Dan Sullivan

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. The U.K. and Canada are doing this. Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are very interested in this idea. I ask for their support of this amendment.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, we all know that our economy is overregulated, and this overregulation undermines our ability to grow our economy and create good jobs. I am sure all the Senators know that just this last quarter we grew at 0.7 percent GDP growth. We can't even break 1 percent GDP growth now. Take a look at this chart. This is one of the big problems. Federal regulations only grow. They only grow year after year. They never go away. They are never sunsetted. Even President Obama recognizes this is a problem. In his State of the Union address, the President said: ``I think there are outdated regulations that need to be changed. There is red tape that . . . [must] be cut.'' My amendment is an opportunity to do just that. It is a simple, one- in, one-out requirement for agencies. When an agency issues a new reg, it has to sunset or get rid of an old reg. Now, it is up to the agency to choose which reg it is going to get rid of, but it has to abide by the one-in, one-out rule. This is not a partisan idea. In fact, this is becoming a consensus idea.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 2996.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for as much time as I may consume.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I rise in support of an amendment that I am hoping will be part of the Energy bill currently being debated on the floor and being shepherded through the Senate by my colleague from the great State of Alaska, Senator Murkowski. I commend Senator Murkowski, the chair of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, for the bill she has worked on for months-- incredible hard work. It is great to have her as the chair of the committee, certainly for Alaska but for the entire country. States such as the Presiding Officer's recognize how important American energy is for all our citizens. One of the many positive aspects of the bill we have been debating is that it is focused on cleaning up old regulations, cleaning up outdated programs, getting rid of some of the things we don't need. The amendment that this Senator would like to offer as part of the Energy bill is based on a bill I recently introduced called the RED Tape Act of 2015. The R-E-D in RED Tape Act stands for Regulations Endanger Democracy Act, and this Senator believes that is the case. The onslaught of regulations are not only threatening our economy but are actually threatening our form of government. That is why I am proposing a simple one-in, one-out bill that will cap Federal regulations--a simple commonsense approach to Federal regulations that will begin to address what I think the vast majority of Americans recognize as a monumental problem. What is that problem? Economists around the country and many Members of this body believe that the overregulation of the American economy is why we can't grow this economy. This Senator thinks it is often looked at as a partisan issue. It is not a partisan issue. To the contrary, it is a consensus issue about the impact of regulations on the American economy. To give a couple of examples, here is how The Economist put it in a 2012 cover story titled ``Over-Regulated America.'' The redtape is right here. This lead article in The Economist said a couple of years ago that ``America needs a smarter approach to regulations'' that will ``mitigate a real danger: that regulations may crush the life out of America's economy.'' There is a real danger that regulations will crush the life out of the American economy. I think that is already happening. Again, this is not a partisan issue. Many Democrats in this body have called for a smarter approach to Federal regulations. Governors, particularly Democratic Governors across the country, have also decried the overregulation of our economy. For example, the two- term Massachusetts Governor, Deval Patrick, made regulatory reform a hallmark of his administration's approach to growing their economy, and it is not just Democratic Governors. It is actually Democratic Presidents. In 2011, Newsweek featured a cover story with President Clinton's face on the cover that highlighted his 14 ideas to grow the economy and create jobs. In the article, President Clinton lamented the long wait time for permanent approvals for infrastructure projects throughout the country due to overregulation. One of President Clinton's top recommendations to put hardworking Americans back to work was to speed up the regulatory approval process and grant States waivers on burdensome Federal environmental rules to hasten the time that construction projects can begin and real hardworking Americans can work. Even President Obama in his recent State of the Union Address focused on regulations. The President of the United States said: I think there are outdated regulations that need to be changed. There is red tape that needs to be cut. President Obama stated this just a few weeks ago. As a matter of fact, it was the biggest applause line of the entire evening. Democrats and Republicans roared at this. The President recognized what redtape is doing to this great economy. So I took the liberty to write the President after his State of the Union Address, commending him for his focus on regulations, and asked him to get his administration to back my RED Tape Act and to follow through on his promise to reach across the aisle for good ideas to grow the economy. This is one that would strengthen our economy, create jobs for hard-working middle-class Americans, union workers, and pave the path for what we haven't seen in over a decade, a private sector that is thriving. That is the heart of the American dream. Before I get into details, let me spend a few minutes on the economy and why I believe we must pass this amendment. Our debt is approaching $20 trillion. The national debt of the United States has increased more under President Obama's two terms than it has under all previous administrations in U.S. history. Of course, one of the reasons is we are spending too much, but this Senator believes the biggest reason is that we cannot grow this economy. The U.S. average economic growth rate for almost our entire history as a country, from 1790 to 2014, has averaged about 3.7 percent GDP growth. That is real American growth. For over 200 years there has been ups and downs, but the average has been about 4 percent GDP growth. This is what has made us great as a nation. The Obama administration's average GDP growth is about 1.5 percent--dramatically less than the traditional levels of American growth that we need. As a matter of fact, officially this recovery has been the weakest in over 70 years. While the American people might not have all these specific numbers at hand, they know something is wrong. They know they are not finding the good jobs, that they are not getting the raises in the jobs they have. They know their family's budget isn't stretching as far as it used to stretch. This should not be the case. We live in the greatest Nation in the world. We have so many advantages over other countries. Our high-tech sector is still the most innovative in the world, an efficient agriculture sector feeds the world, and our universities are the best universities in the world by far. We are in a renaissance in energy production with renewables, oil, and gas that have once again made us a superpower in the world, one of the best managed, highly productive fisheries in the world from my State in Alaska, and we certainly have the most professional, lethal military in the world. We have so many advantages over every other country in the world. So why aren't we growing our economy? Why can't our economy expand at traditional levels of American growth? Look at this chart behind me. This clearly to me and to many others is one of the reasons: new regulation on top of old regulation on top of old regulation--a steady increase year after year, starting here in 1976 with no end in sight, an explosion that is going to keep going until we do something about it. Through these regulations the Federal Government is looking to regulate every aspect of the American economy, and that is one of the main reasons why we can't grow. When it was first published in 1936, the Federal Register, which contained a daily digest of proposed regulations from agencies and final rules and notices, was about 2,500 pages. By the end of 2014, the Federal Register had ballooned to close to 78,000 pages. What we are seeing is an explosion of regulations. This chart relates directly to why I believe we can't grow our economy. Remember regulations are taxes. They cost American families, American consumers, and American small businesses. There are huge costs to this explosion, particularly