Dean Heller

Mr. HELLER

Mr. HELLER. Madam President, I rise today to address the public revelations regarding classified government surveillance programs. But before I do so, I would like to take a moment to honor Mike Landsberry, who died a hero's death in Sparks, NV, last week. After spotting a student with a gun at Sparks Middle School, Mr. Landsberry moved directly in harm's way to protect his students and others from danger. He was fatally shot. Mr. Landsberry was an Alabama native, a graduate of McQueen High School in Sparks, a University of Nevada-Reno graduate, and a decorated master sergeant Nevada Guard airman. To his students, he was a coach, a teacher, and also a mentor. To his community, Mr. Landsberry was a patriot, a father, and a friend. Master Sergeant Landsberry leaves behind a legacy of self-sacrifice and service to his country and community. He will continue to be remembered as a great and honorable man and a father.

Mr. HELLER

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on why I had a hold on this particular nomination. Contrary to some who are speculating on this issue, I am not voting against this specific nominee. My concerns are with the way OPM determines who can ask questions and who can receive answers. Imagine, there is a Federal Government agency which determines who can ask a question to them and who can get an answer. Whether a Member of the minority or majority, every Member should be able to ask questions and to receive those answers. Frankly, if you ask a question, you should be able to get an answer; and when you get the answer, it probably should be truthful. That is my argument, and that is the purpose I have this hold. I want to be very clear that I am not voting against the nominee as an individual. I am voting against the agency itself. OPM, in my opinion, has become one of the most politicized agencies in Washington, DC. I believe the Office of Personnel Management has refused to do its part to ensure that all Americans are treated fairly under ObamaCare. Specifically what I mean by that is I believe what is good for the American people should probably be good for Congress, and what is good for Congress should be good for the American people. I believe that is a standard which many of us in the Senate live by. I think there are some who don't, but I think the majority do. If something is good for the American people, it should be good for Congress. And I think ObamaCare is a good example of that. For me, the most concerning issue is whether OPM engaged in negotiations with the Senate and House leadership to secure exemptions and subsidies for Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives. I wish to thank a colleague of mine from Louisiana, Senator Vitter, for his hard-fought effort on this particular issue. I am not the only person here in this Chamber who can't get questions answered from OPM. I would like to walk for a minute the time line and the difficulty I have had with OPM over the last couple of months trying to get direct and truthful answers from this agency. I will start on August 28. I wrote OPM asking specifically from the agency to ensure that all congressional staff, including leadership and committee staff, be fairly treated under ObamaCare. This is what I said: This is a missed opportunity for the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which currently administers and operates Congressional health care, to ensure that all Congressional staff, including Committee and Leadership, play by the same rules as the American taxpayer. I go on to say later: As you issue your final rule in order to comply with Section 1312 of the Affordable Care Act, I encourage you to clarify this issue once and for all and require in addition to Members of Congress that all Congressional staff-- Committee and Leadership--to go into the exchanges. I wanted the dialog. I wanted this conversation. That is why I wrote to OPM. Of course I was looking to hear back from them, and I received no answer. I received no answer from the agency, so I followed up on September 13. From August 28 to September 13, I got no answer. On September 13, I wrote: I would like to first express my disappointment with your agency's lack of response to my stated concerns. In addition, I would like to reiterate my request that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) clearly mandate in its final rule that all Congressional staff, including Committee and Leadership, be subject to the consequences of ObamaCare. I think that is a fair dialog and a fair question to ask. That was on September 13. Finally, on September 18, I got the response. Not the response that I wanted, as you can imagine, but I did get a response. In their letter, it says: In issuing our final rule, OPM will address this specific issue as well as others raised by members of Congress and the public at large. So in this letter on September 18, I wanted to have a discussion with OPM, and OPM says: You can read the final rule. We are not going to have a discussion with you. We are not going to reach out. We are not going to come to your office. We just want you to read the final rule, like every other American, and we are not going to have a discussion prior to issuing the rule. Obviously, I wasn't going to take that for an answer, so I reached out and I requested a formal briefing with the Acting Director. Sure enough, we had that meeting on September 26. So this is from August 28 all the way to September 26. I will tell you, frankly, it was a good discussion. They were frank. They had a couple of members of their staff there. I raised concerns about possible back door negotiations that would allow for special treatment under the law. I asked specifically whether OPM had engaged leadership on this issue. I asked that question: Have you engaged leadership on this issue? I asked the question three times: Did you engage with leadership on either the House side or Senate side on how you wrote these rules? Three times I asked that question and three times OPM had insisted that they had not, that the answer was no. So they said no three times. They formulated their proposal based on the advice of their lawyers. I was OK with that. We had discussions on other principles of the bill itself, but that was the essence of the conversation I had and I was fine with that. Frankly, I was ready to release my hold. But what I did want was answers in writing. I wanted to memorialize the conversation that we had in my office, so I sent them another letter on September 28, formally requesting OPM to provide me with a detailed list of all conversations or negotiations that they had with staff members of the Senate or House leadership when crafting the proposed rule. I want to be super specific. On September 28 we had numerous questions but question No. 4 that I had: Provide me a detailed list of all conversations or negotiations you had with any staff member of Senate or House Leadership when crafting your proposed rule specifically, the provision giving each Member of Congress the authority to determine who on their staff goes to the Exchange. If you engaged in any discussions--both formal and informal--with Leadership staff was there any undue pressure received from staff during these discussions? Do you believe this to be a conflict of interest? So that question, that letter, was sent out. We had a great discussion. Please memorialize, please respond, and I received none. That was September 28. Please respond to that. They refused to do that. On October 1, I started reading press reports, press reports both in Politico and also in the National Review. After I asked OPM have you ever dealt specifically with leadership in either House on these proposed rules and they told me no three times, then we find out in Politico that leadership worked for months--months to save these very same longstanding subsidies, according to documents and emails provided to Politico. I go back to the original question and my concern, if you talk to an agency, do you have a right, whether you are in the majority or minority, to talk to OPM? Do you have a right to receive an answer, and when you get an answer, should that answer be truthful? Three times they told me no, they had not dealt with leadership, and you can see in the press reports, the emails that were released that was not the case. What was reported in these stories is directly counter to what OPM told me in our meeting. I followed up with another letter dated October 8. I asked for OPM to provide me with detailed lists of all conversations or negotiations that they had with leadership staff. So this is what I said specifically: In light of recent press reports that Congressional Leadership staff negotiated with the Office of Personnel and Management (OPM) regarding changes made to the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program, I respectfully reiterate my request that you provide me with a detailed list of all conversations or negotiations with any staff member of Senate or House Leadership. These news reports run directly counter to statements that you made with [me and] three other OPM staff members during our meeting two weeks ago. This time I got a response. I finally get a response. OPM told me they couldn't answer my question. They told me they couldn't answer the questions because the government was shut down. Pretty convenient and, frankly, very disturbing. All I am asking is what OPM told me in our meetings--is it true or whether the press is reporting the truth? Where is the truth? Senators have a right to ask questions. They have a right to receive answers. Those answers should be truthful. That is why I put on the hold. That is why I voted against cloture on this nominee. This is why I will vote against the nominee, not because I have an issue with the nominee herself. I have a problem with this agency. I want to reiterate and again express my appreciation with others in this Chamber who are as frustrated as I am with OPM--Senator Vitter being one of them--of not being able to get answers, to receive answers back from this particular agency. I want to say I still believe--and I think most in this Chamber believe this--that what is important and good for the American people should be good for Congress; what is good for Congress should be good for the American people. I stand by that and will be voting against final confirmation on this nominee. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HELLER

