S.J. Res. 22 because in Colorado, we know that we have to stick up for our water rights. In Colorado, we know we have to stand up for our water law. In Colorado, we know that we have to keep the Feds' hands off our water rights. I urge the adoption of this measure. I yield the floor.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 22, 2015, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 22, 2015, at 10 a.m., in room SD- 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs and Federal Management of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 22, 2015, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Improving Pay Flexibilities in the Federal Workforce.''

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 22, 2015, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 22, 2015, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Madam President, in the 1800s, Colorado found itself at the center of a nation--gold rushes and silver rushes, cattle barons and sheep barons, range wars pitting the rancher against the sod farmer. It is a State that, as it does today, had a little bit of something for everyone--a whole lot of space, breathtaking vistas, and pioneer dreams abound. The 1860s ushered in the land rush across the country, extending to Colorado a few years later by the 1880s. People from the east looking for that relief valve of western expansion were drawn to the high plains of Colorado with its fertile valleys, peaks and plateaus, places where the rain followed the plow, and the landsmen knew no limit to the sale of aridity. It was in the 1880s that one Raimond von Harrom Schramm, a wealthy baron, was moving his belongings from east to west when the train he was riding on derailed in a small eastern Colorado town. Detecting Divine providence at work--or most likely scared to get back on the train--he decided to stay put, declaring the site of the derailment was where God intended him to be. He went on to build the first multistory brick buildings in that town before the town's fathers decided against naming him the mayor. That the town council would subject such a man of possession to the humility of an election was too much for Baron Schramm, promptly causing him to move his brick buildings to a more aptly named town--you guessed it-- Schramm, just down the road. It is 100 years later, and there are no brick buildings in his namesake town, just a nice feedlot bearing the name Schramm. In the town he left behind, hardscrabble businesses continued, squeezing just enough moisture out of the ground to provide pastures for the cows. Soon enough fortune and luck built up to break the sod on the eastern plains to begin Colorado's long romance with high-plains farming. It surely wasn't easy. Families crammed into tar paper houses, staking their claim on a patch of ground that knows only shades of brown and green. It was around 1915 when three men came together to start an implement business--Roy Chilcoat, Jack Tribbett, and another partner--selling farm equipment. Steel-studded wheatland machinery, cream separators, and corn shellers tilled sandhills whose only previous disruptions were antelope, buffalo, and the crossing paths of the plains Indians. It was no easy feat to be a pioneer in agriculture. There was an old saying at the coffee shop in that small town: How do you make a small fortune in agriculture? You start with a large one. The people there lived in sod houses, getting ice from ponds in the winter to store over the summer--if there was enough moisture for the pond. They endured sandstorms and dust bowls that were described in books and movies for generations to come. These hardy men and women didn't leave when the hard times continued because they had made this their home. To survive was to succeed and to succeed was something that every American aspired to. Their wealth was measured in friends, family, and in the miles of prairie and the consistency of the windmills turning the lifeblood of the plains, their water. Perhaps nothing else has changed the face of Colorado or Western States more than the application of water to dry land. They are what make Colorado today-- boundless spirits of pioneers driven to succeed. During the Great Depression, it was devastating for everyone. Neighbors saw neighbors' soil drive unrelentingly across the darkened country sky, carried by the wind borne atop the rain-deprived lands. People like Chilcoat and Tribbet knew they had to survive for themselves, their families, and their small, struggling community. They had to survive so that others in the community could survive too. So they found ways to do it--diversifying the business; trading wheat for tractors; giving a price for the wheat that was at two or three times the money the wheat was actually worth just to keep families on their farms; storing the wheat, hoping that it would someday be worth more than the loss they had incurred. They gave tractors to poor farmers knowing they couldn't pay for them but knowing that without them, those family farms wouldn't make it; knowing that someday--or holding hope above fear--their neighbor would make good on it and pay what they could. Businesses in these small towns scraped through the Depression, on to World War II when its sons and daughters left to fight for freedom in lands many had never heard of before, rationing, sacrificing, and dedicating new faces to the workforce, forever changing the landscape of small and big towns alike. Eventually, businesses like Roy's and Jack's and their partners would pass on to a new