when they accumulate like this. President Obama's Small Business Administration puts the number of the annual cost of regulation that impacts the U.S. economy at about $1.8 trillion per year. That is a number that would make it one of the largest economies in the world. That is about $15,000 per American household, about 29 percent of the average American family budget. That is what we are doing to our families and our economy. I believe a huge part of the problem of what is keeping our economy back and the opportunities for middle-class families is right here in this town. The Federal Government, with agencies and the alphabet soup of agencies--the IRS, the BLM, the EPA--are constantly promulgating new regulations. What they don't do is they never remove old regulations. From across the country, whether it is Alaska or Maine, our businesses, our citizens, and particularly the most vulnerable, our families, are being impacted by the explosion of regulations from the Federal Government right here in Washington, DC. Let me give you a few examples. On the North Slope of Alaska they can't get small portable incinerators that comply with the upcoming EPA regulations, so the trash in these amazing communities in my State piles up until it is actually taken out by airplane. This is polar bear country. This is dangerous--trash everywhere. It is certainly harmful to the environment because regulations don't allow incinerators. Because of the Federal roadless rule in Southeast Alaska, we can't even build new alternative energy plants for the citizens of my State who desperately need energy because we pay some of the highest costs of any State in the country with regard to energy. Nationally, bridges are crumbling, and we cannot get them built, in large part because of the overburdensome Federal regulations. On average, it takes over 5 years to permit a bridge in the United States--not to build a bridge, just to get the Federal Government's permission to build a bridge. Right now there are 61,000 bridges in our country in need of repair, but burdensome regulations delay commonsense repairs. These bridges are being crossed by our trucks, carrying the Nation's commerce, our children, schoolbuses, and parents trying to get home for dinner. Thousands of communities across the country are simply keeping their fingers crossed, hoping their current bridges last another year. Let me provide one more example in terms of what is happening with regard to the overregulation of our economy. This involves one of the most important sectors of the U.S. economy--small community banks. Over 1,300 small community banks have disappeared since 2010, and only 2 new banks in the United States have been chartered in the last 5 years. If you ask any small community banker what is driving this, they will point to this chart. Regulations from Washington, DC, are driving our small community banks out of existence. Even during the Great Depression, we had on average 19 new banks a year. In the last 5 years, the United States has seen two new banks chartered in our country. So what do we do? Well, the good news is that many colleagues in the Senate on both sides of the aisle have offered suggestions and introduced bills to stop the redtape, to stop this trajectory of Federal regulations from strangling our economy and our future. But we need something that is simple, something that hard-working Americans understand, and something that is bold to take on this challenge. I believe the amendment I have offered to the Energy bill, the RED Tape Act, is both simple and bold enough to take on this challenge. It is only 5 pages long. Using a simple one-in, one-out method, it caps Federal regulations. New regulations that cause a financial or administrative burden on the economy, on hard-working American, on middle-class families, on union workers would need to be offset by repealing an existing regulation. Simple--you issue a new regulation, you repeal an old regulation. People understand that and it makes sense. This is not a radical idea. This is not some kind of poison pill that we want to attach to the Energy bill, because I think that is a good bill. It is an idea that is gaining consensus not only throughout the country but throughout the world. Other countries have actually taken up this idea to fix their regulatory problems as well. In Canada, they recently put an administrative fix to their regulations that was one- in, one-out. In Great Britain they have done this to the point where it is viewed as so successful that they are not talking about one-in, one- out anymore, they are talking about maybe one-in, two-out. So I think this is an idea that both parties of the Senate, Members from both sides of the aisle, can get behind. Even National Public Radio did a recent story about how well this one-in, one-out rule is working in Canada. It has freed up hundreds of thousands of hours of paperwork for small businesses in particular. Even the Canadian Socialists have backed this idea. I certainly hope Senator Sanders is listening, and I hope I can get him and other Members of this body to support this amendment. To be clear, I am certainly not against all regulations or permitting requirements. When I served as the commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources in Alaska, we worked with our bipartisan legislature to overhaul our permitting and regulatory system and to bring what we have seen on the Federal Government side--a huge backlog of permits--to get projects moving. We brought that backlog down by over 50 percent through regulatory and permitting reform, and we did so with the absolute understanding that protecting our environment and keeping our citizens safe was a fundamental precondition to any of our actions. But we can do both. We can bring down this huge burden and still make sure we have a clean environment and a strong, healthy economy. There are simply too many Federal regulations out there, and the American people know it. It is time this body stops increasing this number of regulations and puts a cap on it. Finally, if we do this, we will make sure that all of the comparative advantages we have in this country--so many that we have over so many other countries--will enable us to unleash the might of the U.S. economy, create better jobs, and create a brighter future for our children and their children. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, today I wish to remember Ralph Eugene Nix, a beloved father and grandfather, a kind-hearted veteran, and a great Alaskan. Mr. Nix served as a corporal in the Marine Corps during the Korean war, where he served as a gunner. The Korean war is often forgotten in our Nation's history. Because it was sandwiched between World War II and the Vietnam war, many in our country don't know much about the sacrifices made by so many--including Mr. Nix--during the war. When I joined the Marine Corps, from officer candidate school on, I studied the war with great interest. Some call it the Forgotten War. I call it the Noble War. Tens of thousands of lives were lost, and the sacrifices were many in their effort to save the cause of freedom. As the Korean War Memorial says, ``Our nation honors her sons and daughters who answered the call to defend a country they never knew and a people they never met.'' Mr. Nix was one of those sons. He answered that call as a young man and continued his patriotism by serving his country after the war. In 1976, he moved to Anchorage. He married and had children. He became active in his church and devoted much of his life to helping other veterans. As a member of the board of directors for the Alaska veteran support group, he worked to help veterans and their families with warm meals, clothing, household goods, and food. His devotion to his country was recognized by his participation in an honor flight to Washington, DC, in April of 2015--an experience that I know meant very much to him. For me, greeting his honor flight in DC was one of the highlights of my career, as was the trip that we made to the Veterans Administration together in Anchorage. Last year, after Mr. Nix received a medal from Korean officials for his efforts during the war, Mr. Nix wrote, ``To serve with you men and women is one of life's greater blessings. In some way--in some capacity we all are giving our lives for our fellow man.'' Mr. Nix lived up to that statement. He also embodied another statement etched into the marble of the Korean War Memorial: ``Freedom is not free.'' The defense of freedom comes with sacrifice. Ralph Nix knew this. Ralph Nix acted on this. Ralph Nix protected the freedom of America and our allies. His service to our country will not be forgotten. I express condolences to his wife, Carol Nix; his son, Johnny Nix, and wife, Dawn; his grandson, Jacob Moser; his daughter, Jamie Nix, and husband, Aron Aguilar. We lost a great American, an Alaskan treasure, and a marine. Semper fidelis, Ralph.