Mr. HELLER. Madam President, today I wish to recognize a dedicated public servant from my home State of Nevada, Helyse Turner. For the past several years, Ms. Turner has served as the Business and Community Liaison with the Sierra Nevada Job Corps Center. In this capacity, she has contributed to an organization whose mission is to assist young Nevadans obtain the skills they need to become successful professionals. She has worked closely with my Reno office and has been a resource to them as they work to meet the needs of my constituents. Ms. Turner has an impressive record of public service in both the non-profit and government sectors. In addition to her community service while at the Sierra Nevada Job Corps Center, she has assisted the needy by working with the Food Bank of Northern Nevada, and she has helped to responsibly manage Nevada's vast public lands while serving with the Bureau of Land Management. She also volunteers on a number of local civic boards, including the local Chamber of Commerce Ambassador program and the Sierra Nevada Chapter of the Public Relations Society of America. Ms. Turner exemplifies the values of philanthropy and community service, and in so doing she has had a profound impact on many Nevadans. I and my staff deeply appreciate her dedicated efforts and her years of service, and I ask my colleagues to join me in wishing her the best of luck as she begins a new chapter with Utah's Clearfield Job Corps Center. She will be greatly missed in the Silver State.

Mr. HELLER

Mr. HELLER. Mr. President, I wish to acknowledge the Missing in America Project's Veteran Recovery Program, which has coordinated a ceremony during which 18 Nevada veterans of the Vietnam and Korean wars will be laid to rest. On October 1, these fallen heroes who never received a military burial will finally be given full military honors at the Northern Nevada Veterans Memorial Cemetery in Fernley, NV. These heroic Nevadans who will finally receive the honorable recognition they so rightly deserve, gave all that they could give in order to defend liberty and the American way of life. They were willing to put on a uniform, answer the call of duty, and sacrifice their very lives on the altar of freedom. There is no higher virtue than that which was displayed by these 18 brave Nevadans, and the thousands of others with whom they served. And although years have passed since these American warriors gave their lives, their selfless sacrifice is not forgotten, but lives on in the hearts of those whom they died to defend. The very least we can do is express our profound gratitude and appreciation for these heroes by giving them an honorable military burial. We can never thank our veterans enough for the immeasurable sacrifices they and their families have made on our behalf. As a member of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, I can personally attest to the importance of providing every available resource and benefit to America's veterans. I applaud the Missing in America Project for helping to advance this effort by working diligently to ensure that lost veterans receive the honorable burial they deserve. I invite my colleagues to join me in thanking this organization for its efforts, and I join my fellow Nevadans in remembering the 18 heroes who will be laid to rest in a manner consistent with our Nation's high esteem for their valiant service.

Mr. HELLER

Mr. HELLER. Madam President, I wish to recognize an outstanding achievement by a group of hard-working students at Faith Lutheran Junior/Senior High School in Las Vegas. The Faith Lutheran Mock Trial team has been invited to compete in the Seventh Annual Empire Invitational in New York City, and is the first ever Nevada team to be invited to compete in this mock trial event. Faith Lutheran's mock trial program is part of the school's justice and advocacy program, which is designed to prepare and equip students for academic and professional paths in public policy, law and advocacy. It is notable achievement to be invited to the Empire Invitational event, which is the only mock trial tournament in the country that hosts schools from Canada, Ireland and the United Kingdom. By competing in this year's tournament, Faith Lutheran's mock trial participants will not only receive invaluable experience applying legal principles, but they will also enhance skills that are critical to their future scholastic and vocational success. Educational activities such as this mock trial tournament open the door to increased possibilities for young students to make a difference in their communities. Faith Lutheran's mock trial team serves as an admirable example to aspiring students across the Silver State. This special achievement is the result of many hours of teamwork, effort and preparation. The dedicated students and faculty who are part of Faith Lutheran's mock trial team should be immensely proud of the opportunity to represent their school, and the State of Nevada, at this year's Empire Invitational. I ask my colleagues to join me in commending these exceptional students, and wish them a successful and memorable experience at the tournament.

