Amy Klobuchar

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the agreement reached in July on Iran's nuclear program. Preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon is one of the most important objectives of our national security policy. I have strongly advocated for and supported the economic sanctions that brought Iran to the negotiating table. While the agreement is by no means perfect, I have concluded it is our best available option to put the brakes on Iran's development of a nuclear weapon, and that is why I support it. I do this with my eyes wide open to the nature of the Iranian regime, including its human rights abuses, its unjustified detention of American citizens, its threats against Israel, and its destabilizing actions in the region, including its support for terrorist groups. Over the last several weeks, I have reviewed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action as agreed to by the P5+1 nations and Iran. I have attended briefings with national security and nuclear experts. I have spoken with Minnesotans who hold strong views on both sides of this issue. Finally, I have met with the Ambassadors from the other five nations involved in these negotiations and asked detailed questions about what their countries and others would do if Congress does not approve the agreement. After a lot of thought and discussion, I have concluded that an Iran in possession of a nuclear weapon would make an already volatile situation much worse by greatly increasing the danger to Israel and our other allies in the Mideast. If we were to reject this agreement, Iran would be able to continue all of its destabilizing activities while continuing its pursuit of the most destructive weapon in the world. I have deep respect for those who hold different views on this subject and acknowledge that this was a difficult decision. As I have proven through my votes and my actions since coming to the Senate, I am deeply committed to protecting Israel's security, including full aid funding and support for security measures such as Iron Dome. In conjunction with my support for this agreement, I will push the administration and my colleagues in Congress for additional assistance to Israel and our other regional allies to strengthen their security. I will also continue to support efforts to combat terrorist groups in the Mideast. These are the reasons that led to my decision. First of all, I believe this agreement, while imperfect, curbs Iran's ability to develop a nuclear weapon. Before negotiations began in 2013, we were moving steadily closer to the nightmare scenario of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon. Even under the pressure of massive economic sanctions, Iran was continuing to build its nuclear infrastructure. It was installing more and more centrifuges, accumulating a stockpile of enriched uranium, and building a reactor capable of producing spent fuel that can be reprocessed into plutonium. That point deserves to be emphasized. The situation prior to the negotiations was not a good one. We had the strongest sanctions regime in place, and it has brought Iran to the table, but Iran was still on the path to developing a nuclear weapon. We have heard that without the restrictions imposed on its program, Iran could produce a weapon in as little as 2 to 3 months. This negotiated agreement will put the brakes on Iran's development of a nuclear weapon. As recently noted in an open letter by 29 top American nuclear scientists, including 6 Nobel Laureates, the agreement contains ``more stringent constraints than any previously negotiated nonproliferation framework.'' Specifically, the agreement requires Iran to first of all give up 98 percent of its stockpile of enriched uranium and not enrich uranium to the levels needed to create nuclear weapons. It would require Iran to disconnect two-thirds of its centrifuges, with restrictions on where and how it can operate the remaining ones. It limits uranium enrichment to a single facility. Fordow, the fortified site that Iran long sought to hide from the world, will be converted into a research facility. The core of Arak, the heavy water reactor, will be removed and filled with cement, rendering it unusable for the production of weapons-grade plutonium. It will open its nuclear facilities to continuous monitoring and allow stringent inspections of its uranium supply chain. It will permanently commit to never seeking, developing, or acquiring nuclear weapons. Second, if Iran cheats on this deal, sanctions can be reimposed or, as they say, snapped back. In addition--and this is very important to me--U.S. military options remain on the table, just as they were before the deal. We are not bringing back ships. We have not agreed to do anything to take the military option off the table. This agreement by no means limits or lessens our country's ability to use force against Iran if it violates this agreement and pursues nuclear weapons. If Iran attempts to develop a nuclear weapon, the terms of this agreement will have given us more information and more limited targets in the event that military action becomes necessary. It should also be noted that this agreement does not in any way constrain the ability of future Presidents or Congresses to authorize military force against Iran. Third, rejecting the agreement would lead to a splintering of the international partnership that has been critical to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, that has been critical to bringing them to the table, and that has been critical to these economic sanctions. They would not be nearly as effective if we had done them alone. Some have argued that we should reject this deal so we can return to the negotiating table. Yet, I recently met with the Ambassadors representing the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, and China. Not one of them believed that abandoning this deal would result in a better deal. Instead, it would allow Iran more time to build up its nuclear infrastructure. The countries that have been our partners in this effort would no longer be unified. The sanctions regime would start to fray, splintering the international consensus on Iran and leaving its nuclear program unconstrained. Finally, this agreement must move in parallel with increased commitment to security assistance for Israel and our other allies in the region. In my view, the most troubling issue with this agreement that one my colleagues has addressed is that sanctions relief Iran will receive after it implements key restrictions on its nuclear program will provide it with additional funds, and a certain portion of those funds could be funneled into Iran's destabilizing activities around the region. I am deeply committed to the security of our allies and want to ensure that we are taking steps, in parallel with this nuclear agreement, to enhance our allies' ability to defend themselves. I want to see further enhancements of our security assistance to Israel, greater defense cooperation with our Arab allies, and stronger actions to counter Iranian militant activities. We are in the midst of discussing other initiatives in this Chamber to provide additional assistance and enhance the security of Israel and our allies in the region. I will work with my colleagues and the administration as we move forward. That is how I will end. I call upon the administration and all of my colleagues to work together to help ensure that this agreement works and to help ensure that we provide the assistance necessary to protect Israel and our allies. As I said earlier, I have deep respect for people who have different views. We have had a lengthy debate. We have looked at this agreement now for over a month and had time to ask questions of the Energy Secretary and the Secretary of State and anyone we could about this agreement. So the time is now here where I believe this agreement should be approved. And, again, we have different views. I think it is very important, given the heated nature at times of this debate, that we come together when this is over to stand up for Israel, our beacon of democracy in the Mideast, and continue to work together on a bipartisan basis on our Mideastern policy. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize three outstanding Minnesota police officers. The Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association, the largest association representing Minnesota's rank-and-file police officers, recently met for its annual conference and named Sergeant Mark Ficcadenti of the St. Paul Police Department Police Officer of the Year and gave Honorable Mention Awards to Officer Mark Ross of the St. Paul Police Department and State Trooper Brian Beuning. Sergeant Ficcadenti is a 30-year veteran of the St. Paul Police Department where he serves an indispensable role performing community outreach and forging relationships with the most vulnerable immigrant populations. Sergeant Ficcadenti organizes events such as the East African Junior Police Academy, Ramadan celebrations with the local Somali community, and the ``Safe and Sound'' program that allows people to meet and get to know local police officers. His tireless efforts to ensure that the police department serves all communities has promoted safety, encouraged community cooperation, and fostered trust in law enforcement. Honorable Mention Award recipient Officer Mark Ross of the St. Paul Police Department is a former school resource officer, whose awareness prompted him to look into a female high school student's frequent absences and suspicious relationship with her father. After some investigation, Ross revealed that the student's father had been abusing and neglecting the young girl for years. The father was convicted and is now serving a 25-year sentence in prison. As a result of Officer Ross' actions, the young woman has graduated from high school and has been accepted into a Minnesota college. The second Honorable Mention Award recipient, Minnesota State Trooper Beuning, exhibited heroism and outstanding professionalism when dispatched last year to help a woman trapped in her car during a flash flood in Beaver Creek, MN. After wading through knee-deep waters, State Trooper Beuning calmed the trapped woman by standing next to the car and speaking to her through a cracked window. Seconds after Trooper Beuning and firefighters removed the woman through the window of her car, the vehicle was swept away by floodwaters. Three months after his act of bravery, Beuning was given the Officer of the Month Award by the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund. I join all of my fellow Minnesotans in applauding these three distinguished public servants. I would also like to thank not only these three individuals but all of Minnesota's brave law enforcement officers who keep our communities safe.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I appreciate that question from the Senator from Oklahoma. I thank the chairman for his work on this bill, for his chairmanship on the committee, and his willingness to work across the aisle on this bill. I would say this is a major problem. If we do just a short-term extension, then maybe a project gets funded here and there, but we don't do the long-term maintenance, which is never as glamorous as building new projects. This is about long-term maintenance and work that needs to be done on our existing roads and bridges as well as exciting new opportunities. But when we don't have that kind of clear funding source for our States to see that we have a window, as the Presiding Officer knows with her leadership in the State of Nebraska, you just can't do projects in a State when the funding is not going to be there 3 months later. One is not able to invest in the maintenance and long-term work that needs to be done, and that is why this Senator thanks the chairman and the ranking member, Senator Boxer, for her incredible work on this bill as well because this is about long-term funding for planning, for safety, and also for our economy.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I rise to speak in favor of the DRIVE Act. I was a supporter of this bill from the first vote we had in the last week. There were some changes made immediately that I thought were important. I think this long-term bill is incredibly important to our country's future. Time and again, we have had these short-term extensions, and that is what the House of Representatives is talking about again. We have an opportunity here. Americans, as we know, can't fix a road in 2 months. In a State such as Minnesota, where we have two seasons, one road construction season and one winter, citizens cannot plan ahead and our State cannot plan ahead when we continue to have these short- term extensions. They also want to do bigger things and better things for transportation in our State, and this funding and this bill will allow them to do that, instead of this Mickey Mouse short-term extension time after time after time. As we have heard from my colleagues, ranking member Senator Boxer, our chairman, Senator Inhofe, Senator Durbin, and Senator Whitehouse today, I think it is incredibly important that we move forward with this bill. This Senator came to this issue in a very tragic way; that is, when a bridge fell down in the middle of a summer day. The anniversary of this bridge collapse is coming up in just a few days. It was a beautiful summer day, rush hour, and there were tons of traffic going over one of the most heavily traveled bridges in our State. This wasn't just a bridge; this was an eight-lane highway. It was something you wouldn't even notice as a bridge because there were so many cars on it. It was the I-35W bridge. On that day, I was in Washington. I remember trying to call some people in Minnesota. The cell phone services wouldn't work, and I was wondering what was wrong with the cell phone service. What I found about 5 minutes later is that people were calling, panicked about their loved ones because tens of thousands of people were traveling near that bridge that day. In fact, when that bridge collapsed, tragically, 13 people died and dozens of cars were submerged. Heroes who came to the front that day didn't run away from that bridge. They ran toward it. No one will forget the off-duty firefighter Shanna Hanson, who was going in and out, in and out on a rope tethered to the side of the bridge, trying to get people, trying to find people in the murky water. The fact that 13 people died--tragic as it was--was something of a miracle, given how many people were injured. Over 100 people were injured in the collapse. A schoolbus sat precariously on the edge of the bridge. A Tasty truckdriver literally veered out so the schoolbus wouldn't go over the edge and ended up tragically dying himself when the truck caught on fire. The schoolbus was labeled the ``miracle bus'' because youth workers on the bus had the presence of mind to take these little kids who were on the bus going out for a summer outing and get them out the back and to safety. That happened. All of that happened on August 1. As I said that day, a bridge just shouldn't fall down in the middle of America--not an eight-lane highway, not a bridge which is literally 8 blocks from my house and which I drive on every day with my family, with my daughter. That is the bridge that fell down. So what did we do in Minnesota? In 13 months, we rebuilt that bridge. On a bipartisan basis, just like you see with this bill with the DRIVE Act, we worked together across the aisle. We got the Federal funding, and we rebuilt that bridge, but that is not where the story ends. Because of what happened, because of the design defect that caused that bridge to fall, in addition to two other issues NHTSA found, which are that there weren't adequate inspections and they also found there were problems with construction guides because there was construction work going on--but the bottom cause was a design defect. If we had adequate highway funding, adequate inspections, and we were able to go back in and look at bridges, as we did after the fact in Minnesota, and found that others had the same defect and that they had to be replaced--our State put more money into infrastructure, which helped us--I should add for my colleagues in this Chamber that it was one of the major reasons CNBC rated Minnesota as one of the best States to do business in the country, the best State to do business in, followed by Texas, Georgia, and Colorado. Two of the major factors they looked at were the quality of life and infrastructure. After this collapse occurred, we invested, and that is what this bill is about. It is about making a safer America. As Senator Whitehouse just outlined, our country is getting D's for infrastructure. It is about a safer America. It is about reducing congestion, but it is also about our economy, as shown by what has happened in Minnesota since the bridge collapse. It is about building our economy. When we are building our economy based on exports, we have to have a way to get goods to market. The way you do that is to upgrade railways and upgrade locks and dams, as we did in an earlier bill last year when we updated highways and we updated bridges. I am very excited about this bill. I love the fact that this leads us to a 21st century transportation system. I love the fact that we were able to get my distracted driving provisions in there, with the help of Senator Thune, Senator Nelson, and I had worked on them with Senator Hoeven. Distracted driving is a major safety risk in this country that we are finally going to be able to find a way to get the money out to the States so it is not just sitting and piling up and going nowhere, so States can start educating people about distracted driving. There is the work in the bill on graduated driving that I worked on so hard, on licenses as well as drunk driving. There are a lot of good measures in this bill. Mostly this bill is about the long term. It is about looking at the long-term economy and looking at the long-term safety issues, instead of just putting on a bandaid every 2 months, every 3 months, every 6 months. This is an opportunity that can't be missed. I ask my colleagues for their strong support. We have strong support for this as well as the Ex-Im Bank. I ask my colleagues across the way in the House to support this bill, do the right thing, and come up with a long-term solution.