Mr. SULLIVAN

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

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I want to say just a few words this afternoon on the vote that was taken on the Senate floor this morning. I will certainly admit that this was a difficult vote for me. This 2,200-page, $1.8 trillion spending and tax reform bill certainly does contain provisions that I have advocated for and will continue to press for to benefit different Alaskan groups, small businesses, the energy sector, and others. However, voting in favor of such a massive and consequential piece of legislation without having the opportunity to fully understand or fully vet both its positive and negative implications for Alaska and our Nation or to offer amendments is something I could not do in good conscience. Leader McConnell, majority whip Senator Cornyn, and so many other leaders in the Senate have worked hard in terms of this process over the past year. You heard a number of Senators come to the floor to talk about what clearly has been a very productive Senate under their leadership, and I want to commend them for their leadership. I appreciate their leadership. I know that in terms of the budget they tried to get this body to the right place, meaning we actually passed a budget for the first time in many years. We passed 12 appropriations bills--again, for appropriations, the first time in many years--but as the bills came to the Senate floor, they were halted, unfortunately, blocked, filibustered. I remember debating not once, not twice, but three times when the other side filibustered the Defense appropriations bill. This Senator still does not understand what was behind all of that, still is not 100 percent sure why the appropriations and funding process was halted in this body. Then we saw the smash-up the last week when everything came together at the end of the year. I am not sure what the motivation was to do this, but I do know this: The way in which we fund our Federal Government--in this case, 72 hours to read a 2,200-page, $1.8 trillion, ``take it or leave it'' bill, negotiated by just a few Members of Congress and the White House--is a broken process, and it is not worthy of our great Nation, nor the people we represent. I also believe it is a principal reason why we have seen an explosion of trillions of dollars in debt that imperils our Nation's fiscal stability and certainly imperils our children's future. Back home in Alaska, we are currently debating through a transparent, open, and contentious process how to best address our State's significant fiscal challenges. We have big fiscal challenges just like this government does. In my view, the Federal Government should be doing the same. The bill we voted on today and the process that produced it demonstrates that we are not. Going forward, I certainly want to continue to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and the leadership on both sides of the aisle to continue to work to improve this process because the people we represent deserve much better than what just transpired. Obviously there has been a lot of talk about the omnibus bill in the last couple days on the floor, but I just wanted to say a few words. Sometimes it takes a reminder from home, a reminder from what is going on back home to ground us and to remind us of what is really important in our lives, like family and friends and life itself.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I would like to talk briefly about an effort that is going on in Alaska right now to try to recover one of our own, Casey Graham--an Alaskan Native, a patriot, 24 years old, the son of Steven and Lucy Graham. He is 24 years old, the son of Steven and Lucy Graham and brother of Cheryl, Michelle, Megan, and Pauline. He is a veteran who served in the Marines and was deployed to serve his country in Afghanistan. He is a young man in the prime of his life. Casey has been described as smart, hard-working, extremely intelligent, and a shining light for his community, his State, and his country. He lived in Anchorage but was from McGrath, AK. That is about 200 miles from Anchorage on the Upper Kuskokwim River. About a week ago he was visiting family when he decided to do what most Alaskans do in the winter--go out on a snow machine ride. It is thought that he was on the ice on the river and hit open water. His snow machine and his helmet have been found, but not Casey. As I speak, the community of McGrath is banding together for the recovery effort. It is a small town--only about 350 people live there-- but it is a town with a huge heart. The community has dropped everything. Every day, dozens--as many as 50 Alaskans have gone out to where they think Casey was on the ice to bring him home. Remember, in Alaska it is cold right now. From December 10 when the search began until now, temperatures have ranged from about 22 degrees below zero to a high of about 16 above zero. There is a heated tent on the ice where volunteers go to warm up and eat lunch before they go back out searching. They eat moose stew mostly and, of course, a lot of salmon. The community is emptying their freezers and making sure all the volunteers are fed. In the true spirit of Alaska, in the true spirit of Christmas, so many companies and individuals across the great State of Alaska are donating goods, services, airline miles, freight services, food, hand and foot warmers, first-aid kits, cold-weather gear--you name it. Everybody is pitching in to help. It is something that this body and this country should be particularly proud of. Although I am not surprised by it, Casey's marine brothers have flown in from thousands of miles away, all across the country, to help in the search. They served with him in Afghanistan, and they have now come to Alaska from Texas, Pennsylvania, California, and as far away from Alaska as New York. There are 11 now and more on the way. In the Marines, we don't leave our brothers and sisters behind, and these marines are living up to that ethos. I am asking for the thoughts and prayers of this body and Americans-- any Americans all across this country who are watching--on this effort. I am asking that we pray to bring Casey home. Semper fi to him, his father, his sisters, and to those proud marines who are making sure he makes it home. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I want to talk about the broader issue here. I appreciate the willingness of my colleague from Delaware to work on this important issue. The Coast Guard reauthorization bill passed out of the commerce committee unanimously in April. We talk a lot about national security here on the Senate floor. We talk about our men and women in uniform and how they are protecting us. But I have always liked to mention the men and women in the Coast Guard. Prior to 9/11, you can make a very strong argument that the Coast Guard was probably the only uniformed service whose members were risking their lives for Americans day in and day out every single day. I think a lot of their heroism goes unnoticed. Trust me, in Alaska we see it daily. The Coast Guard admirably performs a variety of missions on a daily basis throughout our great Nation with a team of fewer than 90,000 members comprised of Active-Duty, Reserve, civilian, and Volunteer forces and an annual budget of less than $10 billion, with, let's face it, a fleet of aging vessels and aircraft. The ranking member of the commerce committee, Senator Nelson from Florida, and I talk a lot about how heroic these men and women are and how they deserve our attention, just like other members of the military. Last year the Coast Guard executed more than 17,500 search and rescue missions--these are incredibly dangerous, by the way--in rough waters off the coast of Alaska and Florida and Delaware and saved over 3,400 lives. Think about that--3,400 lives in 1 year. In addition, last year the Coast Guard law enforcement crews interdicted over 140 metric tons of narcotics, detained over 300 smugglers, and interdicted more than 3,500 migrants. What we are talking about here is bipartisan legislation that needs to be passed that will do one very important thing for our country and the Coast Guard: It is going to improve the mission readiness and performance of the Coast Guard. It demonstrates that the Congress of the United States is paying attention to these brave young men and women. I am disappointed because we have worked hard to move this legislation since April. We have worked hard. We stripped out provisions that the other side had problems with. Section 605 is gone now, to move this forward. So we have been working hard. I thought we were going to pass this legislation this morning. The provision my colleague from Delaware was talking about is section 606 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act, and it is simply looking to create consistency and reduce forum shopping in lawsuits involving mariners. While I understand that some special interests--trial lawyers in particular--are not always interested in judicial consistency or efficiency because it is not in the interest of their bottom line, I wish to remind this body that the provision we are talking about passed overwhelmingly in the House of Representatives in a bipartisan manner-- not once, not twice, but three times in the past 2 years. Three times. It is not a controversial provision. Section 606 is about forum shopping for foreign mariners. In fact, section 606 is not even about Americans; it is about forum shopping for foreign mariners in foreign waters on foreign-flagged ships. That is the issue which is holding up the reauthorization of the Coast Guard bill for our brave men and women who serve in the Coast Guard. Why that provision should be holding us up is beyond me. But I did have a good discussion with my colleague from Delaware. We are more than willing to continue to work with our colleagues to reach consensus. But I certainly hope we can get there today and not let one small provision that is very focused on one special interest group hold up a bipartisan bill which everybody on the commerce committee voted for and which is going to do something very important: recognize the men and women in the Coast Guard who risk their lives--just like everybody else in the military--on a daily basis to protect Americans. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 4188, the Coast Guard reauthorization, which was received from the House; I further ask that the Thune substitute amendment be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I know there is a lot going on today: the spending bill, the budget. They are very critical to our country. There is certainly a lot of focus on that. A lot of people are spending a lot of time, myself included, digging into that agreement, but the news yesterday on Iran also deserves our attention. Reuters reported that Iran, according to the U.N. Security Council panel of experts, violated U.N. Security Council Resolution 1929 when it tested a ballistic missile capable of delivering a nuclear warhead in October. They said it was a violation of a U.N. Security Council resolution. They are looking at--and it is probably likely, what you see here--the Iranians also launched another ballistic missile in November. That is also another likely violation of a U.N. Security Council resolution. I made some remarks on the floor a few days ago about Iran and about the nuclear deal. I reminded my colleagues that one of the selling points by the President and by Secretary Kerry about this deal was they were making the case that it was likely to improve Iran's behavior: bring them into the community of nations, get them to behave more like a normal country and not the world's largest sponsor of terrorism, which it currently is. Since the signing of the nuclear deal, which we debated on this floor, Iran's behavior has only gotten worse. Examples are very numerous. Leaders of the country continue to hold rallies, chanting: ``Death to America,'' ``Death to Israel.'' Iran continues to fund Hezbollah--one of its terrorist proxies around the world--hundreds of millions of dollars. It violated U.N. Security Council resolutions that prevent the Quds Force commander, General Soleimani, from traveling. He actually traveled to Russia to meet with Mr. Putin to talk about arms trade, in likely a violation of another security council resolution. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff recently said that up to 2,000 Iranian troops are in Syria helping to keep the Assad regime in power, working with the Russians on that. Something that we can never forget, probably the worst outrage that we have seen, all since the signing of the nuclear agreement a couple of months ago, is that in a direct affront to the United States and our citizens, Iran is still holding five Americans against their will. They took another American hostage since the signing of this agreement. One of them is a marine. One of them is a pastor. One of them is a Washington Post reporter. They are all fellow American citizens. As we prepare for the holidays, when families come together, when friends come together, the President and Secretary Kerry should be working day and night on the phone, every instrument of American power, to try and release these Americans, but that certainly doesn't seem to be happening. All of this has taken place since the signing of the agreement. All of this is proof enough that the Iran nuclear deal certainly didn't change Iran's behavior for the better. To the contrary, it is becoming increasingly clear that the Obama administration's deal with Iran has only emboldened Iran to take more provocative action against the United States, our citizens, and our allies. Iran's leaders are testing us. It is clear they are testing us right now. How we respond to these tests is critical. As noted, Iran's missile launches on October 11 clearly violated U.N. Security Council Resolution 1921. The one on November 21 likely did as well. What does this mean? What does this mean for the current Iran nuclear deal that was recently signed? What are the implications on moving forward with that deal? What are the implications of this activity on moving forward with that deal? I believe a strong argument can be made that these actions by Iran mean they are already violating the spirit and the intent of the nuclear agreement that this body just voted on a few months ago-- already. Former Secretary of State and former U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton actually predicted this just last week when she stated: They are going to violate it. They are going to violate the nuclear agreement, and when they do, we need to respond quickly and very harshly. That was the former Secretary of State, former Member of this body. I think Secretary Clinton was right on this. President Obama himself indicated that there is definitely a tie between the Iranian nuclear deal from his administration and Iran's use of ballistic missile activities. As a matter of fact, the President in a press conference clearly stated that the prohibitions on these activities were part of the nuclear agreement, when in July of this year, after the signing of the agreement, President Obama stated: What I said to our negotiators was . . . let's press for a longer extension of the arms embargo and the ballistic missile prohibitions. And we got that. We got five years in which, under this new agreement, arms coming in and out of Iran are prohibited, and we got eight years for the respective ballistic missiles. This is the President talking about his nuclear agreement. To look at another tie between ballistic missiles and the nuclear agreement, you need to look at the U.N. Security Council that implemented the Iran nuclear deal. That is U.N. Security Council Resolution 2231. That is replacing some of the other U.N. security council resolutions, and it is the legal framework for the nuclear deal that this body debated and approved. Here is what U.N. Security Council Resolution 2231 states: ``Iran is called upon not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons . . . until the date eight years after the JCPOA adoption day.'' Again, plain English of the connection. The U.N. Security Council Resolution--that is the international framework for the nuclear deal-- says: no ballistic missile activity by Iran. Yet now we know in no uncertain terms because our U.N. Ambassador, Ambassador Power, just stated that this launch in October was what that U.N. Security Council resolution said Iran couldn't do. She said that launch was inherently capable of delivering a nuclear weapon. Those are a lot of U.N. Security Council resolutions. That is a lot of activity. Where does that leave us with regard to the Iran nuclear deal? It is obviously clear that Iran just violated U.N. Security Council Resolution 1929. That has already been stated by the panel of experts, by Ambassador Power, and the language of the U.N. Security Council Resolution 2231--the implementation of the U.N. resolution of the Iranian U.N. deal. This is what I mean when I say that Iran is already violating the spirit and the intent of the Iran nuclear deal. The deal that this body debated a couple of months ago is already being violated by the Iranians. What should we do? Some of us have already taken action. Thirty-five Members of this body yesterday sent a letter to the President--written by my colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Ayotte--and it said basically: Mr. President, given these ballistic missile activities, given that Iran is violating U.N. Security Council resolutions that relate to the nuclear agreement, you should not be lifting sanctions. The Obama administration is talking about lifting sanctions as part of the nuclear agreement as early as next month--tens of billions of dollars to the world's largest terrorist regime--sanctions are going to be lifted to allow them to continue their provocative activities against the United States, our allies, and our citizens. What we are saying, one-third of the Members of this body, is that we shouldn't be doing that. The President should heed the advice of Senator Ayotte's letter. Additionally, I think a strong argument--and people need to look at this issue--that can be made about Iran's recent behavior is that we cannot lift these sanctions pursuant to the terms of the nuclear deal. The nuclear agreement that was debated in this body states that before sanctions are lifted on implementation day, Iran must be in accord with U.N. Security Council Resolution 2231, which among other things calls upon Iran not to undertake activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons. Do you see how they are related? The nuclear agreement that this body agreed to, the implementation plan of the nuclear agreement, paragraph 34(3) says that Iran has to be in accord with this provision in order for sanctions to be lifted. Iran is not in accord with this provision. The U.N. has said that. Ambassador Power said that. The bottom line is, if Iran is already violating this U.N. Security Council resolution, then under paragraph 34(3) of the implementation plan of the nuclear deal by the Obama administration, sanctions shouldn't be lifted. Here is how the President put it when he was selling the deal. ``If Iran violates this deal, the sanctions we imposed that have helped cripple the Iranian economy--the sanctions that helped make this deal possible--would snap back into place promptly.'' I agree that is what we should be doing, but here is the key point. The President doesn't need to wait for the sanctions to snap back. He can and he should take action now, before it is too late, before billions of dollars flood into Iran--the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism. That is why over one-third of the Members of this body wrote the President yesterday. I urge my colleagues--particularly my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who I know are concerned about these issues because I have had discussions with a number of them--that they should be writing the President as well. They should be telling the President the same thing: Mr. President, Iran is violating the agreement; don't lift the sanctions. He can and should act now. The President should not lift sanctions against Iran. He needs to go back and reread his own nuclear agreement, and he needs to heed the advice of his former Secretary of State to ``act quickly and harshly against Iran'' when it violates the agreement by not allowing them access to tens of billions of dollars. The President needs to do that now. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, before I talk about some of the issues I want to raise this evening on the floor, I wish to make a quick comment about having the opportunity to watch two outstanding Members of this body: Senator Inhofe, whom I happen to sit on the EPW Committee with-- and all the great work he has done this year, TSCA, the highway bill-- and then watching Senator Isakson as well, chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. I have the honor of sitting on that committee. He just went over the great work he has been leading on in terms of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. It has been a real honor to sit and watch Chairman Inhofe and Chairman Isakson, two amazing Members of this body. As a new Senator, it has been a privilege to be on both of the committees and watch their work. It is a real pleasure. Thank you.