Mr. HELLER

Mr. HELLER. Madam President, I wish to recognize the Las Vegas Natural History Museum and congratulate it on being awarded national accreditation by the American Alliance of Museums. This accreditation is the highest national recognition of a museum's commitment to public service, professional standards, and excellence in education. This important milestone exemplifies the remarkable progress that the Las Vegas Natural History Museum has made, and attests to the central role the museum plays in educating the local community. For more than 2 decades, the Las Vegas Natural History Museum has provided Nevadans of all ages and from all walks of life the opportunity to explore the natural treasures of our past. The museum has expanded the small, loaned exhibit with which it began into a premiere, multi-million dollar collection of wildlife and prehistoric exhibits. Today it offers a truly unique educational experience from which countless Nevadans have benefited. Under the leadership of Executive Director Marilyn Gillespie, as well as a dedicated board of directors, the Las Vegas Natural History Museum has completed a demanding process in order to become nationally accredited. The museum and its leadership team should be proud of this important achievement. Centers of learning such as the Las Vegas Natural History Museum enrich our communities by making the learning process an engaging and exciting endeavor. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating this exceptional museum and extend my best wishes for many more successful years to come.

Mr. HELLER

Mr. HELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of the Vitter amendment to the energy efficiency bill. Before I begin my remarks, I wish to recognize the horrific events that occurred yesterday, a little over a mile from here. Yesterday's tragic and senseless shooting devastated families and changed lives forever. We continue to hold the victims and their loved ones in our thoughts and we are deeply appreciative of law enforcement and first responders who helped save lives and prevent further violence. Senator Vitter's amendment to the energy efficiency bill addresses a serious concern that I, along with many of my constituents, have expressed about ObamaCare. Specifically, this amendment seeks to eliminate special Washington, DC, exemptions in the current law. It requires congressional staff, including the committee and leadership staff as well as the President and the Vice President and all political appointees in the administration, to participate in the same exchanges ObamaCare forces on everyday Americans. I have cosponsored this amendment with some of my colleagues, including Senators Vitter and Enzi, because I think it is clear the American people are fed up with the beltway mentality that the rules apply to everyone else but not Washington, DC. If you ask me, a law that applies to all Americans except those who wrote it simply does not pass the smell test. By the way, I wish to note this elitist attitude is not anything new. In fact, America's second President, John Adams, warned against a legislative assembly that would ``in time not hesitate to exempt itself from the burdens which it will lay without shame on its constituents.'' It turns out this was a tragically accurate prediction. Before ObamaCare was even passed into law, I argued that those who wrote the law should be beholden to it. As a member of the House Ways and Means Committee, I introduced an amendment that would require all Members of Congress and their dependents to obtain their health insurance through the Affordable Care Act's health care insurance exchanges. But last month, immediately after Congress left for the August recess, the Office of Personnel Management announced in its proposed rules on ObamaCare that the government can continue to make employer contributions to the health plans of congressional Members and staff. This basically means Members of Congress and congressional staff will receive a taxpayer-funded subsidy for their health care insurance. Ultimately, these tax dollars will be used to protect Washington insiders from the negative consequences of ObamaCare's health exchanges. Following OPM's announcement, I immediately wrote to them, asking that they clarify in their final rule exactly who is subject to the exchanges. Specifically I asked them to ensure that in addition to Members of Congress, all congressional staff, including committee and leadership staff as well as political employees, go to the exchanges. I have written a followup letter to OPM, and as of yet I have not received a single response for this concern. If ObamaCare is such a good idea, why would those who helped write the law not stand proudly by it? The fact that ObamaCare protects a select few from participating in the exchanges is further evidence that the law never should have been passed to begin with. But now that it has been passed, upheld by the courts as a massive tax increase, those who put it in place should be subject to the same burdensome regulations, taxes, and mandates that everyday Americans are stuck with. If the President and Congress say it is good enough for the American people, then it should be good enough for the President, Vice President, political appointees, and all congressional staff too. So this amendment I have cosponsored ensures that there is no special fix or exemption for Members of Congress and their staffs. It ensures that they participate in the exchanges just as does every other American starting January 1 of next year. It also ensures that any type of taxpayer-funded subsidies offered to them are also available to the American taxpayers through tax credits. As many of my colleagues did, I spent the August recess meeting with my constituents and listening to their concerns. It probably won't surprise anyone that the general public doesn't think very highly of Congress, and this exemption is a perfect example of why that is the case. Unfortunately, in recent days the conversation about this particular amendment has taken an ugly turn toward personal attacks. Regardless of whether my colleagues support this amendment, we should be talking about this measure in the context of what is fair and what is best for the American public. I urge my colleagues to abandon threats and personal attacks and examine this legislation based on its merits. Since the Supreme Court upheld ObamaCare, its provisions have been repeatedly delayed by the administration, demonstrating that the Federal Government understands how bad the law will be for businesses and middle-class families. In fact, the Washington Times just reported that the Obama administration has delayed major aspects of the health care law no less than five times to date. And this latest move to insulate DC insiders from this unpopular law is more than enough evidence that ObamaCare is the wrong answer to the health care challenges in this country. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It is a reflection of a basic principle of our democracy: that equality under the law means the law applies to everyone. Serving the people of the United States is a privilege. It is about service. It is not about status. And if Congress is going to pass laws that are unpopular, we better be ready to live by the same rules as everyone else. This is what this amendment is about, and I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting it. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HELLER

