Johnny Isakson

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I rise reluctantly to acknowledge that I am going to vote in opposition to moving to cloture on this Energy and Water appropriations bill--reluctant because I have supported every single movement to go to the appropriations act because that is what the Senate should be doing. However, I will not reluctantly but will passionately object for the following reason: included in this energy and water report is language that was circuitously placed into the bill that would disadvantage my State of Georgia and show a preference to other States that surround it. It is not our job as Members of the Senate to circuitously write language into a bill that directs what policy this country may seek to follow. My State, Florida, and Alabama have been in litigation for 30 years over what is called the water wars in the ACF and the ACT Basins. There has been litigation and cases have been dismissed from the courts. We have settled law in terms of the disposition and responsibility of the Corps of Engineers. It is my responsibility, as a representative of my State, to do what is right, but it is also my responsibility to ask you the rhetorical question as follows: Should any Member of the Senate be able in any way possible to circuitously place language into a bill that would disadvantage one State or advantage another without debate or without direction? If we become that type of a body in the Senate, we are no longer the most liberating body in the world; we are the most punitive body in the world. I appreciate the job the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee has done in writing this bill, I appreciate the appropriations that benefit the State of Georgia, but I do not appreciate the use of an appropriations bill to direct the actions of the Corps of Engineers to disadvantage my State and advantage another State without debate, without any degree of direction, and in total conflict with the courts' decisions in the past. So I reluctantly will vote no on moving forward on cloture until we remove this language from the underlying bill. I yield to the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Perdue.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to acknowledge the presence of our guest Chaplain today, Charles Smith, and his lovely wife Jennifer and his family members who have traveled from Madison, GA, and around Georgia to be here today as he serves our country as our guest Chaplain for today. Charles has a doctor of ministry degree from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. His wife is a family and marriage counselor and an ordained minister. His niece Megan serves us in the Republican cloakroom and does so on a daily basis with great joy for all of us. So we want to welcome Charles Smith, his family, and thank him so much for his ministry today, his witness today, but also thank him for all the leadership he has given to Megan, who does such a great job for us. I yield the floor.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I wish to commend the distinguished Senator from Maine. She has articulately explained why we need to move forward, and I want to underscore something that she said. For 6 years now, the Senate has abdicated its responsibility to appropriate. We have left the prioritization of spending to faceless bureaucrats and faceless buildings in Washington, DC. The needs of our veterans and soldiers and our country have gone unheeded, while we in here have argued about things that are superfluous and actually unimportant. I came into this Chamber today and listened to the distinguished Senator from Nevada, the minority leader, make the following statement: He can't understand why the leader would bring forward a ``can't-pass'' piece of legislation and not go to something more important. I want the Senator from Nevada to go out to Walter Reed Hospital or to go to the hospital in Maine or the hospital in Arkansas and tell those soldiers, who sacrificed and risked their lives for us, that their needs for health care are not more important, or to tell Jim Webb, who was a Member of this Senate and passed the GI bill expansion a few years ago, that the educational benefits for dependents, children, wives, and others are not that important. Tell the people of the United States of America that those who protect us, those who have sacrificed, those at risk are not more important. There is nothing more important than our veterans and our military. There is nothing more important in our constitutional responsibility as Senators than to appropriate the money of the American people. We are abdicating our responsibility. It is professional and political malpractice, and it is time it stopped. I get sick and tired of the political bantering back and forth when there are things come before us that must be done. As chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, last Thursday night in this Senate we passed unanimously--and it has now passed the House-- a total reform of VA construction, and we fixed the Denver hospital problem that has been going on for 6 years in the VA. The Denver hospital has had a 428.3 percent cost overrun. That is unconscionable and that is wrong. But we finally are fixing it. With this bill--if the distinguished minority leader will let us take up this important bill, rather than something that is not as important--we are going to fix VA construction forever because what this does is to say that the VA no longer is in charge of construction of hospitals and clinics. The Corps of Engineers is. It is about time we had construction management by people who know what they are doing. Doctors are good at fixing people, but they are not very good at bricks and mortar. We need the bricks and mortar people doing it. Secondly, this bill funds mandatory veterans' benefits through 