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Yes.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Yes.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. There were 13 people killed that day.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Yes, I am.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Yes, I have heard of that study, and I think it mimics what we have seen in other studies. If we don't plan ahead, people will start cutting off the work.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I say to Senator Boxer and Senator Inhofe, I think that is why we are here today, to talk about the fact that we have come together across party lines with people from completely different political ideologies to agree that we need a long-term fix to our transportation problem. As the Senator mentioned the people, I think sometimes people think about transportation as bricks and mortar or something very esoteric, but it is not; it is about the people who use the system. Senator Inhofe talked about the people who died in the bridge collapse in his State. There is a memorial for the 13 people who died in our State. I would suggest, if you ever come to the Twin Cities, come and look at it because it shows--as Senator Inhofe knows--everyone uses the roads and bridges. These people came from vastly different backgrounds. They were young people. There was a man who died. He and his wife had just decided they wanted to have a baby. Of all things, after he died, she decided to adopt children by herself, and she decided to adopt them from Haiti. Then the tragedy happened in Haiti, and we actually helped her get these children home. These are people who worked all kinds of different jobs. Some were coming home from work, some were students, some were moms busy in their car. Those are the people who died. They were America. America uses our bridges and roads and trains. We have to remember this is about the people who work construction, this is about the people who use the roads and bridges, and this is about our economy moving forward. Sometimes we get so into facts and figures and what one House does and what the other House does that we forget why we are spending money on our bridges and our roads and what this means for our future economy. I thank the leaders of this bill for what they have done, their willingness to take a lot of heat for working across the aisle, for making sure that what we are using to pay for this bill are things that make sense for our country and continue to allow us to move forward, and also for making changes to the bill when other Members had problems with it. That is why they are gaining so much momentum, and I am sure our friends over in the House are looking at this bill. They have examined the pay-fors--they have now had weeks to do that--and they have also looked at the safety provisions and other things in the bill. So at some point they are going to have the ability to decide if they are for this bill or against it or, as Senator Boxer mentioned, if they want to make some changes. But the key is that we have a good base bill which has brought people together from across the country, from different ideologies, which they can use and look at. If they just want to do another one of these short-term fixes--it is never going to get us where we need to be so we don't have another one of these bridges collapse on August 1, in the middle of a summer day. That happened in this country in this century. It will happen again if we keep this up. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the important bill before us today, the Every Child Achieves Act, which reauthorizes the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and fixes No Child Left Behind. I also rise today to talk about the reauthorization of the Export- Import Bank, which is also a very important matter for our country. I thank Senators Alexander and Murray for their great leadership in crafting a bipartisan bill that makes critical updates to No Child Left Behind that will help ensure that all students receive a quality education. They worked together from the very beginning on this important bill, and I think the results show how important it is. I come to the floor to talk about three amendments in this bill. The Presiding Officer is a cosponsor on one of the amendments, which is about STEM education. I think we all know that in today's global economy, education is key to our economic prosperity. The Senator from North Dakota understands that because our two States, North Dakota and Minnesota, have some of the lowest unemployment rates in the country. We have exciting economies with technological jobs to fill. We are two States that make and invent products which we then export to the world. To keep doing that, America's next generation of innovators will have to be highly trained and highly skilled. We certainly see this in my State. According to the Minnesota High Tech Association, Minnesota will be home to nearly 200,000 technology jobs in the next decade. Part of this is getting young people engaged at an early age. Today's high school students aren't just competing against students in Milwaukee and Miami, they are competing against students in Munich and Mumbai. If America is going to keep its spot atop the world's high- tech hierarchy, students in our country must receive the best training and education we can provide. That is why Senator Hoeven and I are working to increase the emphasis on STEM education. The Klobuchar-Hoeven amendment, modeled after our Innovate America Act, will expand STEM opportunities for more students by allowing school districts to use existing Federal STEM funding to create STEM specialty schools or to enhance existing STEM programs within the schools. Our provision will also ensure that the Department of Education is aligning STEM programs and resources with the needs of school districts and teachers. I understand that it is in the managers' package, and I thank the two leaders for that. The second amendment is the improving teacher and principal retention. The Every Child Achieves Act includes important reforms to improve the quality of education for students in Indian Country. One challenge that schools serving Native Americans continue to confront is the high rate of teacher and principal turnover and the instability it causes. Turnover hurts school districts with the added cost of rehiring and retraining, and it hurts kids as teachers come and go. One way to decrease teacher and principal turnover is to boost the professional development these teachers receive. Inadequate professional development and the lack of ongoing support are some of the key reasons why some of our best teachers are leaving. That is why Senator Murkowski of Alaska and I have been pushing a provision to improve teacher and principal retention in schools serving American Indian and Alaska Native students. Specifically, our amendment adds mentoring and teacher support programs, including instructional support from tribal elders and cultural experts, to improve the professional development that teachers and principals in Indian schools receive. This is also in the managers' package, and we appreciate that. The next amendment deals with chronic absenteeism. We know students can't learn if they are not in school. When I was a prosecutor in Hennepin County, I developed a major truancy initiative to keep kids in school and out of the courtroom. My office worked closely with local schools on a faster, more effective response to truancy problems. That is why my provision in the Every Child Achieves Acts will provide professional development and training to schools to help ensure that teachers, principals, and other school leaders have the knowledge and skills necessary to address issues related to chronic absenteeism. Truancy is sometimes called the kindergarten of crime because it is truly an early risk factor. I still remember looking at the files of serious juvenile offenders--ones who committed homicide and the like-- and I realized the first indication that there was a real problem was truancy. It doesn't just hit in high school; it actually usually hits in sixth and seventh grade. The more we can do to put a focus on this, the better off we will be