Mr. HELLER. Mr. President, I wish to offer a tribute honoring the life and work of Father Caesar Caviglia. Father Caviglia was a dedicated community leader from my home State of Nevada who passed away this week. He touched the lives of countless Nevadans and will be long remembered for his compassion, faith, and service to his church and community. Father Caviglia was a lifelong Nevadan who spent more than half a century as a minister and educator. Throughout his life, he served in various capacities across the entire State. He was born in Ely, NV in 1928, and returned to the Silver State after being ordained and earning multiple degrees in philosophy, theology and education. He was a committed educator who spent time teaching at Bishop Manogue Catholic High School and the University of Nevada, Reno before moving to the southern part of the State to serve as the superintendent of Nevada State Catholic Schools. Father ``C,'' as he was known by his parishioners, spent much of his ministry serving as the parish priest at St. Peter's Catholic Church in Henderson, NV. Throughout his time there, he took on a variety of leadership roles and was active in advocating for important issues affecting those he served. He was a member of the faculty at the Henderson Campus of the College of Southern Nevada, where he taught sociology, anthropology and philosophy. He played a key role in the construction of that campus, and one of its academic buildings is named in his honor. He returned to Ely to begin his retirement, but soon after, he resumed his role of service as the administrator at Sacred Heart Catholic Church, where he served until 2008. Father Caviglia spent a lifetime devoted to serving his community and serves as an example to us all. I ask my colleagues to join me in remembering Father Caesar Caviglia, and offer my deepest condolences to his family and parishioners as they mourn the loss of this great Nevadan.

Mr. HELLER

Mr. HELLER. Mr. President, I wish to offer a tribute honoring the life and service of Karen Paulson, who passed away this week. Karen was a friend and a dedicated, hard-working member of my staff for a number of years. She also served as an aide to several other Members of Congress, including Congressman Jon Porter from my home State of Nevada, and House Speaker John Boehner. Karen was a tremendously talented administrator who cared deeply about public service. She was an individual upon whom many others relied. Karen could always be counted on for her steadfastness and initiative. She was an attentive problem-solver and was ever eager to help make things simpler for her colleagues however she could. I can personally attest to her commitment to excellence in whatever role she held, and I am deeply grateful for the special years she spent as a member of my staff. While Karen will be dearly missed, her service and her spirit will be long remembered. I ask my colleagues to join me in remembering this dedicated public servant, and offer my deepest condolences to Karen's family and loved ones during this difficult time.

Mr. HELLER

Mr. HELLER. Mr. President, I wish to recognize Sonya Johnson of Fallon, NV, and congratulate her on receiving this year's Ag Advocate Award from the National Agriculture in the Classroom Organization. This award recognizes efforts to promote agriculture literacy in the classroom, and I am immensely proud that Sonya has been selected from a nationwide group of nominees to receive this prestigious award. As a mother of five daughters and past president of the Churchill County Farm Bureau, Sonya has demonstrated an exceptional commitment to education, volunteerism, and community service. For more than 30 years, she has given of her time by volunteering to educate Nevada's students about the importance of agriculture, as well as agriculture-related higher education and career opportunities that are available to them. Whether in a classroom, at a farm festival in Las Vegas, or at a community workshop, Sonya has helped countless Nevadans understand the critical role agriculture plays in our State and national heritage. Not only has she used creative methods in her educational efforts, but she also often reaches out to students in remote locations, including Indian reservations, and she has volunteered with children of mine workers as well. Her efforts were recognized in 2010 by the Nevada Agriculture Foundation, which named Sonya the Outstanding Nevada Ag in the Classroom Volunteer. Sonya's commitment to educating Nevadans about agriculture is truly admirable. She has made an invaluable investment in the lives and futures of Nevada's students. I ask my colleagues to join me in commending Sonya on this well-deserved recognition, and I thank her for her many efforts as a volunteer and educator.

Mr. HELLER

Mr. HELLER. Mr. President, the State of Nevada mourns the loss of Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Search and Rescue Officer David Vanbuskirk. Officer Vanbuskirk was a true hero who lost his life during a search and rescue operation at Mt. Charleston. His inspiring legacy of public service will be long remembered. Officer Vanbuskirk began his service with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department 13 years ago, and was one of only seven commissioned officers charged with conducting rescues for the department. On Monday, July 22, 2013, he responded to a call for help from a stranded hiker who needed emergency assistance. It was during this dangerous rescue mission that Officer Vanbuskirk nobly gave his life in the line of duty. Officer Vanbuskirk represented the very best of Nevada, and his sacrifice is exemplary of the highest standards of public service. His commitment to service above self is the definition of heroic, as is his willingness to place the safety and welfare of others before his own. His actions remind us that there are brave and fearless Americans who put their lives on the line every day to keep us safe, and we owe them all a profound debt for their service. While the State of Nevada will dearly miss this dedicated officer, his memory and legacy of courage will continue to live on in our hearts. I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring this fallen Nevadan, and I offer my deepest condolences to Officer Vanbuskirk's family and loved ones during this difficult time.

