Pat Roberts

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed for 15 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about President Obama's plan to move Guantanamo Bay terrorists to the United States. However, it is not much of a plan. With all due respect, it is more of a failed attempt to fulfill a campaign promise and, in my view, what he believes will secure his legacy. Fortunately for us--those who believe that moving dangerous enemy combatants within our communities is dangerous, irresponsible, and an illogical idea--the President's plan contains nothing really substantive. In fact, it fails to recommend an alternative location to any current facility at all. As a matter of fact, I call that a win. The plan does not provide any intelligence to substantiate the President's claims, nor does it even provide a chart or a graph to support the mathematics on the alleged cost savings, and there is no estimate regarding the cost to local and State governments to support such a move. Indeed, the 9-page report is short in every regard. The White House received the Department of Defense's results of their site surveys and other data regarding a potential closing last month. And this--I am holding up the report here--this is all we have in return: 9 pages. I know the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, my good friend and colleague, Senator John McCain, is not going to be pleased with the lack of substance or data or the articulation of a real plan. The same goes for Senator Richard Burr, chairman of the Intelligence Committee, who at this particular time is going to be introducing legislation of his own to provide intelligence with regard to the administration's lack of intelligence on moving detainees to the United States. The lack of a plan and the inability of this administration to provide an alternative site indicate that none of the sites visited by DOD's survey team met the demands necessary to hold detainees and, more important, keep our community safe. The fact that no site was named and no substance on those visits was provided tells me there is no alternative to match what we are now doing safely and securely at Gitmo, period. This so-called plan, as outlined by the President in his speech today from the White House, skims over four steps to closing Guantanamo Bay. First, it articulates the administration's plan to continue moving detainees designated for transfer by the President's national security team to foreign countries. In some instances, this may have been successful with regard to individuals being rehabilitated, but a third of the time, detainees transferred to third-party host countries have returned to the battlefield. And these are just the ones we know about. This is called recidivism, and the rates are too high for this process to be called ``secure and responsible,'' as the administration has labeled it. Second, the administration plans to continue its review of the threat posed by those detainees who are not currently eligible for transfer through the Periodic Review Board. This is to provide a new review on the current population of detainees who have been deemed too dangerous to transfer--deemed too dangerous to transfer, and yet this President wants to give them a second shot at getting out. This doesn't make any sense. Terrorists are not criminals. As much as this President would like for you to believe they are, terrorists are not equal to the inmates we have across America's prison system. They are fixated on the destruction of America. They have no regard for life, not that of their own and especially not the lives of innocent civilians. The report hones in on having a detainee population anywhere from 30 to 60. There seems to be an assumption on the part of the President that the review board will determine that half of those deemed too dangerous for transfer or release are suddenly safe for transfer or release. Does the President believe this is possible or does this assumption simply serve his own means to create cost savings for his plan that can never be realized? The plan also fails to account for the fact that our Nation is still mired in the War on Terrorism. We are still fighting in the Middle East and worldwide, including the United States of America, to ensure that terrorism does not prevail. What about the individuals we detain from this day forward? What about those individuals with critical information related to the next terrorist threat? How can we operate without a facility like Guantanamo Bay to hold terrorists we take off the battlefield? Third, the plan attempts to identify individual dispositions, one by one, for those who remain designated for continued law of war detention, to include Article III, military commissions, or foreign prosecutions. What a muddle. In his remarks today, President Obama advocated for trying terrorist suspects in Article III courts. The President named two American citizens--Faisal Shahzad and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev--to articulate his point. Both of those individuals, however, were apprehended in the United States, not on the battlefield. The intent of the Guantanamo detention facility is to protect the American people by removing terrorists from the battlefield. As the United States faces a growing threat from terrorist organizations, such as ISIS, which have tens of thousands of members, bringing those terrorists to the United States to stand trial simply cannot be the answer. It is not safe for the American people and irresponsible to our national security. Fourth, the plan states the administration's desire to ``work with Congress to lift unnecessary prohibitions in current law.'' That is in quotes, ``work with Congress.'' Well, there is something that is unique with the President, ``work with Congress to lift unnecessary prohibitions in current law.'' But it does not anywhere in its nine pages endorse a specific facility to house Guantanamo detainees; rather, the plan describes a prototype for a detention facility in the United States--not Kansas, not Colorado, not South Carolina, not anywhere in the United States. The President's long-awaited plan is to work with Congress to identify the most appropriate location as soon as possible, according to the summary provided to my office by the Department of Defense. Question: How could it take 7 years to arrive at the idea to work with Congress? What a novel idea, but only for this express purpose. If the President had a suitable alternative, he would have provided it in this plan. If he had a suitable alternative, he would have provided it in 2009 when we stopped his plan the first time. Further, the plan fails to substantiate President Obama's repeated claims that Guantanamo Bay serves as a recruiting tool for jihadists. Let me repeat this. The plan fails to substantiate President Obama's repeated claims that Guantanamo Bay serves as a recruiting tool for jihadists, a rallying point for terrorist attacks, hindering relations with allies, and draining Department of Defense resources. My goodness. I wrote Defense Secretary Ash Carter in November to ask for intelligence reports or data to support many of these assertions. I asked Secretary Carter if an intelligence assessment has been done in conjunction with the site surveys recently conducted by the Department of Defense from the safety of our community's standpoint. I asked for the Department's rationale for evaluating Fort Leavenworth, when three previous evaluations have made it abundantly clear it is and continues to be an