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I rise today to revisit an issue that some in this body I am sure, no doubt, would probably not want to revisit. My intention is not to cause any of my colleagues discomfort, but this is an issue--and the Presiding Officer knows more than most-- that needs to be discussed, and the Presiding Officer has done a great job of discussing it. I think it has become pretty clear to most Americans and many Members of this body that this body made a mistake a few months back, a mistake with significant consequences for our security, for the security of the Middle East, and certainly a mistake as it relates to some of our own American citizens. For the first time in U.S. history on a national security agreement of major importance, the mistake that was made was the Congress of the United States moved forward to approve an agreement not on the basis of a bipartisan majority, which is the history of this country, but on the basis of a partisan minority in both Houses. Of course, I am talking about President Obama's Iranian nuclear deal that will very soon--as early as next month, according to the terms of the agreement--be sending tens of billions of dollars to the biggest sponsor of terrorism in the world. There are many things that are going on in this body right now. We are looking at the spending bills, and there is a lot of concern about terrorism. As a matter of fact, polling is showing that right now terrorism is ranking as the highest concern for Americans--higher even than the economy--given the attacks in California and what is happening with ISIS. Amidst all of these challenges, however, the implementation of the Obama administration's nuclear deal with Iran is looming on the horizon and is not being talked about enough in this body. It is critical that we keep our eye on Iran--still the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism--particularly now. Why is it so critical now? Because, as I noted, as early as next month, in January, tens of billions of dollars of sanctions relief will be pouring into the country of Iran according to the terms of the agreement. I commend my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Menendez. I was presiding last week in the Senate, and once again he gave another outstanding speech on American foreign policy, on American national security, on what is going on with Iran, what is going on with their activities destabilizing the Middle East, what is going on with their activities which are as we speak violating the Iran U.N. Security Council resolutions. Yes, I know we debated this issue for a long time on the Senate floor, and I am sure some of my colleagues who voted on this deal are done and they don't want to talk about it anymore. Mr. President, if you recall, one of the arguments to support this deal, one of the arguments the President was making was that--we were told this deal would change Iran's behavior. President Obama stated that the deal ``demonstrates that if Iran complies with its international obligations, then it can fully rejoin the community of nations.'' The words of the text of the agreement even state that the United States is ``expressing its desire to build a new relationship with Iran.'' And, of course, Secretary Kerry, in hearings and in private briefings with the Senate, noted that he thought--and you saw his actions--that the agreement would establish a much more positive and constructive relationship between Iran and the United States. So that was one of the arguments for the deal we voted on. How is that working out? Well, I think we have gotten a new relationship with Iran, all right, but it is worse than the old one. Since the signing of the Iranian deal, Iran has taken deliberative steps, definitive steps that continue to undermine the security interests of the United States and our allies and those of our citizens in almost every region, in almost every realm. Every action the Iranians have taken has seemed to want to increase tension between us, Iran, and some of our allies. I wish to provide some examples. Almost as soon as the ink was dry on this agreement, the Iran regime and its leaders continued doing what they typically do: chanting ``Death to America.'' And more specifically, the Ayatollah Khamenei predicted that the Zionist regime--of course he is referring to Israel--will be ``nothing'' in 25 years. It is another one of his references to wiping Israel off the map--after the agreement. Then he stated, of the 25-year period, ``Until then, struggling, heroic, and jihadi morale will leave no moment of serenity for the Zionists.'' That is the leader of the country we did this deal with--after we signed the agreement. So it is still certainly provocative in that regard. How about its funding of Hezbollah, one of its terrorist proxies around the world? It is still full speed ahead. There are estimates of up to $200 million a year. That continues after the signing. How about abiding by U.N. Security Council resolutions, such as the one that prevents the Quds Force commander, General Soleimani, from traveling? Well, we know that was violated. As a matter of fact, Soleimani went to Moscow to meet with Putin to discuss arms transfers, likely in violation of the U.N. Security Council resolution--the resolution that bans conventional weapons from being imported to Iran. So that was another violation, and they are likely planning another one. Let me remind this body about the Quds Force commander. This is what former U.S. Army Chief of Staff GEN Ray Odierno said about him: Qassem Soleimani is the one who has been exporting malign activities throughout the Middle East for some time now. He's absolutely responsible for killing many Americans. In fact, I would say the last two years I was there the majority of our casualties came from his surrogates, not Sunni or al Qaeda. This is the person who is negotiating with Putin to trade arms-- likely in violation of another U.N. Security Council resolution. What about his troops? Well, we have seen an increase of Iranian troops in Syria. General Dunford, the current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, predicted that there are about 2,000 troops in Syria helping to lead the fight to save Assad and working with the Russians to do that. How about Iran's compliance with U.N. Security Council Resolution 1929, which bans its ballistic missile program? Remember that issue? We debated that issue on the floor. General Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said that under no circumstances should we agree to lifting that ban, but we did in the deal. Now we are learning that Iran has tested not one but two ballistic missiles on October 11 and November 21 in likely--almost certain--violation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1929. In my view, that is a violation of the Iran agreement. This is what our Ambassador to the U.N. stated. She said that the missiles Iran tested only months after we passed the agreement are ``inherently capable of delivering a nuclear weapon.'' So they are testing missiles with that capability. This should concern all Americans. What should really concern all Americans right now is that despite Ambassador Power's statement, it appears the Obama administration is looking to do nothing on this violation of the U.N. Security Council resolution. This is how my colleague from Tennessee, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Bob Corker, put it: Iran violates U.N. Security Council resolutions because it knows neither this administration nor the U.N. Security Council is likely to take any action. Instead, the administration remains paralyzed and responds to Iran's violations with empty words, with condemnation, and concern. As I mentioned, last week my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Menendez, gave an outstanding speech on this issue on December 8, and he noted--similar to Senator Corker--that the Obama administration's reaction has been muted, almost one of silence. Mr. President, there is more. A report from the International Atomic Energy Agency, which we were all anticipating, just recently came out and stated that Iran pursued nuclear weapons in secret until 2009-- longer than previously believed. So the country we are doing this deal with, at least according to the IAEA, has been lying to the world. Iran has been caught lying and cheating. It is testing ballistic missiles against the U.N. Security Council Resolution 1929 and others; it is still funding global terrorism; it is sending thousands of troops to Syria to prop up Assad; it has sent the man with the blood of thousands of American soldiers on his hands to Russia to talk about arms trading, in likely further violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions; and, of course, it is still chanting ``Death to America'' and talking about wiping Israel off the face of the Earth--all since the Obama administration signed the Iranian nuclear agreement. There is one more outrage, perhaps the worst one, in my view. In a direct affront to the United States and our citizens, Iran is still holding five Americans against their will in that country. Think about that. Many of us who closely watched the negotiations thought surely, surely Secretary Kerry--who had enormous leverage; the entire world was aligned against Iran--would surely use that leverage to get our citizens free, or maybe if he wasn't going to do it as part of the deal, there would be some kind of side agreement after the signing that they would be quietly released. But, like everything else since the signing of this agreement, the American hostage situation in Iran has actually gotten worse. I wish to read the names and describe a little bit about the Americans who are currently being held in Iran. Amir Hekmati of Michigan, a U.S. marine, was detained in Iran in 2011 while visiting Iranian relatives and was sentenced to 10 years in prison for espionage--a U.S. marine who proudly served his country. I am a marine. We don't leave our fellow marines on the battlefield, but evidently the Obama administration has not learned that lesson. Saeed Abedini of Idaho, a Christian pastor, was detained in Iran in 2012 and sentenced to 8 years in prison on charges related to his religious beliefs. Again, an American is languishing in Iranian jail right now, a pastor. Robert Levinson of Florida, a