Mr. HELLER

Mr. HELLER. Mr. President, last summer the Supreme Court narrowly upheld as a tax the massive government takeover of health care in America, known more commonly as ObamaCare. Since then, as the law's provisions have slowly been implemented, the size and scope of this colossal monstrosity have become clear. I opposed the ObamaCare bill from the very beginning as a Member of the House of Representatives serving on the Ways and Means Committee. Back then Americans were told that Congress needed to pass the bill before they could know all that was in it, but the more the American people learn about it, the less popular it becomes. In fact, news reports tell us the administration is now looking for help from Hollywood celebrities to push a bill that many Americans clearly do not support. That tactic has been used before. In the 1950s and the 1960s, Hollywood and some athletes were used to sell and glamorize tobacco products. Today, Hollywood and some athletes are being asked to peddle the Affordable Care Act, perhaps to make up for past sins. While the American people grow more uncomfortable with this law, the administration has allowed $54 million to be spent on ``navigators'' to help push people toward this program. Reports have suggested that there will be 175,000 of these so-called navigators, whose job it is to facilitate this law. Add that to the 16,000 new IRS agents who are being hired to implement ObamaCare, and it has become even clearer now just how flawed this law is. It is being widely circulated that the administration is willing to spend nearly $1 billion on advertisements to entice the American people into buying something they do not want. The President's recent decision to delay for another year the law's mandate on employers and small businesses is more compelling evidence that the ObamaCare approach to health care reform is not working and is only going to make matters worse. It is remarkable that the same administration that pushed so hard for this health care takeover is now hesitant to put in place the very measures contained in the law, but I think the administration has a very good reason to be hesitant. Since ObamaCare's inception, middle-class families have seen their premiums skyrocket by an average of $2,500. Nearly 75 percent of small businesses in this country have been forced to fire their employees or cut their hours and turn full-time employees into part-time workers. In fact, just last month 322,000 workers were forced into part-time employment. So the administration has created quite the balancing act for middle-class families: At the same time they are dealing with increased health care costs and higher premiums, they are confronted with reduced work hours and the threat of being forced into part-time positions. I say that is an unacceptable situation in which to put the American people. Clearly, at a time when we are approaching 5 straight years with an unemployment rate over 7.5 percent, ObamaCare's job-crushing provisions are only making things worse for our economy, and that is why the administration is having second thoughts. No one argues that the health care system in this country is perfect. There are absolutely steps we can take to increase access to high- quality, affordable health care. But ObamaCare's massive expansion of the Federal Government's role in the health care industry is not turning out to be the solution its supporters said it would be. That is why the architects of the legislation are cherry-picking which parts of the law to enforce, delaying some of its key provisions. It is obvious this legislation is well on its way to collapsing under its own weight, and that will only further hurt the American people and cause even greater damage to our economy. I have a three-part test that I have told my constituents about countless times. It is a test that I apply whenever I evaluate legislation, and it is called the more-higher-less test. When legislation hits my desk, I evaluate whether that bill will lead to more competition, higher quality, and less cost--hence the more-higher-less test. If the bill passes the test, then it is a bill I will consider supporting. That test is rooted in my belief that the American free market system has created the world's greatest economy and allowed innovation and creativity to thrive. Competition is the key to improving our health care system, not burdensome regulations and mandates, especially when they are selectively enforced by government bureaucrats. Perhaps the Obama administration has the same concerns about ObamaCare that I have, and that is why they would rather not fully enforce it until after the next election. But if that is the case, they need to make the tough decisions to address the problems instead of pretending those problems do not exist. When I was recently back in my home State of Nevada, I toured a medical school and spoke with a number of bright, hard-working students who expressed serious concerns about the effects of ObamaCare. I told them that one of my biggest fears was that the law would turn them all into government employees and it would put a bureaucrat between them and their patients. Instead of a system like that, we need to reduce the cost of health care services by enacting meaningful tort reform, making insurance more affordable, and providing market-based solutions to meet consumer needs. We need to create an atmosphere that will foster economic growth and job creation instead of punishing the middle class with higher health care premiums and fewer hours at work. I can understand the Obama administration's decision to delay the employer mandate that is crushing small businesses across the country. That is why so many of us opposed the law to begin with. But the American people deserve far better than a cherry-picking, tax- increasing approach to health care reform. American families should not have to juggle higher health care premiums with the threat of losing their jobs or losing hours at work. They deserve commonsense solutions that will reduce costs and increase access to high-quality care. ObamaCare clearly is not that solution. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HELLER

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

Mr. HELLER

Mr. HELLER. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize and thank a Nevadan who is here in our Nation's Capital this week, Mr. Robert W. Chambers, Jr. Mr. Chambers is an artillery veteran of the United States Army who served in the 196th Infantry Brigade during the Vietnam war. He, along with his brother and father, is visiting from Nevada this week to participate in a reunion of the 196th Infantry Brigade, and I would like to thank and commend him for his service to our country. The 196th Infantry Brigade was the last combat brigade to depart from Vietnam in June of 1972. More than 1,000 soldiers who served in the 196th were killed in action in Vietnam, and more than 5,000 others were wounded in action. These immeasurable sacrifices made by intrepid American patriots are truly heroic and deserve our highest respect and deepest appreciation. This week will mark the 60th anniversary of the armistice that ended hostilities in Korea. That conflict is often tragically referred to as America's ``Forgotten War.'' But the lives lost during that conflict, and during every conflict America has waged to defend freedom both at home and abroad, are far from forgotten. May it never be said that any war in which brave Americans like Robert W. Chambers, Jr. served, is ``forgotten.'' Rather, may we remain ever mindful of the immeasurable sacrifices that have been made throughout our history in defense of liberty. America's veterans represent the very best of our country, and accordingly, they deserve the very best from their country. As a member of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, I recognize the duty we owe to our heroes in uniform who gave their all for this great country. I urge my colleagues to join me in thanking Mr. Chambers for his service, as well as the members of the 196th Infantry Brigade, and wish them well on their reunion.

