Pat Roberts

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds.

Mr. ROBERTS. Every Senator should have the opportunity to vote on this issue, given the irony that Iran's leadership has given that power and privilege to its own Parliament. At least give me and others the privilege today, as a Senator, to cast the most important vote of my 35 years in public service. I yield back my time.

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, we all come here to make a difference, and we have on the floor two Senators who have done just that--Senator Corker and his counterpart on the Democrat side, Senator Cardin, who is a good friend of mine. Both are good friends of mine. History will note in salutary terms what both of them have contributed in regard to leadership, perseverance, and trying to make a bad situation much better. I thank them for that. I rise today concerned, disheartened, and fearful about the vote--or, to be more accurate, not even having a vote--regarding the issue before us that affects our national security and that of others worldwide. We have before us the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, an Executive agreement whose original goal was to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear-armed state. In keeping with our constitutional responsibility and Senate tradition, what we should have before us is a treaty, but we do not. Were the Senate taking up a treaty, we could be having debate on rational, commonsense, and effective amendments that would protect our country and reduce the flames of turmoil in the Middle East and in Europe, but we are not. We are voting on a resolution of disapproval, and we may well end up voting not to vote at all--a probability I find inexplicable and outrageous. In the Senate's 226-year history, it has taken up almost 1,900 treaties and only rejected 22, many of which have dealt with subjects of much less consequence. I deeply regret that the administration would not even consider the Senate allowing a vote on this crucial foreign policy and national security issue as a treaty. During debate on the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act in April, I voted in favor of Senator Johnson's amendment to do just that. We had the opportunity. The Senate failed to seize it. I believe this agreement to be deeply flawed, and our failure to truly debate and fix what is in it represents an abrogation of our responsibilities--this in the face of an agreement or a ``deal'' that is already adversely affecting the daily lives and well-being of individuals all around the world. Refugees throughout the Middle East recognize the United States is yielding both power and persuasion to Iran, and they are fleeing for their lives. As if failure to consider this agreement is not enough, now consider the fact that there are those in this distinguished body who will try to block cloture and in doing so prevent even a simple yes-or-no vote on the resolution. Talk about an upside down, ``Alice in Wonderland'' exercise. The Senate has already voted 98 to 2 to have a vote, and yet we stand here today ready to abrogate that vote. So, my colleagues, what are we doing? We are simply debating a flawed agreement submitted to us by the President. We are not amending or voting on the agreement at all; we are just debating. The path which we take today--a detour into a box canyon, achieving nothing--has been forced upon us by the very same people who made the Senate swallow the nuclear option. Where on Earth has the Senate gone? Well, the President has been breaking arms and political legs, urging my colleagues to use Senate procedure and deny Senators the right to vote. It is pretty simple: The President doesn't want the Senate to vote no on what he considers his foreign policy legacy. However, on occasion, the Senate has put partisanship aside and debated issues of deep conviction and diverging opinions. This should be one of those times, but it is not. We should find a path forward that enables bipartisan accord as a legislative body. That path always starts when respect trumps partisanship. I regret that is not today, not this week, not this issue, not this President. Given the fact that we are where we are, I think it is imperative that we fully understand how Iran interprets this agreement. The shoe is on the Iranian foot, and judging by the statements of their leaders, they believe it fits just fine. We have heard in detail from Secretary Kerry. We have heard from and been lectured by the President. But Members should also know what Iranian President Hasan Ruhani and Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei told the Iranian people after the agreement was finalized. The difference is both pertinent and remarkable. Speaking before his constituency in Tehran, President Ruhani perfectly articulated where the United States began these so-called negotiations and where the United States made enormous concessions. According to him, we did not negotiate at all, we conceded. It is a paradox of enormous irony that in order to know the truth about this agreement--highly praised by this administration and well- received by a determined minority in this Senate--to learn the unfortunate truth about who negotiated and who conceded, we have to read and understand the remarks of President Ruhani of Iran to get the full picture. President Ruhani stated that in the beginning, the United States capped the number of centrifuges to 100. Today, Iran is allowed over 6,000. Where original restriction and oversight were set for 20 years, today it is 8. With regard to research and development, the United States abandoned any limits on developing systems for enriching uranium. Instead, Iran is free to develop centrifuges to the highest level they desire--the IR-8. The administration placed a redline on heavy water production at the Iraq facility. Today the reactor will continue operating and produce heavy water. We said sanctions would be lifted incrementally. Today they are virtually nonexistent. Soon Iran will receive a windfall of approximately $100 to $150 billion for whatever use it wishes--read, terrorism; read, anti-missile defense systems. Of greatest importance, what happened to the inspections regime? This administration said anytime, anywhere, but Iran walked away holding the key to who, how, and when inspectors will get in. It is not so much what we in the United States know or believe. It is, rather, what Iran believes, in the words of their President and Supreme Leader. Their remarks not only put into absolute focus what the Iranian Government understands as their responsibility in regard to this agreement, but it also puts into perspective