not only for public safety but, of course, for the kids' lives. I again thank Senator Murray and Senator Alexander for their tremendous work on this bill. Export-Import Bank Mr. President, the other issue, which is somewhat related, as we look at preparing kids for the current economy and the century we are in, is about jobs. It is about moving our economy along. Part of that is making sure we can compete globally not only with education efforts, which is what we are doing this week, but also with financing. There are over eighty export-import-type banks in developed nations. China's bank currently funds things at nearly four times the amount that the Unites States does. Yet we are seriously now allowing the Export-Import Bank to lapse, and I strongly support reauthorizing the Bank. I want to thank all of those involved, including Senators Cantwell, Kirk, Heitkamp, and Graham, for their strong and impassioned leadership on this issue. I also wish to thank all of my colleagues who have spoken about the importance of this Bank. Yesterday, a few of us met with the President and senior White House officials to discuss the importance of reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank. America needs to be, as I said, a country that thinks, that invents, that builds things, and that exports to nations. That means the bill we are working on this week, but it also means the financing so those businesses can keep going. We had a vote here, as we all know, and 65 Senators supported reauthorizing the Ex-Im Bank, and in the House, 60 Republicans are cosponsoring a bill to do the same. We should get it done. We know that when 95 percent of the world's customers live outside of our borders, there is literally a world of opportunity out there for U.S. businesses. We all know that isn't just about Mexico and Canada. It is about the rest of the world, including Asia and the emerging economies in Africa. We can just go all over the world to see opportunities. In my own State of Minnesota, the Ex-Im Bank has supported $2 billion in exports and helped over 170 companies in the last 5 years alone. Every single year, as the Presiding Officer knows, I have been to all 87 counties in Minnesota so I am able to see firsthand these businesses. I may not be going there to talk about Ex-Im. I have rarely done that, although we have had a few Ex-Im events. I am so surprised when I go to businesses and they say: We have actually grown our exports to 15 percent or it is now 20 percent of our business, and we went to Ex-Im and got financing, and we went to the Foreign Commercial Service and got help. What we are really hurting by letting this lapse and not reauthorizing it are the small businesses. In my State, 170 businesses used the services of Ex-Im in the last five years. They don't have an expert on Kazakhstan. They don't have a bank down the street in a small town of 3,000 people that is able to explain to them how to get that kind of financing. They rely on the expertise of Ex-Im and, most importantly, they rely on the credit of Ex-Im. Look at this: Balzar, in Mountain Lake, MN, population of 2,000. As the Presiding Officer knows, we don't have many mountains in Minnesota, but we have a lot of lakes. So we call it Mountain Lake. This is a small business--74 people in a town of 2,000--that has relied on Ex-Im in the past decade to help export its products. Their exports have grown to about 15 percent of their total sales. They export from Canada to Kazakhstan, from Japan to Australia. They are exporting to South Africa. Ralco, a small animal feed manufacturer in Marshall, is a third- generation family business with distribution to over 20 countries around the world. Superior Industries in Morris, MN, is a manufacturer of bulk material processing and handling systems. There are 5,000 people in the town, and 500 people in Morris are employed at this company. That would be 10 percent of the town. Thanks to the Ex-Im Bank, they are able to export to Canada, Australia, Russia, Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, and Brazil. We know this is necessary for small businesses. We know this is important for our country to be on an even playing field. We don't want China to eat our lunch, but if we continue along this way and become the only developed Nation that doesn't have financing authority such as this, we will let them eat our lunch. At the end of last month when the Ex-Im Bank expired, there were nearly 200 transactions totaling nearly $9 billion in financing pending, and many businesses--90 percent of which are small businesses--are no longer able to use their export credit and insurance to its full extent. I have already talked to businesses that literally have been told: When we were trying to make a deal, our competitors on the other side that were trying to make the next deal said: They are not going to get financing. That country let their Ex-Im Bank expire. Go to a business from this country. Take our business because you know we have steady financing. This cannot continue. This is why this is a major priority of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a major priority for small business organizations around the country, and a major priority, most importantly, for the workers that work at these companies. It is critical to move forward. We must reauthorize the Export-Import Bank and make sure our exporters are competing on a level playing field in this global market. We do it with education, thanks to the good work of Senator Alexander and Senator Murray, but we also do it by making sure that our businesses have the financing tools they need to succeed. I urge my colleagues to support the Ex-Im Bank and reauthorize this critical agency as soon as possible. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

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

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I come to the floor today to speak about a major problem across my State--the Presiding Officer has seen it in Iowa--and across the country, and that is the scourge of synthetic drugs. We have all seen reports of people who have hurt themselves or others or who have died under the influence of dangerous drugs. This issue hit home in my State after Trevor Robinson, a 19-year-old from Blaine, MN, died after overdosing on a drug called 2C-E in 2010. I introduced a bill to outlaw 2C-E and other similar substances, and with the help of Senator Grassley, as well as Senator Schumer, we were able to get that bill signed into law. But there is so much more that needs to be done, as we have learned since we passed that bill. Here is one recent example. Law enforcement officials in Florida and throughout the country are dealing with a synthetic drug called Flakka. This extremely dangerous drug has been linked to hallucinations and other bizarre behavior. We are always trying to stay one step ahead of these new and dangerous compounds because the way the law works now, we have to keep adding new compounds. So what happens is that the crooks who are manufacturing these drugs--the drug leaders, the people who are running these drug rings--are actually just changing the compounds up so they are different, and they are staying one step ahead of the law in that way. Before I was elected to the Senate, I spent 8 years serving as chief prosecutor in Minnesota's largest county. Drug cases made up about one-third of our caseload, and I had an opportunity to see firsthand the devastating impacts of drug addiction. Recent statistics have shown that almost half of all high school students have used addictive substances, and synthetic drugs are a growing problem in Minnesota and across the country. A recent survey of 15,000 Minnesota high school students found that 26 percent have used illegal drugs, and of that group, 12 percent have used synthetic drugs. The problem with synthetic drugs, which we have realized as I have done events with law enforcement in places such as Fargo and in places such as the suburbs of Minneapolis, is that many times people who buy these synthetic drugs get much worse drugs than the actual substance. They get much harder-core drugs, much more difficult drugs--drugs that cause them to hallucinate and drugs that cause them to either kill themselves or to hurt others. That is why I have reintroduced bipartisan legislation with Senators Graham, Feinstein, and Grassley that would make it easier to prosecute the sale and distribution of new synthetic drugs that are analogues--or substantially similar to current illegal drugs. What we are looking at is the fact that the people who sell these drugs or manufacture them just keep changing a compound here or there so they can skirt the law. What we are trying to do with this bill is to make it easier to prosecute the new drugs that are substantially similar. The Supreme Court actually very recently issued a decision in McFadden