generation--Howard Crowley and a new partner--and then again to a new generation still. That business still stands today as Farmers Implement Company. Chilcoat and Tribbet were joined by my great-grandfather, known as Daddy Bill, who would eventually sell their interests to my grandfather, Paul Gardner, and my father, John Gardner. I spent years working there, trying to learn values, the business, but learning more about relationships--people and a way of life--than selling parts. In fact, based on how many wrong parts I sold, I am pretty sure that was one of the least of things I learned about. But I watched as generations of customers came through the door. I watched my grandfather refuse to sell something they could make money on in the dealership, but he knew the person who wanted it couldn't afford to buy it. Why did he do it? Because he wanted them to survive--a new generation of survivors continuing their fight to make a living on the windswept plains of eastern Colorado. Tomorrow, Farmers Implement will celebrate its 100th anniversary as a family-owned farm implement business. I am proud of the values that dealership represents and honored to be a part of a great rural family heritage and our little town of Yuma. Congratulations. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I wish to honor the life of Bette Bailly from Burlington, CO, who passed away earlier this month after serving nearly 50 years in the broadcast industry. Bette was an inspiration to others in her professional life and in her community. She was due to celebrate 50 years of dedicated service at her station, KNAB-AM, in just 2 years' time and was honored and recognized with numerous awards throughout her career. As a businesswoman, Bette was hard-charging and took a no-nonsense approach to broadcasting. Her tenacity was well known and respected throughout Northeastern Colorado. Bette was also devoted to the Burlington community. She volunteered her time at the Burlington Chamber of Commerce, the Rotary Club, numerous local boards, and her church. Undoubtedly, Bette will be missed dearly by her family, her community, and the State of Colorado. We will never forget her contributions to local broadcasting.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, today marks a pivotal day for veterans in Colorado and the Rocky Mountain region. Just minutes ago, the House of Representatives approved the Senate bill to extend several important authorizations to Coloradans, authorizations important to the health care of our country's veterans because the bill includes the authorization to complete the Denver VA replacement medical facility. After years of persistence, years of passion, years of emotion, we have finally passed a bill to finish the job at the Denver VA replacement facility in Aurora, CO. This bill will allow us to finish the job, allowing the replacement facility that is critical for the care of veterans in Colorado and the Rocky Mountain region to move forward, to fulfill the promise we have made to our veterans. This bill also turns the page on the gross mismanagement by the VA of this project and will allow the Army Corps of Engineers to take over the management of the project to ensure its completion without further delay. There is simply no acceptable excuse for how the project ended up in this current state--years delayed, hundreds of millions of dollars over budget. While the bill will turn the page on this day, it will not turn our focus away from reforms at the VA to ensure accountability and to ensure this never happens again. I have worked with a number of my colleagues to initiate these reforms, including an amendment to the Defense authorization bill that will get the VA out of the big construction business. I come to the floor to say thank you--thank you to my colleagues, specifically Senator Isakson, Senator Blumenthal, Senator Kirk, Senator Tester, the majority leader, their staff, and my colleague Michael Bennet for their leadership on this issue. Of course, none of this would be possible without the incredible work of Mike Coffman, the Congressman representing the area, Ed Perlmutter, the entire Colorado delegation who worked so hard to make this happen. They have all provided a great service to veterans in passage of the legislation out of the House today. Years from now, when veterans go to this hospital to receive the care we have promised, they will enter into what will be the crown jewel of the VA infrastructure, the crown jewel of the VA system. It took a lot of hard work to get here. Today I am excited, with the passage of the House bill, passage in the Senate, that a bill is on its way to the President to finish the job, to complete the hospital, and to fulfill our promise. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I thank the Chair for the opportunity to speak about this Senate bill, which will complete the job in Denver and finish the Denver-Aurora veterans hospital. This has been a longtime process. It has been a struggle. But I want to thank Senator McConnell, Senator Isakson, Senator Kirk, and Senator Blumenthal for their incredible efforts to bring us to this point. The hospital in Aurora will be a crown jewel in the VA system, and the veterans who have worked so hard to make this a reality deserve nothing but the best, and I believe we start the process of finally building this and finishing it and getting the job done here on the Senate floor today. I ask unanimous consent that the Lee amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 2082, introduced earlier today.