which side demanded and which side conceded. The administration will argue President Ruhani's statements are but a show for the Iranian public; that Iran wants to claim they can become a stable influence in the Middle East. Sure, tell that to Israel. But the question remains, are we voting on an agreement or are we voting on concessions? According to President Ruhani, it is the latter. Perhaps the proud boasting of President Ruhani is one thing, but the vows of the Ayatollah are quite another. His speech--punctuated by cheers of ``Death to America,'' ``Death to Israel''--vowed that regardless of the deals' approval, Iran would never stop supporting their friends in Palestine, Yemen, Syria, Iraq or Lebanon; the exact places Iran had been found backing terrorist organizations, which led to its listing as a State sponsor of terrorism by the State Department. But I have just listed the concessions and vows that Iran's leaders have made public. What about the ones that will never be revealed--the agreed-upon arrangements between Iran and the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency. Today all Senators should be gravely concerned about these negotiations and agreements. Do we have access? No. Do we have information? No. Do we have transparency? No. Do we know what processes will be allowed? No. Well, actually we do. Under the agreement's dispute resolution mechanisms, this agreement sets up a tortured path that does not just involve the much publicized 24-day waiting period. After 24 days, any dispute would be referred to a joint commission where there will be a 15-day waiting period. Then the dispute would be referred to the Ministers of Foreign Affairs with another 15-day day waiting period. Finally, the dispute would end up before an advisory board with--you guessed it--another 15-day waiting period. All of this, of course, can be delayed if the parties agree on an extension for further discussion, which they will. Instead of resolution, we have an unending series of switchbacks to get to the top of a mountain which in fact we will never see. ``The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.'' We have tried IAEA inspections with Iran before, and they failed miserably. It seems nothing short of insane to say that we can trust Iran today. This deal does more than give Iran the power to self-regulate, filibuster, and avoid inspections. It gives Iran the ability to remain unaccountable and rogue. This debate is not just about what the administration, this body or the American public thinks of an agreement with Iran, this is also very much about what the Iranians think we have and will accept. I worry that we are looking at this so-called agreement through rose- colored glasses, based on hope and the misguided idea that any deal is better than no deal because the alternative is war. Why do I say ``rose-colored glasses''? It is because civilized nations do that-- nations such as America. We naturally want to believe that disaster and chaos will not happen but unfortunately they do. Now, 14 years ago tomorrow, while heading into work I heard the news of the World Trade Center being attacked. My heart fell and my stomach churned because as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee at that time, I had been repeating over and over again that the oceans no longer protected us and the nature of warfare was dramatically changing. At the time of the attacks, coming up on 395, I could see black smoke billowing from the Pentagon. I knew the Capitol would be next. If it were not for the heroes of flight 93 who made the declaration ``let's roll'' a national rolling cry, my instincts would have been right and the Capitol would have been hit. The probability is I would not be making these remarks today had that happened. Madam President, my colleagues, everybody watching, close your eyes. Imagine the terrible ramifications had that plane hit the Capitol. Where we sit today would have been rubble. Imagine that happening tomorrow. Throughout our history, periods of peace, stability, and prosperity have unfortunately been the aberration, not the norm. As a result, we have learned the hard way, as Americans who made the ultimate sacrifice in so many conflicts throughout our history. Around the world, we have witnessed man's inhumanity to man: the Holocaust, Cambodia, Rwanda, and now with the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria and their savage caliphate threatening almost indiscriminately against all those who do not subscribe to their Sharia law, and especially to our best ally in the region, the State of Israel. My colleagues, despite our best efforts, our hope, our optimism, and the siren song, ``It can't happen,'' I would only remind you that history tells us that it has happened, and it will happen again unless we have the courage to take off the rose-colored glasses and come to the realization with regard to the consequences of what we are doing or, more aptly put, not doing and whom we are dealing with. Today we are dealing with a State sponsor of terrorism and they will continue. Iran will become a nuclear-armed state. As we mark the 14th anniversary of the horrific terrorist attacks and loss of over 3,000 Americans on September 11, 2001, I want to make it clear that I do not trust Iran, and I will never support concessions which will allow them to become a nuclear-armed state. It is my hope to vote yes on the resolution of disapproval. As my good friend and colleague Senator Cornyn emphasized yesterday: Every Senator here should have----

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I wish to recognize an exceptional President and a true friend to the United States who cherishes that President's memory. Those of us from the great State of Kansas are justly proud of Dwight David Eisenhower, fondly known as ``Ike'' to his Abilene neighbors. The Republic of China, Taiwan, calls him a loyal friend. In 1911, Eisenhower left his boyhood home in Kansas for the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. During World War II, Eisenhower was in charge of plans in the Pacific War and commanding general of the Army's European Theater. On June 6, 1944, General Eisenhower led the D-day invasion on the beaches of Normandy and liberated Europe. During this time, Taiwan stood as our ally in Asia, with the Flying Tigers in the Doolittle Raid and along the Burma Road. In 1951, President Truman asked Eisenhower to become the first Supreme Allied Commander in Europe. After a long and decorated military career, America's voters said, ``I like Ike,'' by overwhelmingly electing him as the 34th President of the United States in 1952. Today, it is my privilege to serve as Chairman of the Eisenhower Memorial Commission. Because this memorial honors a Kansan, a war hero, and a President the world admires, our good friend and partner, the government and people of the Republic of China, has generously made a gift to ensure the memory of Dwight D. Eisenhower is preserved for generations to come. It is fortunate for all that our Taiwanese friends have not forgotten President Eisenhower's staunch support for their security and his strong commitment to the U.S.