2017. We had a threat of a government shutdown yesterday. Fortunately, we avoided it, but we have had it in the past, and we could have it again. Veterans health care should never be shut down, and we need to continue to forward-fund medical benefits so our veterans know--whether or not we are foolish and shut down the government--that their health care is going to be met. As the Presiding Officer knows, in the great State of South Dakota-- and Senator Collins knows from Maine--the biggest complaint we get is about the lack of timely responsibility in determining disability claims in the VA; right? We have veterans waiting 478 days to get a disability claim on an injury they suffered fighting a war for us--478 days, almost 2 years. That is terribly wrong. This bill fixes that. It provides the money for the personnel necessary to expedite disability claims so veterans get a timely judgment. Now you tell me this, Senator from Nevada: What is more important, taking care of these guys taking care of us or just debating on the Senate floor a bunch of hot air that means no difference to the American people? It is time we fished or cut bait. It is time we did what we were elected to. It is time we set the priorities. It is time we honored our commitment to those who honored their commitment to us, the veterans of the United States of America. So as chairman of the most bipartisan committee in the Senate, the Veterans' Affairs Committee--of which the Presiding Officer is a member--we don't have Democratic spats and Republican spats. We talk about our veterans. Almost everything we pass out is unanimous. We do so because we all agree that--Republican or Democrat, black or white, rich or poor, whatever the case might be--we would not be where we are today nor would we be what we are today if it weren't for those who sacrificed, risked their lives, and, in some cases, died for the people of the United States of America while serving in the military. So I don't know what the Senator from Nevada thinks is more important. But for me, these guys right here are the most important thing in the world. And to vote against proceeding to debate this important appropriations bill is professional malpractice and wrong. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will make a commitment to those who served us and vote to proceed to the VA-MILCON appropriations bill. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. ISAKSON

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

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I wish to commemorate in the Record the anniversary of the signing of the U.S. Constitution. On this day in 1787, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention met for the last time to sign the U.S. Constitution. In the pursuit to form a more perfect union, the Framers of the Constitution created a document that not only solidified our fledgling Nation but inspired others across the globe to strive for liberty, too. Organizations such as Lions Clubs International, the Daughters of the American Revolution, the Georgia Federation of Republican Women, and others deserve a great deal of gratitude for their efforts to bring attention to this important day. In recognition of this momentous occasion in American history and in honor of Constitution Day, I encourage all Georgians and all Americans to read, study, and learn the contents of the U.S. Constitution. I appreciate the efforts of our educators, elected officials, community leaders, and parents who teach our youth about the foundations of justice, strength and equality upon which our great Nation was built. I never cease to be amazed at how the principles of the Constitution play out in our daily lives as Americans. Today is an appropriate occasion for we the people of the United States, as well as the people's elected representatives in Congress, to renew our commitment to the principles of the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution's values--liberty, separation of powers, consent of the governed, and the principle that no one is above the law--are just as true and just as relevant today as they were when they were set to parchment more than two centuries ago.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, in anticipation of the majority leader and minority leader coming to the floor in a moment, I will begin the debate, a debate on the most consequential vote I will ever take as an elected official. Certainly, in my 41 years of public service, I have never had a decision to make as serious, as complex, and as meaningful as the decision we will make on the Iran nuclear deal negotiated by the administration and the President. I rise in opposition to that agreement and to explain why I will vote against it, but before I do, I want to compliment three or four members in particular on the Foreign Relations Committee: former Chairman Menendez from New Jersey, Ranking Member Cardin from Maryland, and Chairman Corker from Tennessee. Throughout the entire debate on the Iran nuclear deal, they have been forthright in being sure everybody got every question they wanted answered, that every issue was exposed, and that everybody had the time to participate to the fullest degree possible. Great leadership on the part of Senator Corker, great leadership on the part of Senator Cardin, and great assistance on the part of Senator Menendez. In the end, in committee, I voted for the resolution of disapproval to vote against the nuclear arrangement with the Iranians, and I want to talk about why. First of all, the President said a vote against the deal is a vote for war. I argue with that conclusion. In fact, I think a vote against the deal is a vote of strength. A vote for the deal is an appeasement to the Iranian people, to the Iranian ayatollahs, and to a group of people who have not been trustworthy in