Mr. GARDNER

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

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I wish to thank the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee for his work to get us to this point, the countless hearings he has held, the briefings that we have had to fully understand the fine details and to scrutinize every aspect of the agreement that is now before us. I also wish to thank the ranking member and the Senator from New Jersey for their tireless efforts on the committee when it comes to the process that is before us. Make no mistake. There is not a single Member in this body, in the Senate or House of Representatives, or the American public who would complain about the President's initial goals--the goals he laid out as recently as October of 2012, as he began negotiations with Iran. I quote the President: Our goal is to get Iran to recognize it needs to give up its nuclear program and abide by the U.N. resolutions that have been in place. . . . But the deal we'll accept is--they end their nuclear program. It's very straightforward. But the deal we got from the administration is anything but the straightforward ending of a nuclear program. I have listened very carefully to the hearings we have held. I have listened to the classified briefings. I have studied the language of the text--language that says things such as this: ``Requests for access pursuant to provisions of this JCPOA will be made in good faith, with due observance of the sovereign rights of Iran, and kept to the minimum necessary to effectively implement the verification responsibilities under this JCPOA.'' Senator Collins from Maine a couple of days ago said it very well: ``Not only will Iran retain its nuclear capability, but also it will be a far richer nation and one that has more conventional weapons and military technology than it possesses today.'' This doesn't end the nuclear program as the President stated was his goals. It continues it. It paves a patient pathway to an industrialized nuclear complex in Iran. With the blessings of the world community, a flourishing economy, a lifting of the conventional arms embargo, a lifting of the ballistic missile embargo--and that is a good deal for us? Over the last several days, I have heard colleague after colleague who are supporting this deal come to the floor to say things such as: This deal is flawed. It is not the best. It needs improvement. Since when did a bad option in the Senate become the only option in the Senate? Since when did second, third, fourth, fifth best for this country become the best for this country? Several months ago I had the opportunity--as have many colleagues--to visit with Prime Minister Netanyahu to talk about the dance of porcupines created by entering this deal--the nuclear tripwire that will be set up because this does not end Iran's nuclear program. Through this deal, we have given up the golden nuggets of leverage that we had with Iran--our leverage of sanctions that were beginning to work. In fact, in the briefings that we have all attended, analysts have said that our sanctions are eroding support for the regime daily, hurting their economy, devaluing their currency, and bringing them to the table. Yet the deal that we have allows continued uranium enrichment, repeal of U.N. resolutions, and removal of the Iran nuclear issue from their agenda. That is the benefit of the bargain that the United States is about to enter into. We heard talk over the past several days about status quo versus hypothetical. Here is the status quo that we will be entering into: a status quo that in 5 years allows conventional arms to resume in Iran, a status quo that will allow ballistic missiles to resume in 8 years and advanced centrifuge research to continue. As the chairman of the committee stated yesterday, talking about how one IRH centrifuge could replace vast numbers of the current centrifuges they have today, they will be allowed to keep apparently all for radioisotope purposes. Why do they need ballistic missiles and conventional arms for radiation treatment? We have desanctioned and delisted numerous individuals, people who were the fathers of the Iranian nuclear program, the A.Q. Khan of Iran, delisted, desanctioned under this deal. Conglomerates of companies like IKO are delisted and desanctioned under this deal. These are a group of companies that were sanctioned in 2003 not because of nuclear arms-related issues but because of their threat to the world financial system. That conglomerate is now desanctioned under the terms of the deal. Sure, the United States gets to sanction them on our own, but as we heard today, yesterday, and the day before, the sanctions the United States has apparently aren't enough, and that is why we have to enter into this deal. Yet we have, as Juan Zarate said, the Sword of Damocles holding over Iran's head with the snapback provisions that apparently are good enough when we do them on our own. One of the things that hasn't been talked about very much over the past several weeks is a letter that Secretary Kerry sent to every Senator on September 2. I think that was around the same day that enough votes were achieved to block or sustain the President's filibuster. In the first paragraph of this letter that every Senator received, there are two sentences that I want to make sure everybody here recognizes. We share the concern expressed by many in Congress regarding Iran's continued support for terrorist and proxy groups throughout the region, its propping up of the Asad regime in Syria, its efforts to undermine the stability of its regional neighbors, and the threat it poses to Israel. In the very next sentence, Secretary Kerry goes on to say: We have no illusion that this behavior will change following implementation of the JCPOA. We have no illusion that Iran's behavior will change. That is the status quo. The letter goes on to detail what we are going to do once this deal is entered into: Additional U.S.-GCC working groups are focused on counterterrorism, military preparedness . . . and the goal of building political support for multilateral U.S.-GCC ballistic missile defense (BMD) cooperation. So we are going to enter into some deals to fight ballistic missiles that this deal allows in 8 years. The letter goes on to say that we will push back against Iran's arms transfers. Conventional arms embargoes will be lifted in 5 years. The letter then goes on to say that we will work on Iran's Missile Technology Control Regime guidelines about the transfer of sensitive systems, such as ballistic missile technology, and yet this deal allows ballistic missiles in 8 years. The letter goes on to say: U.S. support for Israel and our Gulf partners has never been a partisan issue, and we believe these proposals would receive wide bipartisan support. This is a partisan deal with bipartisan opposition, and I will submit that the only element of bipartisanship on the Senate floor today is the opposition. I urge my colleagues to vote to invoke cloture. The American people deserve to know where the United States Senate stands and deserves to know where their Members of the Senate stand with the United States. I yield back my time.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar Nos. 172 and 173, en bloc.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 11:30 a.m., Thursday, August 6, for a pro forma session with the only business conducted being that under the previous orders; further, that when the Senate adjourns on August 6, 2015, it next convene on Tuesday, September 8, at 2 p.m., pursuant to the provisions of H. Con. Res. 72; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; and that following leader remarks, the Senate begin consideration of H.J. Res. 61, as under the previous order.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 248, submitted earlier today.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported amendment be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported amendments be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 167, S. 1576.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.