-Taiwan relationship. In 1960, President Eisenhower made the first official U.S. visit to Taipei to meet with President Chiang Kai-shek. As Taiwan's Representative to the United States, Dr. Shen has told me, ``President Eisenhower holds a very special place in the hearts of the people of Taiwan.'' It was Eisenhower who signed the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty in 1954. The next year, on the occasion of the passage of the Formosa Resolution by the Congress, President Eisenhower further pledged to ``protect the territories in the Western Pacific under the jurisdiction of the Republic of China.'' It was also Eisenhower who dispatched the U.S. Seventh Fleet to patrol the Taiwan Strait in the 1950s, thus assuring that the people of Taiwan would remain secure from any external military threat. Deservedly, a significant portion of President Eisenhower's foreign policy legacy is maintaining peace and security in the Taiwan Strait. In honoring a great general and President, Taiwan has demonstrated an unbroken bond of friendship, dating back to World War II. That enduring friendship is yet another key element of President Eisenhower's legacy.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I call up the Roberts amendment for consideration.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, when it is in order and I call up the Roberts amendment for consideration, I will thank my colleagues Senators Alexander, Burr, Cornyn, Cotton, Gardner, Risch, Sasse, Boozman, and Tillis for joining me on this amendment. Today we ask our fellow colleagues to stand with us to protect the U.S. economy from $3.2 billion in retaliatory tariffs being applied to our exports to Canada and Mexico every year--every year. A recent ruling from the World Trade Organization found, for the fourth and final time, that our Country of Origin Labeling Program for meat--or what the acronym says is COOL, to which it is often referred-- that this labeling program violates our trade agreements with our two closest trading partners. This debate isn't about the merits of a particular labeling program or our opinions about how our beef or pork or chicken should be sold. No, this debate is about a simple fact, and facts are stubborn things. Whether you support COOL or whether you oppose COOL, the fact is that retaliation is coming unless the Senate acts to stop this program that the WTO has found to be discriminatory. Over the years, this body has attempted many times to craft a workable COOL Program for all stakeholders while still living up to our international trade obligations. Congress, through directives in the 2002 farm bill and the 2008 farm bill, required the establishment of COOL for meat. Through regulations issued in 2009 and revised in 2013, the Department of Agriculture made several attempts to implement a workable and WTO-compliant COOL Program. However, as I mentioned earlier, again and again the WTO ruled in favor of Canada and Mexico. On four occasions--four--our trade regulator ruled that the U.S. policy did not live up to our international trade obligations and disadvantaged our best trading partners, Canada and Mexico. Some have suggested we should salvage this labeling program by once again making more changes. However, simply changing certain aspects of the program will not prevent the $3.2 billion in retaliation from damaging our economy. Don't take my word for it. Here is a statement, issued just today, from the Canadian Government, which will determine whether retaliation on U.S. products will take effect in the near future: ``The only acceptable outcome remains for the United States to repeal COOL or face $3 billion in annual retaliation.'' I have worked with many of my colleagues over the years and over the last few weeks to craft a solution that meets the needs of all stakeholders. However, after all of our work, it is clear that to protect our economy--to ensure Canada and Mexico drop their pursuit of retaliation on U.S. exports--we must first take up the House-passed bill repealing COOL, a bipartisan bill that received 300 votes in the House of Representatives. The damages Canada and Mexico are seeking are immense--over $3.2 billion in sanctions on U.S. products is probable if we do not repeal COOL--and these are not just agriculture products in the crosshairs. Products including beef, pork, cherries, and ethanol--repeat, and ethanol--wine, orange juice, jewelry, even mattresses, furniture, and parts for heating appliances are just some of the targets of Canadian retaliation. Mexico has yet to finalize their list, but we expect it to be just as damaging. California alone has $4 billion in exports to Canada at risk. Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin each have roughly $1 billion in exports from their State at risk from the Canadian retaliation alone. I remind my colleagues that again today Canada released a statement in response to legislation authored by others that reaffirmed their position: ``The U.S. Senate must follow the lead of the House of Representatives and put forward legislation that repeals COOL once and for all.'' Now, I must emphasize to my colleagues that retaliation is fast approaching and the responsibility sits squarely on our shoulders to avoid it. Regardless of what farm groups, the Department of Agriculture, or the USTR say or regardless of what some Members would like, Canada and Mexico--and only Canada and Mexico--have the ability to halt retaliation. So this takes me back to the beginning of my statement: It doesn't matter if you support COOL or if you oppose COOL, you cannot ignore the fact that retaliation is imminent and that we must avoid it. Repeal of mandatory COOL is necessary to protect the U.S. economy from damaging sanctions, and our amendment will accomplish just that. I urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 that the ``Statement from Ministers Ritz and Fast on Senator Stabenow's Proposed Bill to amend U.S. Country of Origin Labelling (COOL)'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I thank my colleague. I hope he gets better from his cold. He did our sports presentation for us this morning. Maybe he could do the sports news for us every morning.