Mr. HELLER

Mr. HELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize two exceptionally talented young people from my home State of Nevada, Ashlie Blake and Reno Tuufuli. These two young athletes were selected to represent the United States as members of the U.S.A. Track and Field World Youth Team, and competed in the International Association of Athletics Federations--IAAF, World Youth Championships in Donetsk, Ukraine. These dedicated and hardworking young Nevadans competed with great skill against the best young athletes in the world, and they represented their State and their Nation admirably at the competition. Ashlie Blake and Reno Tuufuli helped lead Team USA to its best showing at the World Youth Championships. The team took home 17 medals over the course of the competition, more than any other country. Ashlie placed third out of 55 athletes from around the world, winning the U.S.A.'s first medal of the competition for her performance in the women's shot put event. Reno surpassed his personal best record in the men's discus throw and placed seventh out of 30 international athletes in the men's discus competition. There is no doubt that both of these outstanding performances were the result of many hours of hard work and dedicated training, and Ashlie and Reno should be proud of their efforts and achievements. I congratulate Ashlie Blake and Reno Tuufuli on their success, and I wish them all the best as they continue their athletic endeavors.

Mr. HELLER

Mr. HELLER. Madam President, today I wish to recognize Steve Schorr, vice president of public and government affairs for Cox Communications in my home State of Nevada. After more than two-and-a- half decades of dedicated service to his company as well as to the community, Steve is retiring this year. Steve not only leaves a lasting legacy as a leader in broadcasting and in business, but he also enters retirement having made a profound impact as a civic volunteer and philanthropist. His many contributions to Southern Nevada's development and quality of life are truly remarkable and will be felt by Nevadans all across the State for years to come. Prior to his tenure at Cox Communications, Steve established a strong reputation as a journalist, earning multiple Emmy Awards, two National Freedom Foundation Awards and an Armstrong Award for Broadcasting. He was also inducted into the inaugural class of the Nevada Broadcasters Association's Hall of Fame. During his time as vice president of public and government affairs for Cox Communications, Steve has been a tireless advocate for community development and economic growth. As a business executive, he has contributed to the expansion of his company, working closely with local, State and Federal Governments on issues that were critical to Nevada's private sector. In addition to his commitment to excellence in broadcasting and in business, Steve has consistently exemplified the very highest standards of community service. He has devoted his time to improving education in Nevada, as an adjunct professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas Greenspun School of Communications. Steve Schorr Elementary School in Las Vegas is named in his honor. In addition, he has been honored with the U.S. Department of Justice J. Pat Finley Lifetime Achievement Award for his work on behalf of missing children in Southern Nevada. He also devotes his time as a member of numerous civic boards and organizations, and has received the Governor's ``Point of Light'' Award for his exceptional volunteerism. I want to acknowledge and thank Steve for his many years of dedicated service to Nevada as an educator, journalist, business executive and philanthropist. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Steve on his retirement, and in wishing him many successful and fulfilling years to come.

Mr. HELLER

Mr. HELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to address an issue that is troubling to me and to my constituents back in the State of Nevada and to a growing number of Americans across the country. I am referring to the tendency of those who lead government agencies to abuse their power and deprive Americans of their constitutional rights. We have seen examples of this alarming trend over the last several weeks: The NSA is reportedly confiscating private e-mails and phone records. The IRS is specifically targeting conservative groups seeking tax exempt status. Constituents have flooded my office with phone calls, e-mails, and letters demanding to know why their government continues to encroach on their liberty. They have had enough and so have I. Recently, the Federal court of Nevada ruled that the Federal Government has abused its power in my home State. The court ruled in favor of private cattle owners in Nevada, ranchers who came to the court because they felt the Federal Government was intentionally interfering with their grazing permits and their private property rights. The court found that for more than two decades, Federal officials entrusted with the responsibility of managing public lands actively conspired to deprive Wayne Hage and his father's estate of their grazing permits and their water rights. In its decision, the court ruled: The government had abused its discretion through a series of actions designed to strip the Estate of its grazing permits and of the ability to use water rights. The court described the actions of the government officials as an ``abuse of executive power'' and said it ``shocked the conscience of the court, and provided a basis for finding of irreparable harm.'' There seems to be a pattern emerging. The Federal Government is supposed to be entrusted with protecting fundamental rights, such as property rights and the right to privacy. Yet, sadly, the American people are left wondering if their own government is living up to that public trust. The Framers of the Constitution believed that private property rights were sacred. The 5th and 14th Amendments specifically prohibit the government from depriving citizens of ``life, liberty or property without due process of law.'' Those amendments are there for a reason. As the Nevada District Court wrote: Substantive due process protects individuals from arbitrary depravation of their liberty by government. No question. The Federal Government has an obligation to help manage the Nation's resources, just like it has the duty to keep Americans safe and to enforce fairly the Tax Code. But these responsibilities require integrity, accountability, and impartiality. These powers cannot be used to push political or partisan agendas. In a State such as Nevada, which is made up of land that is 87 percent federally controlled, and where resources such as water and vegetation are scarce, the role of the government in protecting private property rights is especially important and cannot be abused by overly zealous government officials. The rights of cattle owners and ranchers to have their grazing permits honored is no less important than any other form of property right secured by law through permits and licensing. The government cannot be allowed to arbitrarily target certain groups for punishment and selectively enforce the law. That kind of behavior is precisely what the Framers wanted to guard against. Whether it is the IRS targeting groups for their political views, the NSA confiscating mass amounts of private data, or the Federal Government interfering with property rights, the American people are fed up with this laundry list of examples of the Federal Government blatantly disrespecting their constitutional liberties. Fortunately, the Federal courts remain open for Americans to defend themselves against government abuse. But I think it is a tragedy for American citizens to be subjected to costly, drawn-out litigation in order to make sure their liberties are secured against the very government they have entrusted to protect them. The American people will not stand for an all-powerful government that ignores their constitutional rights. It is long past time that we end this culture of government bullying and harassment. The government derives its power from the consent of the governed. The consent depends on a fair, transparent, and reasonable enforcement of the law. If we are to remain the greatest country on Earth and live up to the powerful ideals that inspired our Founders, then we must restore the trust of the American people in their government, and we must begin that process right away. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. HELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business