focused on the mens rea standard in analogue drug cases. My bill, the Synthetic Abuse and Labeling of Toxic Substances or SALTS Act is focused instead on the underlying factors for what makes something an analogue drug. Why do we need this new legislation? Because expert chemists are able to slightly alter the chemical makeup of synthetic drugs so they are no longer on the list of banned substances. To address this, current law provides the DEA with the mechanism to prosecute the sale and distribution of drugs that are analogues--analogues--that are substantially similar to controlled substances. However, the law specifically says that an analogue drug does not include any substance ``not intended for human consumption.'' This can be a big problem because synthetic drugs often are explicitly marked as ``not intended for human consumption.'' But manufacturers, distributors, sellers, and abusers of these substances all know exactly what to do with them--ingest them or snort them to get a dangerous and many times unpredictable high. The SALTS Act amends the Controlled Substances Act to allow consideration of a number of factors when determining whether a controlled substance analogue was intended for human consumption, including looking at the marketing, advertising, and labeling of a substance and its known use. That is a much more honest way to look at what is actual consumption. You don't just look at the fact that there is a label on it that says it because that is what the drug dealers do to protect themselves. Instead what you do is you look at what is actually going on here. You look at the marketing, advertising, and the labeling of a substance and its known use. The bill also says the existence of some pieces of evidence that a substance was not marketed, advertised or labeled for human consumption should not stop prosecutors from being able to establish, based on all the evidence--the totality of the evidence--that the substance was, in fact, intended for human consumption. New synthetic drugs constantly come onto the market. We need to give our law enforcement agencies the tools they need to combat them. This legislation will make it easier for prosecutors to demonstrate that a given synthetic drug is, in fact, intended for human consumption. We know that it is going on. We know that is why these guys are selling it over the Internet. They are trying to get around the law. They have actually been quite successful, causing many deaths, many people hurt, many people addicted. So all this does is get to the facts. Is this really being used for human consumption or not? This legislation is going to make it easier for prosecutors to demonstrate with the totality of circumstances and not just the label that says it is not intended for human consumption-- but looking at how it is sold, what it is used for, to make it easier to meet that standard. That is the only way we are going to go after these guys who are constantly changing the compounds to get around the law. I would also like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the efforts, since we are talking about synthetic drugs, of the outgoing Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, my fellow Minnesotan, Michelle Leonhart. Administrator Leonhart has had a long career in law enforcement, serving with the DEA since 1980 and as Administrator since 2010. She started her career back in Minnesota and has served in the DEA since, for a very long time, over 30 years. I would especially like to thank the Administrator for her work on the prescription drug take-back issue. During her tenure, the DEA has coordinated a series of national events that have collected over 2,400 tons of unused prescription drugs--2,400 tons. That is, by the way, why we worked with the Administrator--Senator Cornyn and I--to develop legislation which passed to make it easier for take-out programs, to do them more routinely, but meanwhile 2,400 tons were collected. These events are critical in preventing drug abuse and overdoses and getting old medicines out of the cabinet where people who are not prescribed them sometimes take them. I want to thank Administrator Leonhart for her law enforcement career. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I wish to recognize the Minnesota Orchestra and its music director, Osmo Vanska, for the ensemble's recent visit to Cuba--the first major American orchestra to do so since President Obama announced efforts to normalize our Nation's relationship with Cuba. The Minnesota Orchestra last visited Cuba in 1930, when it was known as the Minneapolis Symphony Orchestra. For more than a century, the Minnesota Orchestra has demonstrated a deep commitment to innovation and diversity, and this visit is just the latest example. During its whirlwind visit, the orchestra won the hearts and minds of music lovers across the island nation. The performances were met with applause and acclaim, and they illustrated the importance of strengthening the cultural bonds between our countries and our people. In Cuba, there is a real eagerness for the person-to-person contact that has been blocked for decades. This trip signified real steps towards forming those crucial relationships-- proving that music is a language that reaches beyond cultural, political, and geographical barriers to unite us all. I commend the Minnesota Orchestra for its willingness and initiative to take part in this historic cultural moment. Since its inception in 1903, the Minnesota Orchestra has promoted new ideas, new connections, and new music. Under Mr. Vanska's leadership, this orchestra has risen in the ranks to become one of the top symphonic ensembles in America, and I am proud that it calls Minnesota home. The orchestra has become a visionary leader in the world of symphonic and classical music, stretching beyond what other ensembles imagine is possible, in order to achieve excellence in its field. I hope my colleagues will join me as I commend the Minnesota Orchestra, its Musical Director Osmo Vanska and all of the talented musicians and dedicated staff on this historic tour of Cuba, and for more than a century of performing and producing beautiful music enjoyed not just in Minnesota but around the world.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Metal Theft Prevention Act, which was filed as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act. In a moment, I am going to ask unanimous consent to make this amendment pending, but first I wish to explain why this amendment is so important. I have been working on this legislation for years. Senator Schumer is a cosponsor. In the past, I have had support for this bill as cosponsors in Senator Hatch, Senator Lindsey Graham, and Senator Hoeven. Why has there been bipartisan support in the past for this bill? I think we all know that this is a public safety issue. Metal thieves have targeted labs, power stations, and gas lines, causing blackouts, service disruptions, and even dangerous explosions. In September of 2013, four people were injured in an explosion at a University of California, Berkeley, electrical station. Officials blamed it on copper theft that occurred 2 hours before the explosion. Georgia Power was having a huge problem with thieves targeting a substation that feeds the entire Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, one of the busiest airports in the world. The airport was getting hit two to three times a week, and surveillance didn't lead to any arrests. The crime has also hurt the dignity of our veterans. Last year in my home State of Minnesota, the metal thieves robbed dozens of veterans' graves, taking the brass rods that hold their symbol of service. It is a crime that is almost too callous to comprehend, but sadly this wasn't the first time. On Memorial Day in 2012--this is just in Minnesota-- thieves stole more than 20 Bronze Star markers from veterans' graves in Isanti County. That is why this bill is supported by the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Vietnam Veterans of America, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, as well as major law enforcement organizations and business groups. The bill is really quite simple. It will help combat the shameless crime across State lines by putting modest recordkeeping requirements on scrap metal dealers and recyclers in place. It will limit the value of cash transactions to $100 and require sellers in certain cases to prove they actually own the metal. All we are trying to do is stop scrap metal dealers from taking stolen metal. And the reason we can't just do it State by State is that a lot of States are doing this but a lot of States aren't, and what the thieves are doing is crossing State lines, stealing the metal in one State and selling it in another. This is an important bill, and it has been heavily lobbied against by the scrap metal dealer association. The Democratic side of the aisle has cleared this bill. We are ready to go forward with this amendment. There are objections on the Republican side. But I think people better step back and realize, the next time there is a major explosion, the next time something happens like this, which is happening on a weekly basis across the country-- that they understand we could have done something to prevent it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment in order to call up my amendment No. 1555.