Mr. ROBERTS. I understand.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I rise to talk about the bill we have before us today. We in the Senate have a unique opportunity long overdue and a responsibility to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The acronym is ESEA. This legislation is long overdue. It is vital for our children and their future that we get it right when addressing education policy. The consequences will be seen for years to come. I would like to acknowledge and especially commend the work of Chairman Lamar Alexander and Ranking Member Patty Murray, who worked so hard to get us to this point. This is something rather unique in the Senate. We are coming together. We are percolating with regards to important bills. This is a tremendously important bill. Due to their bipartisan leadership, the Every Child Achieves Act was approved back in April by the HELP Committee, of which I am a proud member, 22 to 0. I was very proud to vote yes. Let me repeat that. It passed 22 to 0. Because of that hard work, led by Senators Alexander and Murray, we are currently debating ESEA in the Senate for the first time since 2001. That is 14 years--14 years--that we have not had a reauthorization bill come to the Senate floor, and there is a lot of hope that it will pass. This is a prime example of what is possible when the Senate functions as it should and committees are actually able to legislate. Recently, 10 national education groups, representing educators, principals, school boards, superintendents, chief State school officers, parents and PTAs, and school business officials, called on the Senate to consider the Every Child Achieves Act to reauthorize the ESEA. Daniel Domenech, executive director of the School Superintendents Association, wrote this in a letter: The nation's K-6th graders have spent every day of their K- 12 experience under an outdated and broken ESEA. Our students want and deserve more. His remarks perfectly summarize the issues at hand. I want to turn to a critical issue for States and school districts. Over the last few years, the administration has doubled down on Federal mandates and has used the waiver process to create law by fiat--thereby circumventing Congress and allowing those who have a Federal agenda in Washington to make too many decisions that are best left to the States and the school districts. It is evident that waivers have been granted only to those States that agree to implement the administration's preferred education policies. That is just not right. In fact, the New York Times has referred to the waiver process as ``the most sweeping use of executive authority to rewrite Federal education law since Washington expanded its involvement in education in the 1960s.'' Under section 9401 of current law, the ``Secretary may waive any statutory or regulatory requirement of this Act for a state education agency, local education agency, Indian tribe or school'' if that entity receives funds and requests a waiver. Language included in the Every Child Achieves Act amends section 9401 to clarify that the waiver process is intended to be led by State and local requests, not Washington mandates. This will help ensure the process is State-driven and will allow for greater flexibility and innovation. In July 2011, the Congressional Research Service issued a report providing an overview of the Secretary's waiver authority under ESEA and warned of potential legal limits and challenges to the Secretary's flexibility proposal. The report states: ``If the Secretary did, as a condition of granting a waiver, require a grantee to take another action not currently required under the ESEA, the likelihood of a successful legal challenge will increase.'' I have worked long and hard for language in the bill--years and years--that will prohibit the Secretary from imposing any additional requirements to waiver requests not authorized by the Congress. I am fully committed to fighting this one-size-fits-all Federal education agenda because I firmly believe local control is best when it comes to education. The Every Child Achieves Act, in its current form, puts an end to Washington mandates and allows Kansans to make their own decisions about the best way to improve education. While this legislation heads in the right direction in reducing the Federal footprint, I want to remind my colleagues it is important that we avoid adding back Federal mandates and prescriptive requirements. As we move forward, I will continue to push to return K-12 education decision-making to State and local control, where we can establish the best policies to ensure that every child receives the highest quality education. Now, I would like to briefly discuss something called Common Core and the Federal overreach in education. Common Core started out as a State- led effort to create high standards that States would voluntarily adopt, but the administration had different ideas. In homes across America, parents are raising questions about what their children are being taught. In many cases, parents are hearing that local curriculum decisions have been driven by the Common Core education standards that most States adopted in a hurry under Federal pressure with little or no public input. Decisions about what children are taught are best made on the local level as close to parents as possible. The Federal Government should not have overriding influence over State and local education decisions. Simply put, the Department of Education has incentivized and coerced States into implementing Common Core education standards. Some within our education community in Kansas have even called this practice a bribe. The administration made it a criterion for States to adopt Common Core standards to have a reasonable chance to receive Federal funding under the multibillion-dollar Race to the Top Program and used Federal funds to develop Common Core-aligned tests. They have also threatened to withhold waivers from the onerous provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act if States do not adopt Common Core or similarly aligned standards and assessments. This is wrong. For that reason, earlier this year, I reintroduced the LOCAL Level