Mr. HELLER

Mr. HELLER. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Krys Bart, president and CEO for the Reno-Tahoe Airport Authority. After 14 years as president and CEO of the Reno-Tahoe Airport Authority and directing operations at Reno-Tahoe International Airport, RNO, Krys is retiring. She has demonstrated commendable leadership during her tenure and service to the people of the State of Nevada. As the principal director of Reno-Tahoe International Airport, Krys has established a reputation for efficiency and excellence. Her role required her to manage a multi-million dollar budget, and under her leadership, Reno-Tahoe International Airport has twice been recognized by the Air Transport Research Society as one of the five most efficient airports in North America. She was named the 2007 Airport Director of the Year by the Airport Revenue News Magazine, and her dedication to the aviation industry has earned her the Distinguished Service Award from the American Association of Airport Executives, AAAE. Her dedication as a business executive is no less impressive. In 2004, Krys was named one of the seven most respected CEOs in Nevada by the Nevada Business Journal, and was inducted into the Reno Business Leaders Hall of Fame the following year. Krys is also heavily involved in her local community, serving on the board of directors for the Economic Development Authority of Western Nevada, as well as on the Nevada Humane Society Board. I want to thank Krys for her many lasting contributions to aviation and air travel in the State of Nevada, as well as for her dedicated efforts in business and community development. I congratulate her on the special occasion of her retirement, and join with all Nevadans in wishing her many successful and fulfilling years to come.

Mr. HELLER

Mr. HELLER. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Las Vegas' Ed W. Clark High School Science Olympiad Team. This group of outstanding high school students from my home State of Nevada recently accomplished something truly extraordinary in the area of environmental science by earning a first-place gold medal in the Science Olympiad National Tournament. The National Science Olympiad Tournament brings together students from all over the country to test their skills in a variety of scientific disciplines. This year, the competition included nearly 6,000 top science students from across the United States, including 42 students from Clark High School in Las Vegas. Clark High School's Science Olympiad Team, led by students Michael Zhou and Zachary Shattler, and coaches Sidney Lupu, James Miller and Jeffrey Viggato, took first place in the water quality event of the competition, marking the first time any Nevada team has won a gold medal at this national event. It is especially noteworthy that this award was given in an area of science that is of particular interest to my home State of Nevada, namely water quality. Without a doubt, this scholastic achievement was earned through significant effort and teamwork on the part of these exceptional students and educators, and they have made the State of Nevada immensely proud. I congratulate Clark High School's Science Olympiad Team, and Principal Jillyn Pendleton and Assistant Principal Joseph Winfield, on earning this well-deserved recognition.

Mr. HELLER

Mr. HELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss S. 744, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act. From the very beginning of this debate, I have said that our Nation needs immigration reform. I have also urged Senate leadership to ensure that the Senate has ample opportunity to debate this bill, amend it, and take the hard votes necessary to make the bill as good as it can be. To ignore this problem and to do nothing to change the status quo would be a disservice to the American people and a great detriment to our country. I have also said throughout this process that in order to enact meaningful, comprehensive immigration reform we have to strengthen border security. It is true that the border security portion of the underlying bill needed significant improvement. Through the hard work and negotiations led by my colleagues Senator Hoeven and Senator Corker the border security portion of this legislation has been addressed, and for that reason I can support this bill. The Hoeven-Corker amendment, which I cosponsored, adds 20,000 additional Border Patrol agents to the southern border. It requires twice the original amount of fencing along the border--700 miles total, to be exact--and requires the Department of Homeland Security to implement a border fencing strategy to help ensure that the fence is an effective deterrent. It also mandates that the E-Verify system be fully implemented before any registered provisional immigrant can adjust their status. This will help make sure businesses have a safe and legal workforce. And the amendment requires an electronic entry-exit system at all international air and sea ports of entry where U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers are currently deployed. By increasing and enhancing security efforts at our borders, by using new technology that will allow us to better monitor activities at our borders, we will ensure that those who are here are here lawfully and that they have the opportunity to thrive and succeed, just like many generations of American immigrants have done. To do nothing now amounts to de facto amnesty for 11 million people who are already here illegally. We must take action to prevent further unlawful entry. The current system is backward, and it is broken. This legislation represents a product of many long hours of debate, discussion, and deliberation in this body. It addresses a problem in our country that requires dramatic change and meaningful reform. While this bill is just one step in the process, it is a step in the right direction. It takes into consideration the necessity of securing America's borders, while encouraging the lawful immigration of those who would come to our shores to contribute to America's greatness, as immigrants have done since our Nation's founding. In the past, attempts to reform our immigration system failed due to a process that was neither transparent nor fair. But from the Judiciary Committee proceedings to today, the Senate has had ample opportunity to debate this legislation and amend it. As a result, we have a bill where the good far outweighs the bad. With this legislation, we can address the 11 million undocumented individuals living in the country under de facto amnesty. We can finally secure our borders and stop more people from living here illegally. We can fix a system that has been broken for decades once and for all. We can continue to maintain the smartest, hardest working, most creative workforce in the world. Fighting for what you believe in and working with Members from both sides of the aisle does not mean you are turning your back on your principles. Democrats and Republicans can find ways to work together and pass legislation this great Nation deserves. Republicans can do so and still stay true to their conservative principles. No question, this has been a contentious debate. My constituents feel strongly about this issue on both sides of the spectrum. Some reporters in Nevada like to harp on the fact that my work to find a solution between Democrats and Republicans has been politically motivated. One such reporter even resorted to describing my actions in racially insensitive terms. The bottom line: The easy thing to do politically is nothing. The harder choice is to govern. We must remember that long before America was the great Nation we are today, before we were the world's greatest economy, a military superpower, a global champion for democracy that has forever changed human history, America was merely an idea. America began as an idea in the hearts and minds of a persecuted minority that longed for freedom and the opportunity to decide for themselves what their destiny would be. That idea was brought here by immigrants who crossed the oceans and devoted themselves to the formation of a free society unlike any the world had ever known. America has always been a Nation of immigrants. That heritage is one of the defining aspects of our national success story. When I think about a true American immigrant success story, I think about one of my constituents back home, Mr. Carlos Pereira. Carlos came to America from Peru in the 1990s. He and his wife Kathia set out to build their very own bakery. But they wanted to build more than a bakery, they wanted to build a new life for themselves and for their children. They did just that. They built a bakery with their bare hands. They laid the bricks and hammered the nails, and after a lot of long nights and hard work, they built Bon Breads in Las Vegas. Today, their company is a world renowned, internationally respected enterprise, and their products are used by chefs and restaurants all over the world. Bon Breads is responsible for creating hundreds of jobs in Nevada, and is a perfect example of what our immigration system should encourage. Carlos' hard work, dedication, and perseverance allowed him and his business to succeed in a way that would be impossible in many other countries today. I have three naturalized citizens on my staff about whom I can say the exact same thing. That is a true immigrant success story. That is the kind of potential we can unlock by fixing what is broken with our current system. We can improve our economy, create jobs, and strengthen our Nation as a whole with this immigration reform bill or we can choose to protect the status quo, do nothing to fix the overall problem. This bill is a step forward toward much-needed reform to our immigration system. It is true to the American idea that has defined our Nation since its founding, the idea that is inscribed on the Statue of Liberty, welcoming the tired, the poor, and the huddled masses, yearning to breathe free. Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made a profound statement recently, that in America it does not matter where you came from, it only matters where you are going. Our immigration laws should embody that principle and enable good hard-working people to come here, study hard, start businesses, raise families, and contribute as productive citizens. The bill before us is a good step toward preserving that idea. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this immigration reform bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. HELLER