unacceptable alternative. I asked if there were intelligence products regarding previous site evaluations at Fort Leavenworth. The administration has argued that Guantanamo is a recruiting tool for terrorists. So I logically asked for an intelligence assessment to support that argument. As a follow on, I asked what assessment had been done to reflect that Guantanamo has increased terrorist recruitment. And finally, was there any empirical data to support the administration's argument that national security threats will decrease if enemy combatants are held in the United States? Common sense will tell you that it would increase. Two months later, the response confirmed my assumptions. The Department of Defense had no intelligence products--none. There were no intelligence products, no data to provide to support the President's argument that GTMO serves as a recruiting tool and that moving detainees to the mainland would increase security and decrease the terrorist threat to the United States. My colleagues, this plan really confirms what many of us already know: There is no safe alternative to GTMO--not in Kansas, not in Colorado, not in South Carolina. Nowhere on the mainland is there a secure and responsible alternative. If there were, this President would not have failed to articulate it in his plan. Mr. President, a plan that is a legacy speech does not safeguard the lives of the American people. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Thank you to my colleagues, Senator Enzi and Senator Murkowski, for their work on these important issues related to wildfire and forest management. I would like to echo their concerns and share with the rest of my colleagues that I agree with them entirely that this is a critical issue that needs to be addressed. Coming off the end of a catastrophic wildfire season with a record amount of acres burned, it is essential that the Senate turn its attention to finding a wildfire solution in 2016--and through regular order. As chairman of the Agriculture Committee, it is my first and foremost priority that the committee serve as the platform for America's farmers, ranchers, small businesses, rural communities--and forest land owners and forestry stakeholders, a constituency sometimes forgotten. As chairman of the Agriculture Committee, we intend to serve and represent all of agriculture, of which forestry plays an important role. Last November, the Agriculture Committee held a hearing on the effects of wildfire and heard testimony from stakeholders on the budgetary impacts and threats to natural resources on Federal, State, and private forest lands. The message from that hearing was unanimous and clear: it is time for Congress to act and advocate for solutions that not only address funding fixes, but more importantly advocate for solutions that improve the management of our national forests. H.R. 2647, the Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2015, which passed the House last summer, has been referred to the Senate Agriculture Committee. This legislation, while not perfect, includes provisions that attempt to address both the funding mechanism and incorporate meaningful forest management tools which are the paramount issues in the overall wildfire debate. I recognize the challenges that remain ahead with crafting such a legislative proposal that satisfies all interested parties involved in this larger debate. With that being said, I stand ready to work with my colleagues to find areas where common ground and consensus can be achieved to address the overall wildfire issues facing us today. I look forward to working together with Senator Murkowski, Senator Enzi, and others to provide the necessary tools to expedite the much needed work on not just Western forests, but also nationwide, encompassing Federal, State, and private forest lands.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise to alert the Senate and all of my colleagues to yet another--yes, yet another--egregious action by the Internal Revenue Service, one that will affect every charity, every church, every nonprofit, and the communities they work so hard to serve. I emphasize ``another'' because it seems that the IRS continues a march toward regulations and practices that target and burden hard- working Americans. Let me just recap. First, we learned that the IRS had released confidential tax return information on companies the IRS believed opposed the administration. Then we uncovered that the IRS had illegally targeted groups whose views differed from the White House, followed by an extensive effort to hide information on these actions-- i.e., Lois Lerner, her so-called ``lost e-mails,'' which weren't ever really lost. It was true injustice to law-abiding organizations and American citizens, which is why I should not have been surprised--but I was--to learn of the IRS's latest scheme. Hot off the press is a new IRS proposed regulation that needlessly targets charitable contributions. Right now, when you make a contribution of $250 or more, charities will send you a ``written acknowledgement'' confirming the details of the donation, including the amount of the donation. The taxpayer uses this acknowledgement to document his or her tax deductions should there be any question. Most charities take the time to send out a written confirmation of the donation as part of their thank-you to the donor. It is simple, it is inexpensive, and it builds good will. In short, it works for the taxpayer and also for the charity. That is it--a straightforward, commonsense method to confirm a donation was made, and no one, not even the IRS, argues that it is not working well. But now the IRS has proposed a new method to substantiate donations-- a method that could do great harm to the charitable sector and give the IRS more tools to go after taxpayers they may not like, as we know they have done before. The IRS wants to set up a new, more formal system where the charity would have to gather information about its donors, keep that information, and--here is the rub--report the information to the IRS. What type of information are we talking about? The return would include the charity's name and address, the donor's name and address and--here is the scary piece--the donor's Social Security number. Again, all of this new information would have to be sent to the donor and the IRS and kept on file by the charity at considerable cost. Even more disturbing, the IRS would store, maintain, and use this information in case the donor is audited. Although this is described as an option, given the IRS's recent track record, do we really trust the agency to store this information and not use it for other purposes? I, for one, do not. I don't think we can trust them with a new source of data on donors. We must do all we can to prevent the IRS from gaining access to this sensitive data. I am also alarmed at the thought of whether the IRS can properly safeguard this information because the agency has demonstrated zero capacity to keep similar data out of the hands of people who commit fraud, and thieves. Charities and churches that routinely receive thousands of dollars from their supporters now become greater targets for people to commit fraud. Earlier this year, the IRS admitted that it had been hacked and private taxpayer information had been compromised. If they can do it to the IRS, you had better believe they can do it to your local nonprofit. And while the IRS today says this rule as proposed would simply be voluntary, suffer no illusion: The IRS will eventually move to make this