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I am disappointed that there is an objection to calling up this commonsense amendment that has so much support from veterans, law enforcement, and businesses. I have stood in front of small businesses all over my State, including with Senator Hoeven in Fargo, a number of electric companies that have been repeatedly broken into. I believe this does have national security implications because there is a provision in the bill about critical infrastructure and creating a felony-level crime when they are stealing from that critical infrastructure. And I believe it is very important that we debate and vote on this issue as part of the National Defense Authorization Act. I will continue to work to get a vote on this amendment during this entire year. I worry that at some point we are going to have major damage to our infrastructure as a result of metal theft, and everyone will look back and wonder why we didn't listen to every major law enforcement group in our country or to every single business that has been affected or to the electric companies that are being broken into all the time or to our veterans groups, that just want their final resting places to be respected. Despite the lobby of the scrap metal dealers, I will not let this rest. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President----

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I would like to note that I have been attempting to pass this legislation now for 3 years. Senator Hatch was my first cosponsor, then Senator Graham, and then Senator Hoeven. Every step of the way I have been stymied by the scrap metal dealer lobby. I believe this is an important bill. It is a simple bill. It will greatly help because these thieves are crossing State lines with the stolen copper. I appreciate, obviously, Senator McCain's viewpoint, being the manager of this bill on the floor, but I think the record should reflect that I have tried many times to get this amendment up on other bills and to work with the committee, but every single time I get stopped in my tracks by this lobby. At some point I would like to have a vote on this so that people can vote their heart and vote with their law enforcement or vote with the scrap metal dealers. They can decide. For now, our side has cleared this amendment, and the Republicans are objecting to this. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I wish to recognize Joe Dowling, the outgoing artistic director of the Guthrie Theater. For 20 years, Mr. Dowling has served the Guthrie with integrity, creativity, and style. His passion, talent, and years of international theater experience have added so much to the Guthrie Theater and the entire Twin Cities theater community. Mr. Dowling joined the Guthrie Theater as artistic director in 1995. Since then, he has directed 48 plays and build relationships with esteemed theater artists, such as Angela Bassett, the late Arthur Miller, and T.R. Knight, just to name a few. But his legacy reaches far beyond the plays he has directed and the relationships he has formed. Under Mr. Dowling's leadership, the Guthrie moved into its beautiful new building, allowing the company to expand its repertoire and reach over 400,000 patrons each year. Joe Dowling has also focused on developing the next generation of theater artists. He led the development of two new actor training programs at the Guthrie and initiated the WorldStage Series, a program that invites international theater companies to perform on Guthrie stages. His vision and leadership have brought tremendous positive change to the Guthrie Theater, and his legacy will be felt long after he has gone. Tyrone Guthrie founded the Guthrie Theater with a specific goal in mind--to create a first-rate regional theater that would nourish the minds and souls of artists and audiences alike. In the 52 years since its founding, the Guthrie Theater has become just that--a shining example of everything regional theater is and can be. Whether producing Shakespeare's ``Hamlet'' or more contemporary fare, the Guthrie has tackled some of humanity's most pressing issues with innovation, compassion, and professionalism. On its stages and in its classrooms, the Guthrie brings people of all walks of life together to laugh, cry, and contemplate some of life's deepest questions. I hope you will join me as I say thank you to Joe Dowling for his 20 remarkable years of service to the Guthrie Theater, the people of the State of Minnesota, and the United States of America.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

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

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to voice my opposition to this budget. Since being elected to the Senate, I have always stressed the importance of responsibly addressing our country's fiscal challenges. We have had bipartisan agreements before when we faced fiscal challenges. At the end of 2013, we passed the bipartisan Murray-Ryan budget agreement which then led to the passage of the omnibus spending bill. I was part of the group of 14 during the shutdown who came together with an idea for a fix that allowed us to get to the budget--seven Democrats and seven Republicans. We also saw some major bipartisan work on the farm bill, the Water Resources Development Act, the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, and we reauthorized the Child Care and Development Block Grant Program and, as well as we know, recently, the Medicare sustainable growth rate. But today that is not what this budget is about. That is one of my major focuses today. I would say, by the way, as a result of some of the bipartisan work that has been done in the past, since 2009 we have seen the deficit as a percent of GDP drop from nearly 10 percent--9.8 percent, exactly--to under 3 percent. In this economic recovery, we have seen 61 straight months of private sector job growth and added over 12 million private sector jobs. Unemployment is at 5.5 percent nationally and 3.7 percent in my home State of Minnesota. The unemployment rate went down faster in 2014 than it has in any year since 1984. With this economy not just stabilized but finally starting to show some signs of improvement--not everything that we need, not with everyone sharing in its growth; we know that--we are no longer governing from crisis. We are finally governing from opportunity-- opportunity for the people of this country, opportunity to compete in this global economy. My problem with this budget is that it does not give us that opportunity. This budget would make drastic cuts to the programs we need to seize this opportunity in the global economy, programs such as student loans, transportation, and heating assistance, just to name a few. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the deficit is projected to drop to 2.8 percent of GDP in 2015, a cut of nearly two- thirds. Yet this budget would cut many of the programs that help our middle-class people, our families, our seniors, and those working hard to make ends meet. We have heard about a lot of the cuts in programs, but I want to focus on three key areas that I believe we need to invest in today so we can seize this opportunity when we finally have a stable economy and our country can grow and compete. The first is infrastructure, the second is investing in kids, and the third is research. One of the best ways to boost our economy and create good-paying jobs is through investing in infrastructure. For far too long we have neglected the roads, the bridges, and the mass transit that millions of Americans rely on every day. According to the Federal Highway Administration, more than 24 percent of the Nation's 600,000 bridges are either structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers' 2013 report card, the United States scores a D-plus on the overall condition of our Nation's infrastructure. Compared with other countries, we are falling behind. China and India are spending, respectively, 9 percent and 8 percent of their GDPs on infrastructure. How much are we committing? Just 2 percent. The effects of this shortsighted strategy are increasingly clear. No one knows that better than in my home State of Minnesota, where on August 1, 2007, a major bridge--an eight-lane highway--went crashing into the Mississippi River, and 13 people died. Dozens and dozens were injured. Dozens of cars were submerged