negotiations with our country for the past 60 years. Second, I think it is a vote against strength and for appeasement, when in fact there has never been a time more important to the United States of America to be stronger than today. Think about this. The bodies of young Syrian children are washing up on the shore of the Mediterranean. The Russians have established a beachhead in the Crimea, the Ukraine, and now in the Arctic. Last week, our President went to Alaska and the Chinese sent five ships off the coast just to wave the Chinese flag in the face of our President. Our diplomacy around the world is faltering and failing because we are not resolved. We are not as strong as we used to be. Diplomatically we are not respected and militarily we are not feared. It is time we made sure the vote we cast on this Iranian nuclear deal is not a vote that sends another signal of weakness but instead a signal of strength. Why am I voting against the Iranian nuclear deal? There are five principal reasons. No. 1 is the basis upon which I voted for the New START treaty 5 years ago. When I voted for that treaty, I was on the Foreign Relations Committee as well, and the questions I asked at that time are the same questions I am asking now about what is not a treaty--what I think is a treaty but what the President calls an agreement: No. 1, is it enforceable; No. 2, do we have inspections; No. 3, do we have credibility; No. 4, have I seen all the documents; and, No. 5, is it best for my children and grandchildren and the future of my country? First, I haven't seen all the documents, and we now find out we will never see all of them because the addendums to the IAEA will not be available to us as Members of the Senate. That is No. 1. No. 2, can we have inspections? Well, yes, you can have inspections, kind of or sort of. Yes, you get 24 hours' notice and then 24 days to approve and then the Iranians have a say over who gets to inspect and we don't have a part. That is not a fair deal. When I voted for the New START treaty, the principal reason I finally did was this: Russians were allowed in the United States to inspect our nuclear warheads; we were allowed in Russia to inspect theirs. We had absolute credibility in the inspection regime. We knew what we were getting, and it was an enforceable treaty. This is not that. This is one that can be cheated on too easily and far too easily for the American people and the security of my children and grandchildren. And what about my children and grandchildren--why are they of interest to me in this vote? They are because they are our future. The future of all mankind is the young people today who will run these countries in the years ahead, unless there is a rogue nation with nuclear weapons that could disrupt the world's balance of power, and that is just what the Iranians are capable of doing. So I want to make sure I don't do anything that would facilitate the Iranian use of nuclear weapons in the future. I don't think this deal protects us from that, and that is why I am going to vote against it. Lastly, I want to comment about the issue of a cloture vote. I understand there will be a vote to filibuster the final vote on the resolution of disapproval rather than having a resolution of disapproval. I think that is wrong. I think the American people deserve to know where each of us stand, and the people of Georgia deserve to know where Johnny Isakson stands--what I am going to do and why I am going to do it. A vote against cloture is to protract having a final vote on the resolution of disapproval and leaves open the whole issue. It is not fair to the American people, it is not right for the American people, and it is avoiding our responsibility. So I will vote for cloture so we can go to a final vote on the resolution of disapproval, and I hope every Member of the Senate will do the same. To do anything less is wrong for America, wrong for our heritage, and wrong for our future. So I end where I began. I thank Senator Corker, Senator Menendez, and Senator Cardin for their forthright leadership. I have studied hard, I have worked hard to try to find the best parts of this deal and the worst parts of this deal. I find it fails in those five tests I have given it and I will vote no. I will vote for the resolution of disapproval and vote against the treaty with Iran on the Iran nuclear deal. With that said, Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I am proud to pay tribute to Bob Fraumann on the occasion of his retirement after 60 years of ministry through music. Bob will be honored on Sunday, August 9, at Mt. Zion United Methodist Church in Marietta, GA, where he has been music director for the last 33 years. Bob Fraumann graduated from Asbury University with a degree in music education and a minor in organ and conducting. Bob was married to the love of his life, Jan, and they raised two sons, Rick and Greg, who are both Christian musicians. Many have enjoyed Bob's music but none more than those at the National Prayer Breakfast on February 4, 2010, where Bob played selections from his great CD ``To God Be the Glory.'' Over 3,000 dignitaries including the President and many Members of Congress joined Christians and leaders of all faiths to enjoy Bob's testimony through music. Bob's friendship and music have been a blessing to me, and I am proud to honor him in the Senate Chamber. Join me in wishing Bob Fraumann all the best in his retirement.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. I thank the ranking member for his comments. This is the first step for reform in the VA. We are beginning to move in the right direction. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I wish to recognize Joseph A. Violante, national legislative director for the Disabled American Veterans, DAV, who will be retiring at the end of this week after over 20 years of service to DAV. Joe's career of service started long before his tenure at DAV. As a U.S. Marine, he served in combat in Vietnam. Following his honorable discharge from the Marine Corps, Joe began practicing law in California, and in 1990, Joe joined the DAV Washington staff in its appellate work before the VA Board of Veterans Appeals, lending his legal expertise to serve his fellow veterans. Joe became DAV's national legislative director in 1996. It is an incredible service to defend the United States in combat. Joe went above and beyond that. He came home and started fighting for others who served, helping countless veterans through his work at DAV. Over the past 2 decades, he has played a role in crafting major veterans legislation, and his work has affected policies at the VA, the Department of Labor, the Department of Defense, and other Federal agencies. Joe has helped spur internal VA reforms, establish increases in VA's annual appropriations, expand primary care for veterans, expand the National Cemetery system and establish caregiver benefits for wounded veterans. These accomplishments, just few of many, will continue to help veterans for years to come. Joe served as national legislative director for three Presidential administrations and testified at my very first hearing as chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs. It was an honor to work with him, and I know I am not alone when I say I am sad to see him go. His retirement is well-deserved, and I wish Joe and his wife Debbie all the best.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, today I recognize Dr. Gerald M. Cross, a dedicated public servant who will be retiring from the Department of Veterans Affairs at the end of August. Before joining the VA, Dr. Cross served in the U.S. Army for nearly 30 years. While in the Army, Dr. Cross was honored with several awards, including five Legion of Merit medals, the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, USUHS, Commendable Services Medal and the Order of Military Medical Merit. His final Army assignment was as the U.S. Army Forces Command, FORSCOM, Surgeon at Fort McPherson, assembling medical support for overseas operations. Inspired by his experience working with servicemembers and their families, Dr. Cross began an 11-year career at the VA after retiring from the Army. His work as Principal Deputy Under Secretary for Health and Acting Under Secretary for Health earned him the Exceptional Service Award in 2010, awarded by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. Among his many accomplishments, Dr. Cross's work at the VA includes increasing the number of Vet Centers throughout the country, and adding over 1,000 physicians and over 3,000 nurses to the VA staff nationwide, and leading the VA Central Office Task Force that implemented the Suicide Prevention Hotline. His legacy at the VA will live on, helping veterans for years to come. Dr. Cross is a truly inspirational public servant. I thank him for his many years of serving his country serving those who have served, and I wish him the best in his retirement.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Exactly. With one exception. If it is a modification to a CBOC or a clinic or something like that, that is a smaller allocation or a smaller appropriation. Maybe anything under $25 million, they might do, but anything over $25 million, such as a hospital, they won't do it. The Corps of Engineers will do it.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona for his question. It was the Senator from Arizona who initiated the Choice Act movement in August of last year when we had the terrible crisis in Phoenix where appointments weren't made for veterans in trouble and, in some cases, some of them died. We created Choice to be sure if a veteran needed an appointment within 30 days, or immediately, if it was mental health or other things, and the VA medical facility couldn't provide it, they could use Choice to go to a local provider, either because of distance or service offered. That was initiated in November of last year, and it has grown almost every single month in utility and use because it gives the VA a way, when they are backed up, to meet the needs of a veteran without just saying we cannot help. It is becoming more and more popular. Not only is it helping veterans to get services on a timely basis, it is a force multiplier for the VA. Every time we can use a local Medicare-approved physician, which is what Choice does, we are saving the VA having to hire another physician, having to build another hospital room, and having to provide another service. Yet the VA has control of the services going to the veteran. We have 6.5 million American veterans who have received Choice cards since November of last year. The numbers started out slow, but they are picking up every single month because veterans like the fact that they can go closer to home for what the VA can't offer, they can get the service they need if the VA can't offer it, and they can be served in a timely fashion. I thank the Senator for his initiation of this whole movement last August and for being a part of getting this addition passed today.