a mandatory requirement. Charitable organizations are also speaking out against the IRS proposal. They understand the chilling--chilling--effect this would have on their donors, but, more importantly, on the communities they serve. Tim Delaney, president and CEO of the National Council of Nonprofits, recently wrote: The IRS proposal would open the door for scam artists. . . . Nonprofits have neither the financial resources nor sufficient staffing to combat hackers who will see an easy source for Social Security information. This also creates a liability nightmare for innocent nonprofits. . . . To be asked to share their address, their credit card number and their Social Security number all in the same place would be enough to scare even the most committed donor to decline to give. Tim Delaney has aptly summarized this pending and serious problem. He poses very legitimate concerns, especially regarding how scam artists might operate, explaining: Imposters' phone scripts will go something like this: ``Hi . . . I'm working for several nonprofits here in Kansas to make sure that generous donors like you get full credit for your wonderful contributions. . . . The nonprofits asked me to thank you for your generosity and confirm your name and address. . . . Also, the IRS has a new regulation that nonprofits need your Social Security number so we can send you a form confirming your contribution in case you get audited. What's your Social Security number so we can send you the form?'' Sadly, many people who want to be sure to support their charity will give the scam artists exactly what they want. To protect the mission of our nonprofit community and the taxpayers who share their hard-earned dollars with those in need, I have introduced legislation to block this regulation and to maintain current law. The Protecting Charitable Contributions Act would maintain current IRS rules governing the substantiation of charitable contributions, and prohibit the IRS from issuing, revising, or completing any new regulation that would alter the existing rules. This just makes sense. And I would think the IRS would agree when in their own description of the proposal they state that the present system works effectively. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and to join me in stopping this dangerous and unneeded proposal from moving forward. I urge all those who play a role in supporting nonprofits to go to the IRS Web site before December 16 to provide written comments to the IRS about this proposal. Yep, the IRS would like to have your comments. Let me repeat that. I would urge all those who play a role in supporting nonprofits to go to the IRS Web site before December 16 to provide written comments to the IRS about this proposal. The message should be simple: No. This is one Christmas greeting you had better send. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROBERTS

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

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise to address the point of order raised against the highway bill. Among the many provisions of the bill, the legislation realizes a commitment made by House and Senate leadership to restore egregious, harmful, counterproductive, contract-breaking cuts to the Federal Crop Insurance Program. The commitment we reached with the House was to reverse these damaging cuts and policy changes in order to protect our producers. That is their No. 1 priority for risk management. The message from farm country couldn't be more clear: Do not target crop insurance. The point of order would not only strip out much of the needed crop insurance fix, but it could also prevent the timely passage.

Mr. ROBERTS

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

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, for the first time in 5 years, Congress has enacted a full budget that balances. Under our previous leadership, we only passed one budget. We have to look all the way back to 2001 to find the last time Congress passed a balanced 10-year budget. It is vitally important that we go through the regular budgeting process to ensure we are being efficient and effective when spending hard-working taxpayers' dollars. Now that we have a final budget framework, we can have the opportunity to adjust spending and make policy changes to rein in the excesses of this administration. The first step in this is the consideration of the budget reconciliation bill. We have before us a budget bill that not only reduces the Federal deficit, but it does so by dismantling many of the key provisions of the President's health care law known as ObamaCare. We are more than 5 years into its implementation; however, many of the same problems that those of us who were here during the original debate warned of are still causing harm to consumers, and new issues continue to arise. We continue, unfortunately, to see higher costs, less choice for individuals, and higher taxes. Prior to open enrollment starting, CMS released the ``2016 Marketplace Affordability Snapshot.'' This shows that across the 37 States that use the Federal marketplace, Kansas included, the cost of the second lowest silver plan, or the benchmark plan, will increase on average 7.5 percent as of next year. That number is more than double for Kansas. On average, they are facing a 16-percent increase in the benchmark plan. I would assume the same thing will happen in Iowa, the State of the distinguished Presiding Officer. This is not the promised reduction in premiums the President promised. This is simply not affordable. Madison from Overland Park, KS, recently wrote to me about her family's struggles. She said: Yet again our rates are going up to the point where we cannot afford our health insurance that I have had since before 2008. Out of network hospital and doctors limit my ability to provide for my children the health care they need. Madison, you certainly hit the nail on the head. Even if you can afford the increased premiums to maintain coverage, the high deductibles may make it nearly impossible for you to utilize the health services under your plan or your doctors are no longer in your network, thereby limiting your ability to keep the doctor you liked--another broken promise from the President. Another local problem of concern for me was the announcement that one of the insurance companies that provided coverage on the exchange in Kansans will no longer be offering plans as of next year. This impacts nearly half of all Kansans enrolled through the marketplace who now will again have to find a new plan and possibly new providers. We need to repeal this law--a law that includes more than $1 trillion in new taxes over the next 10 years. For Kansas households, the economic impact is an average tax increase of $876 a year. We need to eliminate the individual and employer mandates. The employer mandate is stifling job creation, it is reducing workers' hours, and it is a disincentive for businesses to grow and expand. Jeff from Kansas City contacted me about this one and the effect the law is having on his manufacturing business. He said: Without an exemption [from the employer mandate] I will be forced to cut my staff below 50 or let ObamaCare simply put me out of business in the year 2016. Taking the penalty by not offering health care to my staff is the least expensive option in 2016 and will still put me in the red. These are not the options our job creators should be stuck contemplating--reducing staff or facing closure. The individual mandate tax is set to increase