Mr. HELLER. Mr. President, as I said in my remarks this morning, I hope this commission is never required because if it is, it means the border still is not secure 5 years down the road. If that is the case, then the commission will need to be fully representative of the concerns and recommendations of all the States in the southwestern region that are affected by our broken immigration system. Should DHS fail to gain control of the borders, and should it be necessary to form a commission to ensure we achieve that objective, it makes no sense to exclude Nevada's perspective and recommendations. My State's unique location and growing immigrant population leave it highly vulnerable to our Nation's flawed immigration system. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HELLER. Madam President, the debate we are having in this Chamber is incredibly important to our Nation's future. We simply cannot afford to waste this opportunity to bring meaningful reform to America's immigration system. We have a chance to enact commonsense reforms that will help fix the broken system that punishes those who simply want to work hard and play by the rules. Over the course of the next 2 weeks, we have an opportunity to enhance border security and to ensure that those coming to our shores do so in a lawful manner. In order to do that, we need to make sure the underlying immigration bill actually addresses the issues and offers reasonable solutions that make sense. Let me be clear: In order to fix the immigration system, we must secure our borders. Attempting to bring about immigration reform while ignoring the problems at our borders makes no sense. I, like many of my colleagues, have repeatedly voted this week in favor of increasing border security. I think most Americans would agree any reform legislation must include measures that stop unlawful entry into our country. The underlying bill recognizes the serious need for greater security at our borders and establishes a southern border security commission if State-based results are not achieved in a reasonable time. I for one hope we secure our borders effectively and quickly so no such commission is ever needed. The southern border security commission will be established only if the Department of Homeland Security fails to achieve effective control of the southern border within 5 years of the bill's enactment. Hopefully we never recognize that scenario. But if for some reason a southern border security commission is needed, and if we fail to change the status quo after 5 years, then the States that are most affected by these issues must have a central role in fixing those problems. Let me be clear: My amendment No. 1227 does not endorse the creation of the border commission. It simply ensures that should the commission be required, it will be fully representative of States' concerns and State-based recommendations on how to achieve control of the southern border. The commission is primarily comprised of representatives from southern border States, including Arizona, California, Texas, and New Mexico, and is responsible for providing concrete recommendations to Congress and the administration on how to achieve control of the southern border should DHS fail to do so. But Nevada would not be guaranteed a voice on the commission, despite the fact that Nevada shares contiguous borders with two southern border States and faces many of the same immigration-related challenges as these States. It is more than reasonable to argue that Nevada, which is a short drive away from San Diego, Los Angeles, and Phoenix, should be included on a commission designed to improve border security in the southwestern region. If that commission is necessary, Nevada should have a seat at that table. Including Nevada on the commission makes the underlying bill more effective, enhances this particular border security provision, and ensures that it fully addresses the issues affecting the southern border and southwestern States. If we reject common sense during this amendment process, we are going to end up right back where we started in years to come. We are not going to give the American people the solution they deserve in this immigration bill. It is common sense that if the Federal Government fails to gain control of the borders, then the States most affected by the failure should be able to play a role in fixing the problem. It is common sense that States such as Nevada, which faces the same problems as other States in the region, should contribute to the process as members of that commission. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield the floor.