Mr. ISAKSON. I want to acknowledge the fact that Choice would have never happened, and this would have never happened, had the Senator from Arizona not immediately responded when the crisis first started and fixed this. We appreciate his leadership, and we are glad to follow him.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I will be joined on the floor by the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Blumenthal, who is the ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee; Senator McCain of Arizona, who is the leader behind the Choice movement that took place last year in August; and Senator Roy Blunt from Missouri. As we speak, at this very moment the House is voting. They are voting on a 3-month extension of the highway bill. But more importantly to us on the Veterans' Affairs Committee and to our veterans, they are voting on a bill we have agreed to, to fix the problem at the VA with regard to the funding of our hospitals and health care, and to open up a new day in terms of Veterans Administration services to the veterans of our country. I was pleased to be joined by Senator Blumenthal at the VA a couple of weeks ago where we had a heart-to-heart, 4-hour meeting with Secretary McDonald, Sloan Gibson, and others about the false-intended press release that was sent out of the VA saying they were about to run out of money, health care was going to be stopped in certain places, and some hospitals might be closed. That was a misleading press release. It was meant to create a crisis that didn't really exist. The crisis was not in not having the money. The crisis was in addressing the money and having to organize it in such a way it could meet VA's needs. What is attached to the highway bill and coming over here is the following: redirection of $3.348 billion in the Choice money which was appropriated last year into a central fund for health care, just as the funds for non-VA health care and regular health care are. Now all of the money for veterans' benefits is in the same pie. And the limitations on the paying for benefits that were in the Choice bill are not going to be there any longer, so all the money can be used for what it was intended, and that is to pay for the benefits for our veterans who have earned them. In addition, there will be an addition to the 40-mile rule to say that any veteran who lives further than 40 miles away, or inside of 40 miles but can't get the services they need for their health care, can use Choice to get to a health care provider of their choosing. Choice was passed to react to the terrible crisis in the VA in Arizona when the Phoenix, AZ, hospital had veterans die because appointments weren't kept, veterans couldn't get services, and mental health issues couldn't be handled. The Choice Act was engineered by Senators Burr and McCain, who did a good job. We are proud to be modifying it in this highway extension to be sure we do not run out of funding and not appropriate an additional dime other than what we already have. For Members who are listening to these remarks and will vote tomorrow, I want them to understand quite clearly that when they read the bill it will show money as emergency funding. That doesn't mean it is new or additional money. It just means the money that was appropriated last year as emergency funding for VA Choice will be able to be used only for benefits for veterans in terms of health care no matter what program they are in--non-VA, regular VA or VA Choice. We want to see to it that Choice is a force multiplier, Choice is the way we get our veterans' timely appointments, Choice is the way we utilize and maximize the ability of our country to meet the needs of our veterans and bring private sector participation into service for our veterans without diminishing or taking away the services our veterans get from the VA. I appreciate Senator Blumenthal and the contributions he made in the meeting 2 weeks ago. I want to commend Chairman Miller and Ranking Member Brown in the House for all the work they did, and Speaker Boehner, who was instrumental in making this come about. I now yield to Senator Blumenthal, then Senator McCain, and then Senator Blunt.

Mr. ISAKSON. It is the most intelligent question anybody can ask. The press questioned me in Denver, when I went there, along with Ranking Member Blumenthal, and we looked at the situation firsthand. After looking at it and interviewing the VA people, we were asked by the Denver Post how we could explain this mess, and I asked them very simply if they knew what a camel was. They said no. I said that is a horse built by a committee. Well, the Denver hospital is a camel--a horse being built by a committee, most of whom have left and are not there to be held accountable anymore. It is unconscionable and irresponsible for that hospital to be costing what it has cost. We have finally put our arms around it. We have finally put people in place with accountability, and the Corps of Engineers is now overseeing the completion of that hospital so we don't have more overruns like we had. It was a matter of nobody being in charge and everybody being in charge--too many chiefs and not enough Indians. We had people in charge of health care building buildings, and that wasn't what we needed.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, we are fixing it, and I appreciate both questions. On question No. 1, we need to repeal the sunset of Choice, which is in 2 years, and make it permanent. Choice is a force multiplier for the VA, which is good, and it is an added service for our veterans, which is also good. I commit to you as chairman that I am going to work towards eliminating the sunset so Choice is permanent in VA health services from now on. As far as hospital cost overruns, the Senator is right. Denver was $1.732 billion--a 428-percent overrun--but look at Orlando, FL, and look at three other hospitals we have built, all of them being two or three times the original estimate. The VA needs to be taken out of the business of building hospitals, and we are doing that and transferring it to the Corps of Engineers, who are the people who know how to build something. The VA needs to manage the health delivery system for our veterans. That is what they need to be providing. They do not need to be building buildings. They don't need to be keeping us out of their business. They need, instead, to find private sector solutions wherever they can and do what they were chartered to do, which is to provide services for veterans who fought and sacrificed for our country.