Act, S. 182, to explicitly prohibit the Federal Government's role and involvement in Common Core. My legislation would strictly forbid the Federal Government from intervening in a State's education standards, its curricula, and assessments through the use of incentives, mandates, grants, waivers or any form of manipulation. Simply put, my legislation will preserve State education autonomy. A State will now be free from Federal interference in how to decide whether to use Common Core or any other type of academic standard. I am pleased the bill before us includes the language from my LOCAL Level Act and will, once and for all, end the administration's use of waivers to force or incentivize States to adopt Common Core standards. It will end the Obama administration's--and, for that matter, any future administration's--ability to use any tool of coercion to force States to adopt Common Core or any set of standards at all, whether it is Common Core by another name or some new set of standards--period. I thank Chairman Alexander for including my language because I firmly believe it will prohibit the administration from finding additional ways to promote a State's adoption of Common Core. I want to emphasize setting high standards for our schools, our teachers, and our children obviously is the right thing to do. But we will decide those standards in Kansas, and those decisions will be made in other States as well. We need to get the Federal Government out of the classroom and return our community decisions back to where they belong--in the community. If the Every Child Achieves Act becomes law, we can finally say goodbye to Federal interference in what we teach our kids in school. Chairman Alexander has stated that with this bill, we have the first opportunity in 25 years to restore decision-making back to States, local school districts, superintendents, principals and teachers, local school boards, parents, and especially the students. He is right. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources' Subcommittee on Water and Power be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 18, 2015, at 2 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 18, 2015, at 10 a.m., in room SD-215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Dead End, No Turn Around, Danger Ahead: Challenges to the Future of Highway Funding.''

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 18, 2015, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs and Federal Management of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 18, 2015, at 9 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Re-examining EPA's Management of the Renewable Fuel Standard Program.''

Mr. ROBERTS

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

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, like many have said here today, I would like to express my deepest condolences to the victims of the shooting at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, SC, last night. This was a senseless act of violence. My thoughts and prayers are with the victims, their families, and all affected by this horrible tragedy. I know we all hope the perpetrator is swiftly brought to justice. I pray for the safety of the entire Charleston community. This was an act of senseless violence, to be sure. But as I understand it, the perpetrator saved one woman and told her: ``I want you to tell everyone what happened here.'' That is beyond sinister. That is evil. That evil must be stopped and must be dealt with. ObamaCare What I would like to talk about now is the Supreme Court's critical ruling on the most recent review of the Affordable Care Act--ObamaCare. It is important to highlight many of the ways this law is negatively impacting our health care system as a whole, my constituents in Kansas, the Presiding Officer's constituents in her neighboring State of Nebraska--all over the country. Trying to list all of the problems with this law is nearly impossible. Perhaps the best way is to review the promises of the President of the United States. The crafting of this law was supposed to follow his promise of being the most transparent administration in history. The problem is that there has been a lack of transparency--not to mention the oversight of this law since it was originally being crafted and throughout its implementation. Despite hearing the contrary from our docs and nurses about practices and hospitals closing and premiums and copays increasing, the administration continues to turn a blind eye. The administration continually moves the goal posts to which they measure success and have claimed victory. In 2012, the Congressional Budget Office projected there would be 14 million people enrolled in exchange plans this year. Then late last year, the administration back-pedaled on its projections for the second year of enrollment, moving the goal posts. The most recent data out of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the infamous CMS, shows that when you look at how many individuals had effectual coverage or actually paid their first month's premium and continued to have an active policy, that number is 10 million. Madam President, that is nearly 30 percent below the 2012 enrollment projections--30 percent. That is not transparency. That is not victory. So why is this number lower? Why aren't folks signing up? First, we had a Web site that crashed and that didn't work. Then Americans tried to shop around and view the policies available to them. But as it turns out, the law didn't lower premiums for the average family by $2,500-- remember that promise--as the President promised. This didn't happen. Premiums are increasing. The President also promised you could keep your same health care plan and your doctor. We have known for some time that is just not true. It didn't happen. Yet just last week the President responded to questions regarding his signature law--his legacy law, if you will--at a press conference following the G-7 summit. He said: ``The thing is working.'' Now, one might add that the ``thing'' is a pretty good term for the Affordable Care Act. The President also said: ``I mean, part of what's bizarre about this whole thing