in the water. As I said that day, a bridge should not fall down in the middle of America--especially not an eight-lane interstate highway, especially not a bridge that is one of the most traveled bridges in our State, especially not a bridge that is blocks from my house, a bridge that my family goes over every day when we want to go anywhere in our State--rush hour in the heart of a major metropolitan area. When we have something like that happen in the State, we understand the importance of investing in infrastructure. The last thing we want to see is more cuts. Whether it is roads, bridges, rail, airports or waterways, the need to rebuild our infrastructure is critical to reclaiming our country's competitive edge. We want to get goods to market in this export economy. How do we do it? We do it with roads, with bridges, with rail. We do it with locks and dams. We do it with airports. Yet this budget would cut transportation and infrastructure by more than $200 billion over the next decade--a cut of 40 percent. That is simply unacceptable. Education funding is something that is so important to me in my life. My grandpa worked 1,500 feet underground in the mines and never graduated from high school. He literally spent his life working, putting money in a coffee can in the basement to send my dad to community college. My dad went to community college and got a 2-year degree and then went on to the University of Minnesota--two public institutions. That is what education is about. Yet, we see cuts to education, cuts to Pell grants in this bill. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act provides critical funding to help offset education costs for States and local areas that are providing services to kids with disabilities. We are talking about our most vulnerable kids here. Yet this budget would cut Federal education funding by 2 percent in 2017 and 9 percent in 2025. IDEA funding--that funding so critical for kids with disabilities--would be cut by more than $15 million per year on average in Minnesota and more than $950 million nationally. Our kids deserve better than that. Medical research--no one knows that better than Minnesota, home of the Mayo Clinic, home of the University of Minnesota. Yet what do we see with this budget? The cuts would mean a devastating $8 billion decrease at the National Institutes of Health over the next decade. This is simply unacceptable--cutting investment in medical innovation for cures that could cure Alzheimer's, for cures that could cure childhood diabetes, for cures and for research that could help people with autism; cutting investment in medical innovation is not a path that we can afford to take. As Newt Gingrich said in an op-ed this last month, investing in health research is both a moral and a financial issue. The NIH is a beacon of hope for people across the Nation and in my home State of Minnesota. Just look at Alzheimer's. Right now, close to 5.2 million Americans are living with Alzheimer's, including nearly 100,000 Minnesotans. These numbers will grow dramatically in the many coming years with the aging of the baby boomer generation. We know there is good research being done through the Human Genome Project and the work that is being done at Mayo, where, if we can catch it earlier, our doctors might be able to figure out exactly what works and does not work. If you do not catch it early, how are they ever going to do the research we need to do to figure out what works and what does not work if you wait too long? That is some of the groundbreaking work that is being done right now. That is why I have worked with Senator Durbin on legislation to boost NIH funding. In contrast to this budget, the American Cures Act, of which I am a cosponsor, would reverse the trend of declining Federal investment in medical research and fuel the next generation of biomedical discoveries by providing a 5-percent annual increase at NIH and at other key Federal research agencies. We need to see this as an investment. We know how expensive Alzheimer's is--and we know the heartbreaking stories of families where a family member gets Alzheimer's. Yet we cannot back away from the research that is going on right now--the research for things such as precision medicine. We are going to have targeted treatments helping patients to live healthier lives. In conclusion, this budget would make cuts to infrastructure at a time when we need to invest and rebuild. This budget would make cuts to programs that serve kids with disabilities and slow the process of biomedical research and innovation. We have an opportunity now in this country. Through the work of so many businesses and workers across the country, we have been able to stabilize this economy. People in our country did not give up. But now is the moment to seize opportunities, and seizing opportunities means really taking back our place in America as a preeminent researcher, as the country that people go to when they want to cure diseases. We cannot do that by moving backwards. We cannot do that if we are going to cut the funding for our roads and bridges. We cannot afford to have another I-35W bridge collapse. I urge my colleagues to oppose this budget and work together on a smarter budget, one that actually allows this country--America--to seize the opportunity before us so we can compete in this global economy. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

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

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act that is before the Senate today. I thank Senator Corker and Senator Cardin for their incredible work bringing people together on the Foreign Relations Committee. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill as written. We must move forward to pass this legislation as quickly as possible to ensure that Congress has a role in reviewing any proposed nuclear agreement with Iran. This is a critically important bill at a critically important time. Preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon is one of the most important objectives of our national security policy, and I strongly supported the sanctions every step of the way that brought Iran to the negotiating table. I have also supported the diplomatic efforts to address the threat posed by Iran's nuclear program. The framework that was reached in Switzerland earlier this month is a positive step forward, but I think we all know that this process is far from complete. There are so many unanswered questions on the military dimensions of Iran's nuclear program, on how its uranium stockpile would be handled, under what circumstances any sanctions relief would be provided, and the timing of that relief. It is clear that there are still differences between Iran and the rest of the international community on these issues. I believe it is important that negotiations continue to pursue a final agreement by June 30 that comprehensively addresses the threat posed by Iran's nuclear program. Again, one of the most important objectives of the U.S. national security policy is to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. The bipartisan legislation before us today will set up a process for Congress to review any final nuclear agreement with Iran. It ensures that Congress, which through its actions brought Iran to the table, will have access to all the final details of the agreement. It preserves our right to have a final say in the potential lifting of the sanctions that we led on. That is how we were involved in compelling Iran to negotiate in terms of these sanctions. Senators Corker and Cardin worked so hard to strike a careful balance between the Executive's prerogative to pursue the negotiations and Congress's role in reviewing any nuclear agreement. Their negotiations were a success, as I said. The bill passed the Foreign Relations Committee unanimously, 19 to 0, 2 weeks ago. That is a committee with a number of Senators with a broad range of views on every issue, including foreign relations and including these negotiations. The President, who had long threatened to veto any such bill, has agreed to sign it. This is a significant victory for the Senate and also for congressional oversight of foreign policy, something many of us have been pushing for. Any nuclear agreement with Iran will have significant long-term implications for the United States, for Israel, and for our allies in the region. So it is critical that Congress have the opportunity to review it. This bill ensures that we have that opportunity. That is why it is so important that we act now to pass this legislation without delay and without amendments that undercut the bipartisan agreement on this bill. Right now, I understand there are negotiations over a number of amendments that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to offer. I think we know that a number of these amendments appear to be written