former official of the FBI, disappeared in 2007. Iran's leaders denied knowledge of Levinson's whereabouts or any involvement in his disappearance. Most recently, Siamak Namazi, a Dubai-based businessman, was arrested after the signing of this Iranian nuclear deal--after the signing--was arrested by the Iranian Government while visiting relatives in Iran. Right now, any charges against him are unknown. That happened on October 15. Of course, Jason Rezaian of California--a journalist for the Washington Post, who was credentialed as a journalist by the Government of Iran--has been detained for over 500 days and recently--again, after the signing of the agreement with President Obama--was sentenced to an undisclosed prison for an undisclosed term for espionage. That is five Americans right now. I don't have to remind my colleagues that it is the holiday season. It is a time for families and loved ones to come together, to be with each other. But what about the families of these Americans? Who is thinking about them? Secretary Kerry and President Obama should be on the phone every day working for their release, but that is clearly not happening. As the Washington Post editorial board put it recently: Iran appears content to allow Mr. Rezaian and the other Americans to rot in prison indefinitely, even as the regime collects more than $100 billion in sanctions relief and is granted the role it has long sought as a regional power. That should not be an acceptable outcome. That is the Washington Post. That is the Washington Post editorial-- ``That should not be an acceptable outcome.'' No, it shouldn't. It should not. All of this begs some very obvious questions. Given Iran's consistent provocative actions against U.S. interests and our citizens since the signing of the Iran deal and given that one of the promises of the deal--better relations with Iran, more constructive behavior from Iran--has proven to be utterly false, why in the world are we moving full steam ahead with the lifting of sanctions as early as next month? Think about that. Why indeed are we getting ready to release tens of billions of dollars to the world's biggest sponsor of state terrorism when we know the additional money will only embolden Iran? Just think how they are acting now. When they have tens of billions of dollars to further their terrorist activities, it will embolden them to act in even more nefarious ways against our interests and those of our allies and, most importantly, those of American citizens. Another question: Why aren't the President and Secretary Kerry at a minimum telling the Iranians they won't see one dime--one dime--of the billions and billions of dollars we are set to hand over to the Iranians until all five Americans are released from prison? Why aren't we using that leverage? That leverage is going to go away as soon as we release that money. Why are we getting ready to release tens of billions of dollars to Iran when it is clear they are going to simply violate this agreement? That is not just my view. Former Senator and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was quoted as saying just last week that it is not if, but when, Iran will violate President Obama's nuclear agreement. Just last week she stated: ``They are going to violate it.'' Former Senator, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton knows a little about the issue. She helped negotiate it. ``They are going to violate it,'' she said. ``They are going to violate it, they are going to be provocative about it, and we need to respond quickly and very harshly.'' That is the former Secretary of State. Well, I agree with the former Secretary of State--the Iranians are going to violate this agreement. In fact, it is very likely the Iranians have already violated this agreement with their U.N. Security Council resolution violations. So what should we do? First, for any Americans listening, watching, who care about this issue, I urge you to call the President, call the Secretary of State, call the White House, call the State Department. Tell them something that I believe the vast, vast majority of Americans agree with: Our government should not be relieving Iran of any sanctions while it continues to illegally hold five Americans hostage. We should demand of our President that he should not allow tens of billions of dollars to flood into the biggest terrorist regime in the world while our citizens languish in Iranian jails. This is simple, and it is just wrong. We need to light up the switchboard. Let President Obama know. Here is the number to the White House switchboard: (202) 456-1414. Call the President and tell him you think it is fundamentally wrong to let five Americans languish in prison while we are getting ready to send the biggest terrorist regime in the world tens of billions of dollars. Call John Kerry. Here is the number to the State Department switchboard: (202) 647-4000. Tell him: Mr. Secretary, get on the phone. Release these prisoners; release our citizens or don't give Iran any of the billions of dollars they think they are going to get next month. Second, I agreed with my colleague Senator Menendez when he gave his speech last week that we need to keep the leverage against Iran by tightening the full range of sanctions available to us to penalize Iran for violating U.N. Security Council resolutions, as they have done within the last month. In his speech he also said we need to reauthorize the Iran Sanctions Act. I agree with him, and this body should take action to do just that. Finally, I am working to get support for a simple bill that would prevent the President from lifting sanctions until Iran is no longer designated a state sponsor of terrorism and until Iran releases our five citizens who are languishing in their jails. With all due respect to my colleagues who voted for this agreement, I believe this body made an enormous mistake by allowing the President's nuclear agreement to move forward. Iran's actions since the signing of this agreement--day after day, against the interests of the United States and our citizens--have made this 100 percent clear. This mistake can be undone. We don't have to allow Iran access to tens of billions of dollars in sanctions relief while they continue to destabilize the Middle East, while they continue their robust expansive terrorist activities throughout the world. And we certainly--and this is a message for the President of the United States and the Secretary of State. We certainly don't have to allow them the tens of billions of dollars while Iran retains and detains Americans on trumped-up charges in Iranian jails, with no prospect for release. As the Washington Post put it, ``That should not be an acceptable outcome.'' Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

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

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, I am going to take a few minutes to talk about the reconciliation bill that we are discussing and debating on the Senate floor this week, particularly the focus on repealing the Affordable Care Act, or what is called ObamaCare. There are many, many aspects of the bill that we are debating--the individual mandate, the Cadillac tax, the employer mandate. These will all be gone. Essentially, we will start the process of what I believe the vast majority of Americans want, which is real, affordable health care, not what we currently have. I was recently home in Anchorage, AK. A lot of us get a sense of what our constituents are feeling by going about doing our basic chores and running errands when we are back home. Two weeks ago, in the course of 2 hours of getting gas, at a grocery store, and at Lowe's, I had three different Alaskans come up to me and plead to do something about ObamaCare, how it was wiping out their home income and their small business--three in 2 hours. Similarly, I was in Fairbanks a few days ago and heard from another small business owner. They made the same plea that many small business owners I have heard from in Alaska have talked about. They have had health insurance for their employees for years where they have taken care of them. Yet the increases in the costs of these plans are such that their companies will not be able to operate. They have this huge dilemma: to continue to cover their employees whom they care a lot about--some of whom have been working for decades--or to dump them into the marketplace, because that is the only way the company can survive. That is the dilemma that this bill is putting people into. Hardly a day passes where I don't hear from constituents about the problems they are having. Let me give you a couple of examples. A family in Eagle River, AK, will pay $1,200 a month in premiums with a $10,000 deductible under the new Affordable Care Act. A couple in Anchorage will be paying $3,131 a month in premiums--almost $38,000 a year. Here is an excerpt from a constituent letter: The renewal paperwork that I just received estimated our new payment to be just over $1,000/month--doubling our monthly expense. . . . What is a young family to do? Here is another constituent: ``There is nothing `affordable' about the Affordable Health Care Act.'' Another constituent said: Insurance rates are killing my small business. . . . We have tried to keep our employees and their families covered but don't see how we can continue to [be in business]. Here is another constituent of mine: ``Please, please help us!!'' They are begging for help. Teachers, construction workers, small business owners, self- sufficient Alaskans--so many of them--are asking for help because of what this Federal Government did to them. The numbers don't lie. In Alaska and throughout the country, workers and families are suffering. Small businesses are being squeezed. Job creation is being stymied. Nearly every single promise made by the President of the United States and the supporters of this bill in the Congress has been broken. Let me remind my colleagues what some of those promises were. Here is one from the President: ``If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan.'' Here is another one from the President: ``If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.'' The law, he told the American people, ``means more choice, more competition, lower costs for millions of Americans.'' He told the American public that premiums would be reduced on average for Americans for their health care plans by $2,500. But again, the numbers we see don't lie. Costs are soaring all over our country. For example, a bronze plan under ObamaCare, the least expensive insurance available on the exchange, costs