is we haven't had a lot of conversation about the horrors of ObamaCare because none of them have really come to pass.'' Really? President Obama concluded: ``It hasn't had an adverse effect on people who already had health insurance.'' Well, I am not sure what data has been presented to the President or which American family he has been listening to, but it is certainly not the reality that I have experienced and that Kansans are experiencing. The real-life threats of this law we hear from Kansans back home have not stopped. They are increasing. A small business owner in Cummings, KS, called my office to inform me his premium this year went up over $500 a month--more than double last year's. Eddy, in Spring Hill, says his premium has doubled and his deductible has doubled. He is being forced to choose between running his company and buying health insurance. He says he can't do both. Let's go back to the President's comments about this ``thing'' having no adverse effect. Just a couple of weeks ago his own administration published the proposed double-digit--double-digit--premium increases for 2016--next year. The plans on the list affect more than 6 million people across the country and are seeking an average increase of 21 percent. The Kansas Insurance Department tells us that premiums for some individual and small group health care plans are likely to increase by as much as 38 percent. According to the administration's list, 14 insurance plans are seeking premium increases above 10 percent for next year. That covers 100,000 Kansans. When you look at just two insurance plans, those two insurance plans have increases of 28 and 38 percent. Perhaps the President does not categorize these 100,000 Kansans as being adversely affected by this ``thing.'' Simply put, premiums will continue to spiral upward if we do not act. Facts and reality are really very stubborn things. Even ObamaCare's chief architect, Jonathan Gruber--we all remember Jonathan Gruber--was quoted last year as saying if ``you made it explicit that healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed. Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage.'' So said Mr. Gruber. Still quoting Mr. Gruber: ``And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that really was really, really critical for the thing to pass.'' That is his quote. Those comments belittle the American people and try to rationalize why, when you have an agenda, the government should not be transparent. The President and proponents of ObamaCare all said publicly this was the first step to nationalized health insurance. That certainly has become transparent. Now, not only are individuals adversely affected in terms of their own insurance coverage, but also due to the law's mandate on employers, many are seeing the law's negative repercussions at their jobs. The law's employer mandate hinders job creation and growth. Its new definition of full-time employment at 30 hours a week has been a real problem. According to one estimate, 2.6 million workers--2.6 million workers--could potentially have their hours and therefore their paychecks reduced as a result of this provision. Most concerning is that this new definition of full-time employment hits low-wage earners who work in the service industries. Of the individuals at risk, about half work in retail and half in restaurants. If these folks were previously working the traditional 40 hours per week, you are not just taking 10 hours from them, but you are reducing their paycheck by 25 percent a week. That is why they work in two different jobs. That is a very noticeable adverse effect. The concerns I have outlined today are only a few of the many reasons why we need to repeal this law, both the individual and employer mandates. We need to fix health care. Everybody knows that. But we don't need to fix ObamaCare. We need to give peace of mind to the families hurt by ObamaCare. Now, no one is saying go back to the system we had before. We need reforms to our health care system every day. ObamaCare is costing millions of dollars. But with this law--what the President has called ``this thing''--we may have mandated greater coverage for all but not access to care and at a cost that is unaffordable. Let me repeat that. We may have mandated greater coverage for all--if that was the goal of my friends across the aisle--but not access to care and at a cost that is unaffordable. That is not a health care plan. Perhaps some can afford the rising premiums, but can you actually go see your doctor and receive treatment or is your deductible too high? And is your doctor still available to you? Will your doctor spend at least 5 minutes with you--5 minutes with you--or more time filling out forms or electronic medical records? And are those records secure? Any day now the Supreme Court will hand down its decision in King v. Burwell. This is the case that will determine the legality of the administration's regulation extending health insurance subsidies to people in States that use the Federal insurance exchange. And we will see--we will see--if the Court decides that the law should be implemented as written by this Congress--with all of us on this side of the aisle voting no--or implemented as interpreted by the administration. This is similarly troubling for Kansas, where we have a federally facilitated exchange. If these tax subsidies go away, 77,000 Kansans and millions of Americans, will be affected. These individuals would be confronted with ObamaCare's true cost--true cost--and would face much higher premiums, with only the administration to blame for recklessly offering tens of billions of dollars in subsidies they had no authority to offer, if the Court rules that way. A ruling against the administration would also free many of these Kansans from the individual mandate penalty if that coverage is too expensive for them and they, therefore, would qualify for an affordability exemption. The employer mandate penalties would also be unenforceable. Employers can then add employees above the 50 threshold without fear of penalty and increase workers' hours to more than 30 hours per week. If the Court invalidates the subsidies, we will be ready. We will be ready on this side of the aisle with our solutions to help mitigate the pain for those individuals harmed by the administration and provide States greater flexibility and build a bridge away from ObamaCare. However the Court rules, I know that I and everybody on this side of the aisle will continue fighting to repeal this harmful law and replace it with true health care reforms that lower costs, lift the burden on our job creators, and restore the all-important relationship between a doctor and a patient. The test to fix health care, not ObamaCare, is coming soon. Let's fix health care. I yield the floor. Vote Explanation