in a way that would undermine the bipartisan support for the bill or would somehow make this bill much more difficult in terms of having a process. All this bill is, from my mind, is a process to review. Instead of having a haphazard process, this actually gives Congress something for which we have been asking for a long time. It has given us that ability to review this agreement and have a vote on it. I don't know how many times I have heard my colleagues from the other side of the aisle talk about it--and my colleagues on this side of the aisle. We finally have a bipartisan way to do it. So I think we need to be very careful when moving forward and look at some of these amendments. I certainly share my colleagues' deep mistrust and skepticism of the Iranian regime. I am appalled by the continuing human rights abuses, the unjustified detention of American citizens--everyone, from the Washington Post reporter to a former marine to a Christian pastor. I abhor the vicious threats we are hearing against Israel and against Israeli leaders, the track record supporting anti-Semitism and the Holocaust denial. I am deeply concerned about the destabilizing actions in the region, including Iran's efforts to obtain more advanced missiles, and the support for militant forces and terrorists. I think we all know the issues that are going on here. It is incredibly important that we work to address these issues, but there must be a recognition of the fact that what we are talking about here is a nuclear agreement. I think every Senator is going to want to look at that agreement and say: Does this make things safer or not? What effect does this have on Israel? Is it safer to have Iran have nuclear capabilities when they have shown the propensity to do all of these other things that I have just mentioned? I think many of us come down on the side that we want to see this agreement but we are pleased these negotiations are going on. We are particularly thankful that Senator Corker and Senator Cardin were able to come to an agreement on a process and to get that agreement through a highly diverse committee in terms of their political views and to get that agreement through on a 19-to-0 vote. Also, I might add that we don't want to revive the threat of a Presidential veto here. I know many of these amendments sound appealing to many of us but not if they are going to be used as a way to bring down this process, the review agreement, and that is essentially what would happen. We do not want to be damaging our own ability to ensure that sanctions relief will only come from a strong agreement that prevents Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. I would think that outcome would certainly be fine with the Iranians, if that is what happens. As our Republican colleague from South Carolina, Lindsey Graham, pointed out recently, ``Anybody who offers an amendment that will break this agreement apart . . . the beneficiary will be the Iranians.'' So let's not give the Iranians a victory. Let's pass this bill on a strong bipartisan vote, and let's do it now so it is clear that Congress stands united and we want the ability to review this agreement. Our foreign policy is more effective when we speak with one voice. It may be simplistic to say that politics should stop at the water's edge, but when it comes to Iran, the fact is, we have been unified. The past three votes in favor of major sanctions legislation in 2010, 2011, and 2012 have been unanimous--99 to 0, 100 to 0, and 94 to 0 respectively. And now the Iranians are at the table negotiating a nuclear agreement. That is because we stood together across party lines. We have stood together and been strong and unified as a country. The time has come to show we are serious again--serious about ensuring that a final agreement is strong and enforceable and, most importantly, blocks Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. We may not agree on everything, but we must certainly agree on something that so many of us have been talking about--a role for the Congress, a role for the Senate in having a say over this agreement. That is all this bill is about. Passing this bill will show our commitment to our country's security and the security of our allies and our partners. It transcends partisan politics, and that is something that, when it comes to foreign relations and when it comes to dealing with a country such as Iran, must stop at the water's edge. I thank our colleagues, Senator Corker and Senator Cardin, for working so hard to negotiate this agreement--simply a process of review--so that we can finally have a say, and I ask my colleagues to support this. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I support the Steve Gleason Act, which passed the Senate last week. I would especially like to thank Senator Vitter for championing this important legislation that will ensure patients on Medicare have access to critical speech-generating devices. I am so glad that we were able to come together to pass this bipartisan bill and take an important step toward giving patients their voices back. For Americans affected by debilitating diseases, speech-generating devices aren't a luxury--they are a lifeline. Without these devices, many people who are suffering from diseases like ALS and Parkinson's can't communicate with their family members, caregivers and friends. Many patients use their devices in conjunction with eye gaze technology because they no longer have use of their hands, arms, and other parts of their body. And these new technologies allow patients to use the Internet and email--technologies most us take for granted but are crucial to help keep patients connected with their communities. Unfortunately, recent policy changes have threatened patients' access to these important devices and associated technologies. Under the new policy, Medicare will stop paying for speech-generating devices if a patient is admitted to a hospital, nursing facility, or hospice. It is at this time that patients are most vulnerable and most in need of being able to communicate with their doctors, caregivers, and loved ones. I have heard heartbreaking stories of patients who have lost their ability to communicate when they enter a care facility. One person told of having to put her mother in hospice care. When her mother entered hospice, Medicare would no longer cover her mother's device. The daughter was devastated that she could no longer understand what her mother was saying. She could tell how frustrated her mother was by this new isolation, but she was helpless to do anything about it. I have also heard from people who have decided to forego treatment in hospice or a nursing home because they would rather suffer at home than lose their voice. This is simply unacceptable. That is why I have worked with Senator Vitter to restore full access to speech-generating devices for those who need them. The Steve Gleason Act will ensure that patients have continuous access to their speech-generating devices, no matter where they are receiving treatment. And the bill will allow patients to use eye- tracking technology with their devices--technology that is vital for patients who can no longer use their arms or hands. Ultimately, these changes will ensure that Americans who have been robbed of their ability to speak by diseases like ALS aren't also robbed of relationships with their caregivers and loved ones. Again, I thank my colleagues in the Senate for passing this important bill and I urge the House to pass this legislation and give patients their voices back.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I was unable to cast a vote on the nomination of Dr. Dava Newman to be the Deputy Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. I missed the vote yesterday because I was meeting with turkey growers in Minnesota who are struggling with the avian influenza outbreak, and I attended the funeral services for my long-time friend, colleague and mentor, John Mooty. My vote would not have changed the outcome and had I been present I would have voted in support of Dr. Newman's nomination. The work being done at NASA pushes the boundaries of innovation, science, and exploration, and it is critical we have strong leaders like Dr. Newman in place to lead those initiatives. Dr. Newman is well known for her cutting-edge work in developing the next generation of space suits. As a professor of aeronautics and astronautics and engineering systems at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dr. Newman will bring a strong academic, research, and technical background to this position. As a member of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, I supported Dr. Newman's nomination when it was considered by the committee earlier this year. I am pleased that Dr. Newman was confirmed by the Senate to be the Deputy Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.