on average--this is a national average--$420 a month, with an average deductible of $5,653 for an individual and close to $11,600 for a family. Remember former Speaker of the House and ObamaCare promoter Nancy Pelosi with her line about how important it was to pass ObamaCare so we could all figure out what was in it. She promised that ObamaCare would create ``4 million jobs--400,000 jobs almost immediately.'' That was the former Speaker. Let's see what the Congressional Budget Office says about that promise. Recently, the CBO projected that ObamaCare will result in 2 million fewer jobs in 2017 and 2.5 million fewer jobs in America by 2024. Obviously, that promise didn't come true. Promise after promise was unfulfilled. It is no wonder the American people have such a low opinion of the Federal Government and the Congress. What is of the laudable goal of health insurance for the uninsured? It is a very laudable goal, and there is no doubt about it--affordable health insurance for the uninsured. ObamaCare is barely moving the needle. Today there are 35 million people who don't have health insurance. According to the CBO, 10 years from now there is still going to be approximately 27 million people who don't have coverage under this system. Let me get a little more specific in terms of my State. Probably no other State in the country has been more negatively damaged by ObamaCare than Alaska. Five insurance companies originally offered coverage in our exchanges in Alaska, offering a glimmer of hope of what is really needed in the health care market, which is competition. Today only two are left to provide individual insurance on the health care exchange. Both will be increasing premiums by approximately 40 percent this year. In Anchorage, for the lowest level plan--a bronze plan-- premiums are going to go up 46 percent. There you go--major metropolitan areas in the United States. Look at the far left. That is Anchorage, AK, and at 46 percent in 1 year, it will make it one of the most expensive and the biggest increase in terms of metropolitan areas in the United States. Let me give you another example. A 40-year-old nonsmoker-- individual--who doesn't receive subsidies will pay anywhere from $579 to $678 a month in premiums for a bronze plan with a deductible of either $5,250 for the more expensive premium or $6,850 for the less expensive premium. Remember, ObamaCare requires Alaskans and Americans to purchase these plans. Remember what it did for the first time in U.S. history. The Congress of the United States told the American people: You must buy a product; you have to or you will be penalized. That brings me to the penalties. Because of the prohibitive costs, some in Alaska and many across the country have chosen to go without coverage and pay the yearly fine under ObamaCare. But that fine is also very expensive. Alaskans and Americans are asking: What is the point? What is the point of having health insurance that has been forced on them by their Federal Government and that they can't afford? Others are foregoing seeing their doctors altogether. A recent Gallup poll found that in 2014 one in three Americans says they have put off getting medical treatment they or their family members need because with these numbers it is too expensive. They are not going to the doctor. Again, what is the point? You have health insurance, but you can't go see your doctor because it is too expensive. That number, by the way--one in three--is among the highest number in the Gallup poll's 14-year history of posing this question. As the costs rise, the numbers will continue to rise. Not surprisingly, given all of these numbers, given that number, a recent poll found that despite 6 years of being under ObamaCare, where our citizens of the United States were supposed to finally be comfortable with it, to understand it, to have it working, still 52 percent of Americans have an unfavorable view of it--only 44 percent, favorable. For Alaskans, this is only going to get worse. The so-called Cadillac tax--one of the numerous taxes embedded in ObamaCare--is going to kick in for 2018. It will be devastating for individual Alaskans, for union members, and for small businesses across Alaska. It has been estimated that as many as 90 percent of Alaska businesses will be faced with the increased Cadillac tax. That is a tax of an additional 40 percent on these benefits. Many small businesses in Alaska will not be able to afford this. An employer with 20 employees, under the Cadillac tax will pay an estimated $28,000 a year more in taxes--just for the Cadillac tax on a small business. That can be the difference between make or break for that business. Who is going to get hurt by this? Small businesses, but more importantly, their employees, their workers will. Those extra costs are going to trickle down to the workers, likely in the form of reduced benefits and reduced wages and more problems with their health insurance plan. As I mentioned, it is not just small businesses. Hard-working Alaskans covered under union plans will also very likely be hit by the Cadillac tax, requiring them to pay much more, and so will State and local government employer plans. For all of these reasons, one of my campaign promises was to vote to repeal ObamaCare. I certainly plan to do it today when we take up this reconciliation measure. I certainly hope it is going to pass. When this legislation gets to the President's desk, what will happen then? Well, he is likely going to veto it again. I hope he looks at these numbers and recognizes what a mistake this bill was and agrees with us to work together to replace it, but he is likely going to veto it, and in doing so will likely mislead Americans again by claiming that ObamaCare is working. It is not working. Let me give you another example of how it is not working. UnitedHealth, one of the Nation's biggest insurance companies, recently announced that because of its huge losses, it may pull out of ObamaCare altogether. If United pulls out, then others are likely to follow. Premera Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alaska, one of the only health insurers left in Alaska offering coverage on the exchange, said that it can't continue to sustain losses under the exchange. As bad laws often do, ObamaCare contains the seed of its own destruction. But for the sake of millions of Americans and thousands of Alaskans who have been sold a false bill of goods, we can't simply wait to see it self-destruct. This was not the health care that was promised to Americans, and we can't let it get worse. We need to act, and that is why I am joining with my colleagues today to repeal this law. We need to look at replacing it with one that includes provisions that are missing, such as tort reform. We need a system that encourages purchasing insurance across State lines, encourages patient-centered care, and allows the kind of doctor-patient relationship that has been the hallmark of American care for many years. Contrary to what some on the other side of the aisle have claimed, there have been many alternatives proposed to ObamaCare. The plan in the Senate has been introduced by Senators Hatch and Burr and Congressman Fred Upton on the House side. Their legislation includes many of these important reforms. It will allow people to actually get involved in their own health care and not watch this train wreck in terms of health care becoming unaffordable for Americans throughout all of the different States. When selling the law to the public, President Obama talked about the fierce urgency of now. That is exactly what I am hearing from my constituents when they write: Please, please help us. What is a young family to do? The fierce urgency of now is now. Finally, I wish to comment on a number of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have been lamenting that this reconciliation vote we are going to take today is going to be along party lines. They have been lamenting that this might be some kind of partisan vote. As the Presiding Officer knows, this is a bit rich and a bit ironic. It is very important to remember that 6 years ago, almost to the day, this legislation passed in the Senate and the House by a party-line vote--a partisan vote--so to hear their concerns now rings a little hollow. That was not a wise move back then. One important lesson of U.S. history is that most, if not all, major pieces of legislation in the Congress on important social issues have been passed with bipartisan majorities, which helps to make legislation sustainable. That happens when the American people back that kind of legislation. The American people have never backed this legislation, but democracy has an interesting way of working--not always quickly, but eventually. This law is not popular. It was never supported by the American people, and they are noticing. As a matter of fact, of the 60 U.S. Senators who voted for this law 6 years ago, 30 are no longer in this Chamber. That is democracy working. We are going to take that vote again today. I am hoping some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will join us in repealing a law that doesn't work and is dramatically harming Americans so we can move on to a health care plan that helps us, helps families, and prevents constituents from writing to their Members of the Senate and begging for help, which is what is going on right now because of this bill. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. SULLIVAN

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