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska for her remarks. Please count me in. It is very timely and extremely important.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, this Saturday will be the 71st anniversary of one of the greatest days in history--D-day, June 6, 1944, the day that led to Allied victory in Europe in World War II, the preservation of Western democracy, no less, and freedom for generations to come. Few days in history belong to individuals, but this day, D-day, belongs to Dwight David Eisenhower. Ike came to this day, which forever established his place in history as a soldier, as a Kansan, and most of all as an American. I come to the floor today as a Senator, as a marine, and as Ike's fellow Kansan. Most of all, I come to share Ike with my fellow Americans and my colleagues in the Senate. There are days in history that change nations and the course of history itself. D-day, June 6, 1944, was one of those days. The events growing out of that day changed the course of millions of lives, preserved Western civilization, and led to victory over a ruthless tyranny totally dedicated to destroying democracy. The sacrifices and human losses were immense. Several weeks ago, on May 8, the whole of Europe--from Amsterdam to Moscow--was not only celebrating European victory in World War II but also remembering the special sacrifices of the brave young Americans who made victory possible when it seemed impossible, especially in June of 1944, when the whole of Europe and much of Russia was under the Nazi boot. These cataclysmic events were set in motion on D-day by the heroic decisionmaking of one man, a Kansan from modest origins and humble roots--Dwight David Eisenhower--who, at the direction of the President of the United States, carried individually the sole responsibility of supreme command of all Allied forces in Europe in World War II. The decision to launch the invasion was his alone, and the risk of failure was enormous, with huge human losses assured for America and all of its allies. Ike's decision, however, proved correct and was followed by the greatest demonstration of military coalition leadership ever seen in history--before or since D-day. This brilliant leadership by General Eisenhower led to victory in Europe in 1945, followed by the defeat of Japan. Ike never let his gigantic role in history push his ego ahead of modesty, common sense, and humility. As he famously said in 1945, ``Humility must always be the portion of any man who receives acclaim earned in blood of his followers and sacrifices of his friends.'' Ike's transcending humanity won not only his fellow citizens' respect but also their affection. Indeed, he won the respect and affection of much of the world, and he is celebrated internationally to this very day. Currently, I am privileged to serve as the chairman of the Eisenhower Memorial Commission. Two giants of the United States Senate brought me to this role: Congressional Medal of Honor winner Danny Inouye and U.S. Army Flying Tiger pilot Ted Stevens, both combat-decorated World War II veterans who decided Ike, both as general and as President, should be nationally memorialized. They decided and convinced the Congress that the general and President Eisenhower should be nationally celebrated. And the day it all began was D-day. Senator Inouye from Hawaii and Senator Stevens from Alaska knew that Ike represented more than Kansas, more than America, but the entire world as well and that he spoke to the world. His identity was simple, basic, and convincing. In paying homage in 1945 to the British fathers and mothers of the soldiers, sailors, and airmen who had died under his command, he also said, ``I am not a native of this land. I come from the very heart of America.'' It is a paradox of unfortunate irony that those members of the ``greatest generation'' who come on Honor Flights from all across our great Nation to the World War II Memorial cannot visit, reflect, and pay homage to a memorial to the general who led them to victory. Today, in the midst of a much different war and during a time when our Nation is searching for resolve, commitment, and leadership, I suggest and recommend that all of my colleagues reflect upon the unique leadership of America's greatest general when the future of Western democracy was in grave peril. Time is of the essence, and now is the time to complete a lasting memorial and tribute to America's greatest wartime general and President of the United States whose legacy was 8 years of peace and prosperity. The veterans of World War II and their families know this, and their counterparts all over the world know this as well. With the completion of the Eisenhower memorial, their children and grandchildren and generations to come will understand the tremendous commitment undertaken in defense of freedom, then and now. Now is the time. 