Mr. ISAKSON

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

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, while we have a pause in our business for a moment, I rise to offer a brief but sincere eulogy. At this very moment in Woodstock, GA, Skip Wells, U.S. Marine Corps lance corporal, is being buried and worshipped. Thousands of Georgians are at the First Baptist Church of Woodstock, GA to attend his funeral. Skip Wells was murdered in Chattanooga, TN, on the 16th day of July while he was doing his duties as a marine, recruiting people to come into the U.S. military. Skip graduated from Sprayberry High School just a few years ago. He played the clarinet and musical instruments in his church orchestra. He was a great student with thousands of friends. He was a young man we would all be proud of. His life was taken away from us in a snap by an enraged person on a religious tear. When a young man of 21 years old dies in the prime of life, we ask why. In particular, when he wears the uniform of the U.S. Marine Corps, we ask why. It is inexplicable. We all know the Book of Ecclesiastes tells us, ``There is a time for everything''--a time to be born and a time to die. There is never a time when a young marine's life should be taken. It causes us to truly think about something. As we act in this U.S. Senate and guide our country, hundreds of thousands of young men and women volunteer to wear the uniform of the United States of America, and when they put it on, they never know when that day to die might come, but they have all made the commitment that they are ready, willing, and able to die for the country they love, the United States of America. To Skip's mother Cathy, his extended family, and all those who knew Skip, we send our condolences and our best wishes for them to recover over time and heal. In Woodstock, GA, an inscription is being read right now, which I will read on the floor of the Senate so we will read it at the same time. These words are comforting, they mean something, and in a time of grief for all of us, I think they are important. Skip's mother wanted this as a part of the ceremony. It is entitled ``To Those I Love.'' When I am gone, release me, let me go. You musn't tie yourself to me with tears. Just be happy that we had so many good years. I gave you my love, you can only guess, How much you gave to me in happiness. I thank you for the love you each have shown, But now it's time I traveled alone. So grieve a while for me, if grieve you must, Then let your grief be comforted by trust. It's only for a while that we must part, So bless the memories within your heart. I won't be far away, for life goes on, So if you need me, call, and I will come. Though you can't see or touch me, I'll be near. And if you listen with your heart, you'll hear, All of my love around you, soft and clear. And then, when you must come this way alone, I'll greet you with a smile, and say ``Welcome Home.'' That is the Book of John, Chapter 15, the 13th verse. ``Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one's life for one's friends.'' Skip Wells laid down his life for all of the people of the United States of America, for his family, and for his friends. We ask God to bless him and bring mercy to his family. We ask God to bless the great country that Skip wore the uniform to die for--the United States of America. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, as chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee of the U.S. Senate, I am proud to be joined by other members of the committee for a colloquy and a report to the American people on the progress we are making to hold the VA accountable for our veterans and our taxpayers. As all will remember, there was a terrible tragedy at the VA hospital in Phoenix last year. Because of missed appointments, erased records, consults that were removed, veterans waiting for services never got them, and in three cases they died. That was malfeasance in office and brought a great scandal to the VA. In January, when our committee took hold, we decided to go to the Justice Department and the inspector general and say: Go into the VA, investigate these incidents that took place, and if we find criminal wrongdoing or civil wrongdoing, we should prosecute these people to make sure it doesn't happen again. I am never happy when anybody is indicted, but I was satisfied that last Friday the first indictment came down from the Justice Department against a VA hospital employee--unfortunately, in my State of Georgia at the VA hospital in Augusta--for 50 counts of falsifying medical records, the results of which ended up benefiting the employees and hurting veterans. I promise the American people and Members of the Senate that this is not going to be the last indictment. We are going to see to it that people are held accountable for their actions and that they do what is right morally and what is right legally. We owe nothing less and we owe nothing more to our veterans than that type of treatment. Yesterday the VA committee met, and we approved two great bills in our effort to bring about greater accountability. One of those bills was the Rubio-Johnson bill, which allows the firing and holding of accountability of VA employees for malfeasance and misconduct in office for cause. As many people know, the VA oftentimes in disciplining people just moved them to another job at the same pay because they can't move them out of the system. So the accountability never takes place, there is no sense of accountability, and veterans are not well served. Thanks to the Rubio-Johnson bill, people who for cause are terminated will have a brief hearing and a chance to justify their case, and if their case is not justified, they will be removed from the Veterans' Administration health services agency and they will be fired. That is the type of accountability every American who is employed at their job has, and we think that is the same accountability every employee ought to have at the VA. After that, we then passed the Cassidy-Ayotte bill, a bill that I was very proud of because Senator Cassidy and Senator Ayotte said the following: It is just not right for somebody who is not doing their job to get a bonus. As many people know, bonuses were paid in the VA last year to employees who were being reprimanded for misconduct and bad behavior. You cannot take a benefit away retroactively, and this bill does not do that, but it says to the VA prospectively that rewards and bonuses cannot be earned by those who are not conducting their job in the way they should. These are the types of accountability measures that people in the United States expect. As chairman of the committee, I always want to brag about the good things VA employees do, and they do a lot of good things. For every one scandal you hear about, there are hundreds of thousands of benefits veterans are receiving because of good, loyal employees. But the best employees in the world are brought down a notch when those who are not good are allowed to continue to stay on the job even if they are not performing or get bonuses when they are not performing. I am so proud of the Cassidy-Ayotte bill and Johnson-Rubio bill, which say to the American people that we are going to have accountability; we are going to pay bonuses for good behavior, not bad behavior; and if somebody doesn't do their job, they will lose that job if that cause is justified. That is what the American people expect of the Senate, that is what they expect of our committee, and I am proud to report to the Senate today that started. I am also proud to yield to the Senator from Louisiana, Mr. Cassidy, a physician, a doctor who understands health services and who brought one of these accountability issues to the committee yesterday. Senator Cassidy.