on January 1. Individuals opting not to purchase or those not able to afford to purchase insurance next year will now face a penalty of $695 or 2.5 percent of household income, whichever is higher. Again, let me point out, whichever is higher not lower. Removing this penalty will not only provide financial relief for these individuals, but it will restore the individual freedom of all Americans to choose whether to purchase the government-approved insurance. We need to repeal the so-called Cadillac tax, which if left in effect will lead to reduced benefits and increased costs for employers. We also need to remove the medicine cabinet tax--that is the medicine cabinet tax--a new requirement that people must obtain a prescription to purchase over-the-counter medication--the things we should not need a prescription for--with funds from people's flexible spending accounts. This reconciliation bill eliminates many of the core provisions--the foundations, so to speak--of ObamaCare, and without a strong foundation of mandates and taxes to finance this massive overhaul, we can then turn to beginning to fix health care. I emphasize fix health care, not ObamaCare. We need to give peace of mind to the families hurt by ObamaCare. The relief provided by this package does just that. I urge my colleagues to support this bill so we can then provide freedom to all Americans from the mandates of this law and give us an opportunity to pursue more patient-centered reforms that will improve access as well as lower costs for patients. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Alaska for her kind comments, her advice, and her help on several important issues we have worked on together. I hope she enjoyed the Thanksgiving meal we had--I guess it is called the Thursday lunch bunch.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the French Government for taking aggressive and appropriate action to arrest and kill the terrorists responsible for last Friday's vicious attack in Paris that resulted in 129 killed and over 300 wounded. We all pray for the full recovery of those wounded and note that everywhere within our country we see the American flag at half staff, along with many displaying the flag of our ally France. The good news today is that the mastermind of several terrorist plots and the plot that killed so many last Friday is dead. Abdelhamid Abaaoud is dead in the same fashion as his victims. So be it. Viva la France! Continuer le combat! Keep up the fight. As our Nation memorializes those who perished in France, it is the absolute wrong time for President Obama and this administration to be putting forth a plan to relocate Guantanamo detainees to the U.S. mainland--the absolute wrong time. Now we learn that the administration has delayed the much-publicized but secret plan to close Guantanamo and bring terrorists to the United States. White House spokesman Josh Earnest said, ``I don't have any additional guidance for you but the plan will come relatively soon.'' He has been saying that for some time. Others think the plan could even be released while the President is gone for the G20 meeting in Turkey. As a personal aside, I might suggest he try to move the terrorists there. The reason President Obama delayed the plan is that we had a terrorist attack in France. France has gone to war. The United States is on high alert. Apparently he has tossed this decision and public announcement regarding the plan to the Department of Defense, which has stated there is nothing imminent. Thank goodness for that. Now, beyond the security threat this poses to our communities in Kansas and in South Carolina or Colorado--the sites which this administration has surveyed for potential relocation--there has been no intelligence assessment regarding the danger of moving enemy combatants from Guantanamo to the United States. That is amazing. The question is, How can the administration ask Kansans or Coloradans or South Carolinians or any Americans to paint a bull's-eye on their community without providing assurances that moving detainees to the United States will not pose a threat to them or our national security? It seems unfathomable, yet this President is proposing to do just that. This President's unending affinity for Executive orders risks overriding his Attorney General's view of the law, the advice of those at the Department of Defense, especially those close to Fort Leavenworth, and military law enforcement. It goes against the will of the Congress, which voted in this body 91 to 3 to maintain a prohibition on moving detainees to the mainland. There is absolutely no intelligence to support the move--none. In short, the Senate, Congress, Department of Defense, the Attorney General, and the American people have spoken. Yesterday I wrote Department of Defense Secretary Carter to ask whether an intelligence report has been done to support the administration's claims that Guantanamo Bay is a recruiting tool for ISIS and other terrorist organizations. Some people believe that. Common sense tells you, however, that moving detainees to the mainland would be a greater recruiting tool for ISIS and other terrorist organizations. I asked if an assessment showed detainment in the United States would decrease recruiting or did an intelligence product show that national security threats would decrease if any enemy combatants are held in the United States. From my discussions with Members of this body on the Senate Intelligence Committee, the answer is that they have no comprehensive intelligence assessment. Simply put, an assessment regarding the transfers of detainees to the mainland has not been done. So I have asked Secretary Carter and the Department of Defense to ensure that an assessment is completed. To do otherwise would be irresponsible and reckless. How can the President of the United States allow ISIS to paint a target on those who live near what would become Gitmo North? No community in the United States wants that label. Fort Leavenworth, in particular, is not a suitable replacement for Gitmo. It is the intellectual center of the Army. It hosts our Nation's best and brightest warfighters at the Command and General Staff College, which also hosts 100 international officers every year. I want to remind my colleagues just how important Fort Leavenworth's mission is to the Army and to our national security and of the risk that this entire mission would be endangered by making it a terrorist prison. Fort Leavenworth is home to the U.S. Army's Training and Doctrine Command Combined Arms Center. The Combined Arms Center oversees 13 schools, including the Command and General Staff College. Most recently, Fort Leavenworth was named the ``Army University,'' giving our intellectual center of the Army an official title. Since 1881, the Command and General Staff College and the Combined Arms Center have been engaged in the primary mission of preparing the Army and its leaders for war. In order to accomplish critical missions, Fort Leavenworth develops and integrates Army leader development, doctrine education, lessons learned, functional training, training support, training development, and proponent responsibilities in order to support mission command and to prepare the Army to successfully conduct unified land operations in a joint, interagency, intergovernmental, multinational environment--a lot of words. It is a big mission, an important mission. To degrade Fort Leavenworth to a terrorist prison would have ominous repercussions to our professional military and the value it serves every American