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 rise to speak on my amendment to the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, to bolster Congress's role in monitoring Iran's ballistic missile and defensive weapons activity. I hope this amendment is agreed to. It has been written, rewritten, and rewritten again to try to fit the concerns of the majority, the minority, everybody concerned. My amendment simply requires the President to make an addition in his semiannual report to Congress, including to the Finance Committee, of which I am a senior member, on any weapons sold, leased or lent by any country to Iran, which are currently prohibited under the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1929--and sophisticated air defense systems. In 2010, the United Nations Security Council, including Russia, a permanent member of the security council, passed a new round of sanctions on Iran's nuclear program. Resolution 1929 prohibits Iran from investing abroad in uranium mining, related nuclear technologies or nuclear-capable ballistic missile technology, and prohibits Iran from launching ballistic missiles, including on its own territory. That same year, Russia finalized a weapons sale with Iran on the S- 300, much publicized today--the S-300 air defense system, which is not currently sanctioned by the United Nations. However, to provide a working partnership and cooperation, then-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev placed a halt on the sale. Unfortunately, the situation and agreement has now changed dramatically. Today, we are contending with President Vladimir Putin. Sophisticated air defense systems, such as the Russian-produced S- 300, have the capability of shielding Iranian missile facilities from oversight and airstrikes. This poses a real threat to global security, not to mention peace in the Middle East and, as a consequence, all throughout the world. To prevent this threat, we must ensure our intelligence community is doing everything in its power and capability to ensure the greatest threat in an unstable region, Iran, is not getting help from nations looking to boost their economy through weapons sales, regardless of the impact. News reports now confirm Russia is preparing to sell Iran billions in sophisticated weaponry. News reports are one thing. However, it is imperative our intelligence community keeps the administration and the Congress briefed fully and on a timely basis on this national security threat. One month ago, reports revealed Russia's intention to sell the S-300 to Iran. I was alarmed when I asked my colleagues what they knew about the immediacy of this sale before it was made public in news reports-- more specifically, members of the Select Committee on Intelligence--and it was apparent no one in the Senate had been fully briefed. I cannot imagine any of my colleagues not wanting to know who is and who may be planning to arm Iran or why the administration would not be willing to share this information with the Congress--and know it themselves. Our intelligence community can and surely must do better. By requiring President Obama, and future Presidents as well, to provide Congress with timely, actionable intelligence on Iran's weapons systems, my amendment ensures that Congress can make informed decisions with regard to our national security. For Congress to support an agreement, Congress must be kept informed. If a nuclear agreement with Iran has even the slightest chance of preventing a nuclear Iran, then we must be vigilant, at least to ensure that other nations are not arming Iran and putting our allies in the region--Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, and, more especially, Israel--at increased risk. My amendment strengthens this bill by ensuring Congress obtains oversight and intelligence on every country, especially Russia, regarding weapons sales to Iran. So I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to consider this amendment and to join me in supporting increased oversight on all of Iran's weapons activities. I yield back the remainder of my time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and call up Roberts amendment No. 352.

Mr. ROBERTS. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, to get right to the subject, this amendment would restrict Federal Government employees from receiving bonuses when they are delinquent in paying their Federal taxes. During this time of budgetary constraint, Federal agencies are looking for cost savings in order to avoid staff furloughs and cuts to important Federal programs. Given these constraints, the government should not spend scarce taxpayer dollars by giving bonuses to Federal employees unwilling--let me underscore ``unwilling''--to pay their tax bills. We just learned this week that, according to the Internal Revenue Service, as of September 2014, 304,000 Federal employees owe $3.5 billion in Federal taxes. That is an increase of over $200 million in delinquent taxes owed by Federal employees from last year. While most Federal employees play by the rules--the great majority--it is incredible that the delinquent tax debt of Federal employees has reached this level. Let's look at one agency, everybody's favorite agency, the Internal Revenue Service. Last year the Treasury Department's Inspector General for Tax Administration issued a report on the Internal Revenue Service bonuses awarded to personnel who have violated the tax laws or who have been subject to serious infractions of employee policy. According to the Inspector General, close to $3 million was awarded to staff with violations on their records, with about half of that amount going to people who have violated the Tax Code. Other personnel at the IRS received cash bonuses or other awards despite being cited for drug use, making violent threats, fraudulently claiming unemployment benefits, and misusing government credit cards. In fact, the report indicates that close to 70 percent of the IRS personnel received some sort of personal reward. That is incredible. That is remarkable when you think about the sorts of problems your average taxpayer has in getting help from this agency. Under my amendment, seriously delinquent--let me underscore that again-- seriously delinquent people who will not pay their back taxes, Federal employees, regardless of agency, would be ineligible to receive a bonus or cash award. However, if you make even the most minimal effort to pay your debt or you are suffering a hardship, the amendment would not block a bonus from being made. Awarding personnel bonuses to employees who have continued tax liabilities today is unconscionable and should be stopped. I look forward to support for this sensible restriction on awards given to employees who owe the Federal Government. Amendment No. 462 Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up Roberts amendment No. 462.