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, first of all, I wish to commend the majority whip on his outstanding speech addressing the Iran nuclear deal. I rise in a number of capacities. One is as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which will undertake a review of this act, and ultimately a vote, as well as the entire Senate. I rise as one who voted for the New START treaty and went through those negotiations in this administration. I rise as a grandfather of nine children with a commitment that the rest of my life is about seeing to it that they live in a world that is as safe, as free, and as productive as the United States is for us today. I will go through all the due diligence provided for in the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act. I wish to at this point commend Senator Corker and Senator Cardin on the outstanding work they did to ensure the American people would have oversight and the Congress would have a vote on this deal, but I want to be sure we have a vote on this deal that is meaningful and not superficial. The President decided, for reasons that are his own, to not call this a treaty and to originally try to avoid any congressional input at all. I don't know what those reasons were, but they were his and his alone. Yet this is the same President who agreed to a treaty with Russia to limit nuclear weapons and bring a vote to the Senate floor. An agreement, I might add, which has inspection provisions which are robust, has Russian inspectors in America, American inspectors in Russia, and has the type of trust and belief that we can have in any nuclear deal. I am worried that the deal we are talking about making with the Iranians has neither. I am extremely concerned that the President will say, in answer to people who condemn the treaty: Well, if you don't like it, what would you do differently or it is this treaty or this agreement or war. We need to live up to our responsibility. It is not a choice of this agreement or war; it is a choice of doing this agreement or doing the right thing for the American people. There are three concerns I want to mention. The first is that as a businessperson, I learned a long time ago that the best deals I ever made were the ones I walked away from before I closed them. The worst deals I ever made were the ones when my arm was behind my back and somebody said: Oh just get it out of the way and do it. Every one of those were bad. Every one of the ones I walked away from and then was asked back to the table were good. They were good for a very simple reason. If you can't play hard to get in a negotiation, you are going to be easy to get. Teddy Roosevelt once said: ``Walk softly and carry a big stick,'' and he was right. This administration walked loudly and carried no stick at all. In fact, at the last of the negotiations, all of a sudden there appeared new relief of the U.N. Arms Embargo by the Iranian regime at the end of 5 years. This was a nuclear weapons treaty; this was not some agreement about conventional weapons. We don't want to lift the sanctions against the Iranians for proliferating conventional weapons in the Middle East, but yet this agreement contained that. I think that was a concession we made to them to keep them at the table. We reversed roles. The largest superpower in the world lost its clout and the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the Iranian Government gained theirs just because they were willing to walk away from the table. And then there is the trigger of 8 to 8\1/2\ years where, as that time passes, the Iranians will begin to resume fissile nuclear material development. They will do some of their planning for strategic missiles, some of the restrictions of the agreement that will take place in the beginning will go away. Working toward an end where, at the end of 2 years, any agreement that would limit nuclear weapons breakout by the Iranian regime. This started out as a deal to keep the Iranians from getting a nuclear weapon, stop nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, and not allow the Middle East to become a nuclear arms camp. Unfortunately, I am afraid this will not happen if this agreement is adopted in the form I understand it to be. So when the President says: What would you do, would you fight a war? I would say: No, I would go back to the table. I would say: The sanctions got you to the table to begin with; let's keep the sanctions to keep you at the table and let's review whether we should have let the conventional arms embargo go away. Let's see if we should allow the reworking of fissionable nuclear material at the end of year 6. Let's see if at the year end, the Fordow facility embedded in a mountain should be reactivated to produce nuclear-grade plutonium. All of those triggers along the way in the agreement are just steps toward allowing Iran to become what we said we didn't want Iran to be. We didn't want Iran to be a nuclear arms power in the Middle East to go through nuclear proliferation. I am afraid this is just a staged platform from which that is exactly what will happen. I will listen to every word by the administration. I will go to every briefing. I will do my due diligence as a Senator of the United States and as a representative of the people of Georgia. When I cast that vote, it is going to be in the best interest of my children and grandchildren and yours. It is going to be making the best deal we can make for the American people, doing everything we can to limit the proliferation of nuclear weapons and doing everything we can to get those who say ``death to America'' before every speech understand that America is the greatest democracy on the face of this Earth. We will walk softly, but we will carry a big stick, and we will insist on negotiations that are good not just for the other side but for the American people as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask to be recognized for up to 5 minutes.