and our national security. In addition, we must consider how our allies will respond to having enemy combatants so close to their top military leaders training at Fort Leavenworth. In my effort to reach out to Embassies tied to the school, all have expressed their deep support for the International Military Officers Division, its value to their military and security, and the importance of maintaining the program at Fort Leavenworth. There is every possibility that the countries that participate in the Command and General Staff College would reconsider their participation given the relocation of terrorists. This would bring negative consequences and represent a terrible detriment to the partnership building that takes place during their course work. It would mean a loss of international cooperation for American military education and our national security. There are so many imperative factors that must be examined at Fort Leavenworth, in Colorado, and in South Carolina, factors that we cannot ignore. The fact that the FBI has nearly 1,000 investigations into ISIS activity within the United States and all 50 States, that ISIS released a video right after the attacks in Paris stating that the United States was next, and, most important, the fact that we are not dealing with everyday criminals--the detainees currently held at Guantanamo Bay are enemy combatants, terrorists, individuals with no remorse, and with a recidivism of 30 percent and a strong desire to return to the battlefield. The reality is, these individuals and the organizations they support pose the greatest risk to national security we face today. This administration should not obstruct the will of Congress reflecting the voice of the American people, which has prohibited this White House from transferring detainees from Gitmo to the United States every year since 2009 when we first won this battle. We won the battle back then. Why do we have to repeat it now? If the President believes he can act without consequences, he is wrong. Again, 91 Senators voted in favor of this prohibition just last week when we passed the National Defense Authorization Act. That is not just a majority, that is a veto-proof majority. Article II of the Constitution does not provide this President--any President--with the power to ignore the law. Just the other night in a tele-townhall meeting, caller after caller asked if the President's actions are constitutional. The question was, How can the President do this when Congress has prohibited funding? In my view and that of the President's own Attorney General, if the President acts by Executive order, he is acting unconstitutionally. I agree with our Founding Fathers such as George Mason who said ``When the same man, or set of men, holds the sword and the purse, there is an end of liberty'' and James Madison who said it is ``particularly dangerous to give the keys of the treasury and the command of the army, into the same hands.'' I have mentioned the Congress, the merits of Ft. Leavenworth, the Constitution, but what I have not mentioned yet are our servicemembers. We have asked so much of our men and women in uniform over the past 14 years. We have asked them to go into harm's way before every bit of equipment was ready. We have asked them to deploy and redeploy with almost no dwell time. We have asked them to extend their stays, and we have put them in more places across the globe than any period in history. They have done it all without hesitation or complaint because we have the best fighting force in the history of the world. I am unwilling to ask them to take on the challenge of guarding enemy combatants in the United States and put their families at risk for harassment, kidnapping, or other tactics homegrown terrorists and foreign fighters have used or will use. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines do not live anonymously when their families are stationed with them, as is the case at Ft. Leavenworth. I believe, along with many who have worn the uniform, that the attacks in Benghazi may have broken the Nation's promise to never leave a man in harm's way. On a personal note, when I signed up to enlist in the U.S. Marine Corps, I was told that if I was in harm's way, I would never be left behind. That is what the Marine Corps could do for me. The Corps would have my back either by squad--if I got in harm's way-- or they would send the platoon or the company or the battalion or the regiment or the division or the whole Marine Corps, and I believed that. I still believe it as the senior marine in the Congress. The Marines would have my back. It has been the same for generations before me and hopefully generations after--that is, until now. If we are going to ask our men and women to fight ISIS or to put their families at risk, they have to know that we have their backs. Until that bond is restored and we have a President who is willing to lead instead of following, our Nation remains vulnerable to every terrorist organization and cell in the world. We must put national security back as our top priority. It must be our first duty in Congress and by the Commander in Chief. I stand on the floor because America's national security is my top priority. Bringing Guantanamo Bay detainees to the United States is not putting our Nation's security above politics, campaign promises, or anything else. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS

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

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 5 minutes.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I truly appreciate that from the Presiding Officer. 40th Anniversary of American Agri-Women Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the American Agri-Women who are celebrating their 40th anniversary this year. The American Agri- Women officially began in November of 1971, with the Kansas Agri-Women one of the earliest State groups. Forty years later, the American Agri- Women have grown to represent tens of thousands of women involved in all aspects of agriculture in all 50 States. It is rather amazing that membership includes women of all ages from many different professions within the agriculture industry. These talented women are farmers, ranchers, and consumers; they are students, accountants, educators, marketers, managers, researchers, and even elected officials, among many others. It is impossible to list all of the accomplishments these hard- working women have achieved for the agriculture industry over the last four decades, but perhaps their biggest success has been initiating the national Agriculture in the Classroom Initiative--a program that continues to be widely implemented in schools all over the country to educate children on modern agriculture. Throughout the year, the Agri-Women have been engaging in their ``Drive across America'' tour--a road trip across the country to spread the word of the vital role women play in agriculture. Their drive ended last week in Maine, where they hold their annual convention. During this tour, they also educated consumers on all the challenges that farmers and ranchers face and highlighted the role the United States plays in the global food system. I have had the opportunity to meet with many of these women and discuss the work of the agriculture committee during their stop in their trip to Washington. They met with many members of the committee and many others interested in agriculture. I hope all of my colleagues will join me in celebrating the last 40 years of American Agri-Women and the hard work of all of the women in our agriculture community, without whom the United States would be unable to provide the highest quality food, fuel, and fiber domestically and around a very troubled and hungry world. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, it is my desire to address the Senate about a particular serious problem that faces us. I ask unanimous consent that I be granted 7 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today regarding President Obama's most recent, egregious attempt to close the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base detention facilities and relocate enemy combatants, i.e., terrorists, to the United States. Who are we talking about here when we say enemy combatants with regard to our national security and the problems that this may pose? We still have some high-level terrorists at Gitmo. It reminds me of the five terrorists that we let out sometime ago in exchange for a Sgt. Bergdahl. These are high-level terrorists. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed we know is the mastermind of 9/11. Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the USS Cole bomber. I was a member of the Intelligence Committee when that happened, and I was concerned that we didn't connect the dots with regards to our national security and our national safety. That certainly was the case. We have Hambali, who is the Bali bomber. We have four coconspirators with Khalid with regards to 9/11--Ramzi bin al-Shibh, Mustafa Ahmed al Hawsawi, Abd al Aziz Ali, and Walid bin Attash. These are folks that are still determined to do great harm to the United States. I don't think they changed their minds. The President's determined effort to close Gitmo began his first days in office when he signed Executive Order 13492, requiring the close of Gitmo within 1 year. Fortunately, for the security of the United States, the Congress stood up to this Executive order and stopped it, and the President's attempt to close Gitmo was also met by strong objections from all across the country, even in his home State of Illinois. Illinois turned its back on a plan to transfer detainees to a state-run prison, the Thompson Correctional Facility. More importantly, the Congress laid down its first marker on prohibiting the President from transferring or releasing detainees to the United States through the Supplemental Appropriations Act passed in June of 2009. Every year since then--7 years--the Congress has maintained this prohibition. This year's National Defense Authorization Act continues to enforce the will of the American people and the Congress. Yet just yesterday the President's Press Secretary announced blithely that the President is not bound by Congress--and I would include the American people--and the President will do what he wants to do by another Executive order if he determines that is the best approach. National Security Advisor Susan Rice has just been quoted as saying: ``I can't say with certainty that we're 100 percent going to get there, but I can tell you we're going to die trying.'' That is a pretty bold statement. What the President wants to do doesn't equate with national security. I think he wants to fulfill his campaign promise and preserve his alleged legacy and simply close Gitmo, not taking a hard look at what may take place. Now I have gone head-to-head with this administration on many issues but none are as close to my strong belief and commitment to protect the United States, the people of Kansas, and all Americans. It does not make sense to locate terrorists at Fort Leavenworth, KS, which is the intellectual center of the Army, and to pose a threat to that community. I have often said that the first obligation of any Member of Congress is to protect our national security. Allowing Gitmo terrorists to set foot in the United States is in direct violation, in my view, of that commitment, and we should not stand for this President or any future President to threaten our security by Executive order. It is regrettable that I have to be here making this speech at all in response to the administration and the news that suddenly appears in the Nation's press that there were people visiting Colorado, Fort Leavenworth, and Charleston, SC. In September, in response to the administration's visit to Kansas, I placed a hold on the administration's nominee to serve as Secretary of the Army. I don't like doing this. I have no personal bias whatsoever with regard to this person politically or the ability to do the job. I did so with purpose and respect. I articulated this to the Army. I articulated this to my good friend and colleague John McHugh, who was the Secretary of Army, to the Department of Defense and the Secretary of Defense. During my conversations I was reminded that the administration could not implement any parts of this study without explicit authorization from Congress. So if and when a study is produced--if there is a plan, and we don't know if there is a plan--the administration would come before Congress to ask for that authority and the money. Guess what; no money can be spent on that. So it seems to me that is already a violation. The administration's threat to act by Executive order yesterday speaks to the exact opposite of the understanding that I have. Congress has listened to the American people and done what is necessary to uphold national security and prohibit this administration from behaving in an unleashed fashion. I know the President is resolute. He reminded us of that fact by signing 223 Executive orders during his Presidency. It is not so much the number of Executive orders but Executive orders that are in direct violation or in opposition to the intent of the Congress. I just don't think this should be determined by ignoring the Congress and simply issuing an Executive order. That is not the way to go. It just raises all this dust in opposition, and people like me come to the floor extremely worried about what this could bring. I remember before 9/11, when I made the statement that the oceans no longer protected us. Our threat level remains high today. The threat of ISIS grows, stability in Syria continues to erode, Russia is advancing in the Middle East, and Iran continues to churn its nuclear reactors. We cannot, it seems to me, we must not act politically. We must not take action simply because of ``legacy'' and a political campaign promise. Instead, we must act conscientiously. The only conscientious way forward on this issue is to maintain detention at Guantanamo Bay. To do otherwise would be a violation of U.S. law, not to mention a bull's-eye on Fort Leavenworth, where we have the intellectual center of the Army and the Army Command and General Staff College. That is not wise. That does not make any sense. Let me say that there is another issue the President has brought up, and that is the issue of recruitment. We hear this from people who honestly believe that if we close Gitmo, somehow it will take away the incentive for various terrorist groups to recruit other terrorists from this country and all across Europe, all around the world, saying: Oh my goodness, we have terrorists at Gitmo, and when will the United States close that so that we can close our recruiting? If we have terrorists located in the United States, it seems to me that the recruiting would simply be this: All right, Gitmo is closed, but we have our brothers at Fort Leavenworth, we have our brothers in Charleston, and we have our brothers in Colorado. What do you think would happen with regard to what they would do in response to that, not only to recruit people but to act? This goes back to the welfare of all Americans, not to mention those in Colorado, Kansas, and South Carolina. This is a bad idea--a very bad idea. I hope those of us in the Congress will maintain our vigilance and make sure that no money will ever be authorized or appropriated with regard to taking terrorists from Gitmo and locating them in the United States. We must not do it. It is the wrong decision. It is a bad decision. I don't know why the President is so stubborn about it. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank my colleague for yielding. Mr. President, I have been sitting here thinking about Missouri and Kansas and our past histories--some differences in politics, some differences in sports, big time, down through the years. What a great thing to happen when, yes, there is the Kansas City Royals in Missouri. I might be a little local here and say primarily filled by Kansas fans, but I will not do that, but it is a great day for both of our States and for people who live in our area. We are all proud of our Kansas City Royals. It was a hard-fought World Series victory, but it was celebrated in Kansas from Goodland to Liberal, from Parsons to Troy, way up there on Highway 36 and everywhere in between. Yesterday we saw something amazing happen: Kansas fans and Missouri fans marching in a sea of blue in downtown Kansas City. There were more than one-half million people--no shoving, no pushing, no fires, no problems. There were young and old people from all walks of life, all races, all nationalities, and all Royals fans. The schools were closed. Workers took a break. The streets filled. The windows opened, and it was a gorgeous Royals blue day. Some are celebrating this kind of victory for the first time. Others are remembering 1985, George Brett and that team, and seeing that same excitement again, this time in their children's eyes. You see, some of us really counted us out--or some counted us out. We are, in fact, a small market team, a team with young but very talented guys. They said we haven't had what it takes to be World Series champions. We didn't have the big name home run hitters or the big name flamethrower pitchers or a big park made smaller for home run hitters. What we did have was a team, players who kept the line moving. The stats made the difference, as indicated from my colleague and friend from Missouri, who went through a number of stats that are rather remarkable. In this postseason, the Royals strikeout rate was only 16 percent, just 81 strikeouts in 505 plate appearances. The Royals' regular season average was better, just 15 percent. For baseball, that is really amazing and it was the best in baseball. The league average in the regular season was more than 20 percent--20 percent strikeouts, one out of five. That is why people keep yawing. They don't yawn when they watch the Royals. These Royals had a manager who let them play as they were: young, fast, and aggressive. That is rather remarkable. Ned Yost let them choose whether or not to steal--that is amazing. He let them swing at the first pitch. Alcides Escobar hit that inside-the-park home run in the first pitch in the bottom of the first inning of the first game of the World Series at Kauffman. That is a ball park for playing baseball: hitting, running, fielding, and a few home runs. He let them play the game. They were relentless. They kept the lines moving, went against unconventional baseball wisdom--and oh was it fun to watch. We won, Kansas City won, and baseball won. Our celebration today is about the Royals, the joy of the game of baseball, but it is also about our identity as a city and a region. We were told that a small market team from flyover country would not be able to beat the New York Mets. We won because we kept the line moving--just like the Royals fans do in Kansas and Missouri every day-- through a couple of decades of post-season drought, proving our team, our fans, our kind of game is the best in baseball. I know I speak for the fans all over our State and the hundreds of thousands of fans that gathered to enjoy and celebrate a victory for our team and, yes, for our region, too--and I think for our country. Everybody adopted the Royals. Thank you, Royals. Thank you for showing the world what fun baseball can be if you play the game, if you keep the lines moving. The Kansas City Royals are the 2015 World Series champions. How about them apples? I thank my colleague.

Mr. ROBERTS. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. ROBERTS. Just a note of thanks to the Mets for showing up and playing the Royals--they are a great team--and to give them some encouragement. The season starts with the Mets and Royals at Kauffman Stadium, so they can start all over again. It would be a good thing, perhaps, if the Mets made it again, and certainly with the Royals, and gave it a shot. I am very glad the Senator mentioned the incident where Hosmer decided to steal home. That was like Jackie Robinson back in the day when he was seeking to steal home. Who did that? And to do that in today's ball game, where people pitch only a certain amount of innings and players look to the manager to steal and do this and do that and everything is sort of in a box--the Royals played out of the box and they had fun. The reason they are all great players is because they played as a team, as my distinguished colleague from Missouri just pointed out. It was a lot of fun. It is going to be fun next year. Don't worry, Mets, you will have a chance again.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today as the Senate considers an issue that is critically--critically--important to agriculture and to rural America. It is my hope the Senate will advance landmark legislation that I, along with a bipartisan group of colleagues, have introduced in response to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's final rule that redefines waters of the United States--commonly referred to in farm country as WOTUS, among other acronyms--under the Clean Water Act. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of S. 1140 and represent agriculture and rural America's charge in pushing back against EPA's egregious Federal overregulation. EPA's final WOTUS rule would adversely impact a vast cross-section of industries, including agriculture. As I have said before, I fear the sheer number of regulations imposed by this administration is causing the public to lose faith in our government. Too often I hear from my constituents that they feel ``ruled'' and not ``governed.'' S. 1140 is in response to exactly that sentiment. As chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, I have heard directly from farmers, ranchers, State agency officials, and various industries in Kansas and all throughout our country that ultimately would be subject to these new burdensome and costly Federal requirements. The message is unanimous and clear. This is the wrong approach and the wrong rule for agriculture, rural America, and our small communities. According to the Kansas Department of Agriculture, EPA's final rule would expand the number of water bodies in Kansas classified as ``waters of the United States,'' subject to all--subject to all--Clean Water Act programs and requirements by 460 percent, totaling 170,000 stream miles. This is just incredulous. The expanded scope will further exacerbate the burden of duplicative pesticide permitting requirements and the other overregulation by this administration. This simply is not going