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the committee, and I wish to reiterate my appreciation for what he and Senator Murray have done to bring a great bill to the floor. This is the ultimate local control amendment, which says if a State allows an opt-out, a parent can opt their kid out of testing, and it requires the States to ensure that parents know if opting out is possible. It is a good amendment for children and local control, and I encourage everyone to cast a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I begin my remarks by commending Ranking Member Murray and Chairman Alexander on a tremendous due diligence effort to see to it that we finally answered the question that States have been asking for 7 years; that is, when are you going to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act? When are you going to end the day when 82 percent of all educational public school systems have to get waivers from Washington to teach children the way they want to teach them? When are you going to see to it that money can flow to the States and flow to the student from those States, not everything flow from Washington to the student. It is about time we fixed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. In my lifetime, I have been in elected office for 38 years. I have been in every legislative body I can legally be elected to, and I have served on the Education Committee in the Georgia House, the Georgia Senate, the U.S. House, and the U.S. Senate. I don't know a lot about a lot of things, but I know a little bit about public education. In fact, in 1996, Zell Miller, whose seat I now hold in the Senate, called on me to take over the Georgia State Board of Education when Georgia had a major crisis. So I learned under fire. I learned the following: Children rise to expectations, and in an absence of expectations, children sink. That is why gangs attract kids from broken families, because they seek some kind of recognition, and the gang gives it to them. We need to make sure education gives them that recognition, that expectation, and that goal to reach higher and higher standards, but that happens closest to home, not in Washington, DC. It happens where the parents and the children are. The more opportunities parents have to engage with their children--the children see the expectations of their local students and their local citizens--the better off they will be, which is why in the committee I offered the amendment which is included in the body of the Alexander-Murray bill, which allows parents in States that approve it to opt out of any testing they want to opt out of--a parent's right to see to it they can opt out of a required test if the State allows them to do so. Amendment No. 2194, which is before us now, makes sure that provision is in the section of the bill that calls for the parents' right to know. So every parent has the right to know whether the State allows an opt-out. It already lets them know what their child's teacher's qualifications are, what their level of achievement in school is, notice if their child is being taught by a teacher not meeting State standards, and rights as a parent of an English language learner. The bill is specific in all of those areas, telling the parent: It is your right to know if we have an ESL Program. It is your right to know if we allow an opt-out, and if we do not allow an opt-out, it is your right as a citizen to go to the board of education and make sure we do offer one. In other words, we are opening the door for local control the way all of us planned on it being for years and for years and for years. It is time we took the shackles off public education. The Washington weight is dragging it down. It is time our school systems no longer have to come to Washington for waivers and all those types of things, but instead we said--in the case of title I, our poorest kids and among those most in need of help, our IDEA kids, where the Federal Government has a role--besides those two areas, it is time for the local system to see to it they are meeting the needs of those kids, the parents know what the system is doing, and the parents have a right to inquire. And if the parent doesn't want the kid to be tested the way the State is doing it and the State allows it, they should be able to opt out. That is the ultimate of local control. It is also the ultimate of expectations for the child through the parent and the school, not through some Washington mandate. You know the old saying: Education makes people easy to govern and impossible to enslave, easy to build and impossible to drive. Education is the power that leads our democracy to discoveries. Just today in America--or just sometime today in America--Pluto was discovered by an American satellite that was launched 9 years ago. It has been traveling hundreds of thousands of miles a second to go there. That manpower was done in the educational system of the United States of America. There is no dream that can't be realized in this country, but it has to be based on education and knowledge. It has to be based on a country that relishes education, a State that embellishes education, and a parent that is involved with their child. I commend Senator Murray and Senator Alexander for their work, for including the opt-out provision in the base of the bill. I ask and hope the Senate will adopt my amendment to require that in the parents' right to know, that provision is made available to every single parent in terms of what the State does and does not require when their kids go into the public school system. So we have a better informed parent, better local control, less Federal mandate, and a child who has expectations that are raised for them by the parents and the teachers closest to them, not by a bureaucrat in Washington, DC. We live in the greatest country on the face of this Earth. You don't find anybody trying to break out of the United States of America. They are all trying to break in. And when you ask them why, it is because it is a country of opportunity, education, hope, and promise. Today and tomorrow, the Senate has the ability to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which has languished for 7 years without a reauthorization. I hope we will do it and give local systems and local boards of education and the parents the choices they need to make the decisions that are right for their children. I encourage every Senator to vote for amendment No. 2194, the Isakson opt-out amendment and the parental right-to-know amendment. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask to set aside the pending amendment and call up my Isakson amendment No. 2194.