to work and makes zero sense, especially in places such as arid western Kansas. Furthermore, the final rule undercuts a State's sovereign ability as the primary regulator of water resources, which administers and carries out Clean Water Act programs. Even more troubling, in recent months it has become apparent through the release of internal government documents between the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that there are serious concerns and questions with regard to the legality of the EPA's role and actions during the famous or infamous public comment period to garner support for the final rule. The tactics employed by the EPA throughout this rulemaking process completely undermines the integrity of the interagency review process and the public's trust. The EPA claims they have listened to farmers and ranchers about the concerns they have raised. EPA not only stacked the deck against farmers and ranchers, but EPA deliberately ignored them. This bill requires the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers to withdraw the final rule and craft a new rule in meaningful consultation with stakeholders, State partners, and regulated entities, which are ready and waiting to work with EPA--if we can. All of us want to protect clean water. No one here--especially agriculture--wants to threaten such a valuable and integral natural resource that sustains our livelihood. It is our water. It is time the administration listened and developed a rule that is effective for farmers, ranchers, and rural America. This WOTUS regulation is the No. 1 concern I hear about in farm country--that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry hears about--and over 90 agriculture groups--90--have signed a letter in support of this legislation. Additionally, the ongoing litigation, which involves 31 States challenging the final rule, only adds further confusion about the implementation and applicability of the final rule across the rest of the country. It is time for Congress to intervene. I thank my colleagues who have joined me in this effort, especially the Senator from Wyoming, and I urge all of my colleagues to support S. 1140 and vote yes. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, will the distinguished leader yield?

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise to engage in this colloquy that our distinguished Republican leader has already mentioned or stressed. I also thank our majority whip, the Senator from Texas, and the senior Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Thune, with regard to a commitment made between all of us on the floor. This commitment is in reference to the obvious need to remedy the language adversely affecting our Nation's farmers and ranchers that is now included in the Bipartisan Budget Act. This provision, section 201, included in the underlying bill, should it go into effect, would greatly damage the crop insurance program as we know it, not to mention the farmers who purchase this crop insurance. The commitment we have reached is to reverse these damaging cuts and policy changes to the crop insurance program in order to protect our producers' primary risk management tool and their No. 1 priority. In all of the great talk and effort that we had to pass the farm bill-- over 400 days--the No. 1 issue to farmers, ranchers, and every commodity group and every farm organization was crop insurance. This legislative action--or fix, if we want to call it that--will take place in consideration of the year-end spending bill. I have been working very closely with House Agriculture Committee Chairman Mike Conaway, who has reached a similar position with the House leadership. It was a tough trail, but Mike got it done. We have all agreed here to restore these funds to the program and reverse this policy and do so with support from the House and the Senate. I yield to our distinguished majority whip.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I yield to my distinguished friend and colleague from South Dakota, the senior Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Thune.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I thank my friend for the question. I respond to my friend that, yes, the chairman, Mike Conaway, has reached a bipartisan agreement with the House leadership and also the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, Mr. Rogers from Kentucky. So there is bipartisan agreement with the House leadership, and it is now time for the Senate to respond. I also echo the comments of the senior Senator from South Dakota, with the help of Senator Rounds, and I would be remiss in not mentioning virtually every member of the ag committee who has been involved in this effort as well. I appreciate the work of my colleagues and the work of our ranking member, Senator Stabenow. I especially want to thank her for raising this issue and helping to find an agreement. I note that I have worked my entire career to build crop insurance as a public-private partnership that best protects our producers, taxpayers, and consumers, not to mention a very hungry and malnourished world. This agreement reached today continues in that effort to fulfill that mission. I thank the majority leader, the majority whip, and Senator Thune for their commitment. I also thank many of our colleagues who helped reach this solution today. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I first want to commend the Senator from Iowa. Senator Grassley has done a great job of a detailed report on why this bill is so extremely important, and I thank him for his comments. My remarks will be somewhat abbreviated. Today I rise to speak about this very important legislation, absolutely crucial legislation the Senate is considering tomorrow. Like so many Americans, I agree that we have a responsibility to protect those who cannot defend themselves. That is why I am a cosponsor of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act--this critical legislation which simply prohibits abortions after an unborn child reaches 20 weeks of development. Scientific evidence--Senator Grassley reported about that--has shown that after 20 weeks, a child's brain has developed to a point where they can experience pain. With modern medical advances, even children born at this early stage have a chance to survive. It is appalling that the United States is one of only seven countries where elected abortions after 20 weeks are legal. How can our country take pride in protecting human rights when we continue to allow this practice to happen within our own borders? A poll conducted by the Quinnipiac University found that a majority of Americans now support the banning of this abhorrent practice. Representing the values shared by a majority of Americans should be a bipartisan effort. We need to work together to protect innocent life. So many Americans are troubled by the recent videos of Planned Parenthood employees selling fetal tissue for a profit. Those videos have helped the American people understand exactly what life at conception means. This legislation is a line of defense for protecting unborn children from Planned Parenthood's unconscionable practices. I commend the States that have stopped this practice in the absence of a Federal law. Thirteen States maintain prohibitions of abortion at 20 weeks. This includes my home State of Kansas. It is now time for the Senate to act and ensure that this practice is banned all across the Nation. I encourage my colleagues to unite on this issue and support this critical legislation.