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, the Presidential Medal of Freedom is our Nation's highest civilian honor, presented to men and women who have made ``an especially meritorious contribution to the security or national interests of the United States, world peace, cultural or other significant endeavors.'' It is the highest honor a civilian of the United States can achieve. In all, the recipients have included seven Presidents, nine Supreme Court Justices, countless Members of Congress, First Ladies, military leaders, lawyers, artists, athletes, civil rights leaders, and doctors. It is the list of the best of America. It is a diverse list. The recipients come from all backgrounds and all walks of life. They all have one thing in common. They have dedicated their lives to achieving excellence in serving causes greater than themselves. On November 24, next week, Bonnie Carroll, a proud Alaskan, will join this honor roll when she is presented with the Presidential Medal of Freedom at a White House ceremony. It is certainly an exciting time for all of us in Alaska. We are so proud of Bonnie, who just happens to be here tonight in the Gallery. Let me tell you a little bit about Bonnie Carroll, a woman of determination, perseverance, honor, and strength. You can't talk about Bonnie without talking first about how she met her husband Tom, which in many ways--in tragic ways I will get to--led to the great work she has done for a grateful nation. In 1988, Bonnie was working at the White House when news broke that three whales were trapped in the ice off the coast of Alaska. Now I know this doesn't happen in the Presiding Officer's State that often, but in Alaska we have certain challenges that other States don't. She picked up the phone to see what could be done, and on the other line was her future husband, Alaska Army National Guard COL Tom Carroll, who worked with many others to help rescue the whales. This was part of the love story between Bonnie and Tom and part of a story so unique that what happened up in Alaska actually caught the attention of Hollywood. You can see their love story portrayed in the film ``The Great Miracle.'' For the Carrolls, the story didn't end with the saving of the whales. Unfortunately, their story is in many ways happy but also did not have a so-called Hollywood ending--unfortunately, far from it. After they were married in 1992, COL Tom Carroll of the Alaska National Guard died in an Army C-12 plane crash in the mountains of Alaska. Seven other top Alaska National Guard members were tragically lost that day. It was a horrible tragedy for America, for Alaska, for the Carroll family, and for all the other families who suffered tragic loss that day in Alaska. After the crash Bonnie realized there were no organizations established in this country to help people like her who had lost loved ones--military members and family members who had lost military members in tragedies such as the day of that crash. What she did after that was amazing. What she did was heroic. She took her deep grief and put it to use for the rest of us. Just 2 years after her husband's tragic death, Bonnie founded the Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors, also known as TAPS. The idea for TAPS came in part as a result of her consultations with former Senator Ted Stevens, another great Alaskan and great American, who would also tragically die in a plane crash in Alaska. This is why Bonnie is being honored by the President next week. Since 1994, her organization, TAPS, has offered support to 50,000 surviving families of our military members whom we have lost. Fifty thousand surviving family members and caregivers have benefitted from the services of TAPS, which Bonnie founded. Think of the grief and think of what she has done across America to soothe grieving families. TAPS provides a variety of grief and trauma resources, including seminars for adults and a summer camp for children in Alaska to help families heal and to help them work through their grief. I heard many of these stories, and you can't help but be touched and moved by the power of what TAPS does to help Americans, family members of our military, work through some of the most difficult times. For years those of us in the military and those of us in Alaska have known how Bonnie's work and the work of TAPS has been healing families throughout this country, for those we have lost--our heroes who have been defending this country. We have known in the military, we have known in Alaska, and as of Tuesday the world will know when Bonnie is presented with this incredible honor at the White House. As she puts it: ``Out of an Alaskan tragedy came hope and healing for tens of thousands of our military families.'' For the work that she does with the families of our heroes who have made the ultimate sacrifice for all of us, Bonnie Carroll is utmost deserving of this great honor. She is a great Alaskan, a Great American, and she has made us all very proud. Congratulations, Bonnie. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I wish to speak about an amendment I plan on offering tomorrow to the Transportation bill we are working on right now on the Senate floor. It is a commonsense amendment. It is an amendment about safety. It is an amendment about protecting our citizens. It is an amendment about cutting through redtape. It is an amendment about what the vast majority of Americans want us to do in the Senate, which is to start to get things done in this body. It is a simple amendment. This is what my amendment does. It would allow States and communities throughout this country of ours the ability to expedite the Federal permitting process, the regulatory process on the construction and rebuilding of bridges. It is pretty simple. It doesn't get much more simple than that. Everybody needs infrastructure. Every community in America needs bridges. It would only apply to bridges--critical pieces of infrastructure--bridges that are built in the same place, the same size, bridges that in the United States are falling apart. We have talked about this on the Senate floor for the last several months. Our Nation's infrastructure is crumbling. The American Society of Civil Engineers gives America's infrastructure a D-plus. We are failing. For our infrastructure, in the classroom, we are the D-plus students. This is, of course, bad for our Nation's economy. There is nothing more central to a country that wants to grow its economy, that wants to compete globally, than sound infrastructure for transportation. In a country of our size facing economic challenges, America's infrastructure can either drive growth and opportunity or it can slow down growth and opportunity and undermine it. Right now, that is what we are doing. We are slowing it down. We are undermining it. It is worse than that. It is worse than just undermining our own economic opportunity. The state of our infrastructure is actually dangerous for our citizens. I agree that we must have stable funding for infrastructure. That is why I have been a strong supporter of the DRIVE Act and this bill, in terms of a 6-year highway bill, under the DRIVE Act. But we also need to focus on something else that is driving up the cost of our Nation's infrastructure: redtape that is stopping critical projects in America from moving forward. Like so many construction projects in this country, the environmental review process our bridges face is deathly slow and cumbersome and enormously expensive. We live in a redtape nation, particularly when it comes to infrastructure. We can't build the way we used to in this country. Consider just a few statistics. The average time for environmental reviews for a major transportation project in the United States in 2011 was 8 years. That is up from 3\1/2\ years just 10 years earlier. The average environmental impact statement when NEPA was written was 22 pages. Now the average environmental impact statement is over 1,000 pages. Let me give one example that came up in the Commerce Committee. We were talking about airport infrastructure--again, critical to the country. Seattle had built a new runway. When I asked the witness who was in charge of that runway how long it took to build, he said 3 years. That is a pretty long time, but it is a big runway, kind of complicated. Then I asked how long it took to get the Federal permits and regulatory permission from the Federal Government to build that new runway. The answer: 15 years. Fifteen years. The entire room gasped. No American wants this. We need to do a lot more to get back to commonsense permitting and regulatory reform for America's infrastructure. So we are starting on critical pieces of infrastructure that everybody can agree with. That is what this amendment does. It focuses solely on bridges. Our bridges are an increasingly important issue. One in 10 of our Nation's bridges--roughly 607,000 bridges in the United States--is structurally insufficient. Let me repeat that in a different way. In the United States, there are more than 600,000 bridges in need of repair. The average age of our bridges is 42 years old. So we need to repair them. We need to rebuild them. But what we don't need is the Federal Government taking 6 to 7 or 8 to 9 years to give us permission to rebuild bridges. There is not one American who thinks that would be a good idea. Yet, if we keep the law the same, that is exactly what is going to happen. Communities need to rebuild bridges, and it is going to take several years to get permission from agencies in this town to allow them to do it. To do what? To build on the same land, to just build a bridge. We need to change that. Thousands of communities across the country are simply keeping their fingers crossed when Americans cross structurally deficient bridges 215 million times a day. Let me repeat that. In this great country, Americans cross structurally deficient bridges 215 million times a day. So we need to fix them. They are being crossed by our trucks, carrying our Nation's commerce, our children in schoolbuses, parents trying to get home in time for dinner. These are people we should be protecting. That is what my amendment does. It says that we are going to work to fix this infrastructure with the bill that we are working on, that my colleague from Maine is leading on with the DRIVE Act. But we are also going to be smart. We are not going to require Americans to take half a decade to get permission from the Federal Government to rebuild a bridge. These bridges sustain our economy, they connect our communities, they connect us, they keep us safe, and we need to expedite the ability to fix our infrastructure in this country, starting with our bridges. That is all this amendment does. It is simple. It is common sense. I hope that if I can bring this to the floor, we will get a unanimous vote in favor of this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I wish to thank my colleague from Maine for her comments. I very much appreciate her support. We will work with the others if they have questions. I have worked on a number of issues now in my first year in the Senate with my colleague from Rhode Island, and I certainly want to make sure he is comfortable with this commonsense amendment. But I guarantee my colleagues, whether it is in Maine or Alaska or Rhode Island, if our citizens look--it doesn't matter; Democrat or Republican--at an amendment like this, I think the vast majority of them would say: Of course. Of course that is what we should be doing-- protecting our citizens, building infrastructure, protecting the environment, but not making things take forever. That is what we are trying to do. So I appreciate the kind words of the Senator from Maine about the amendment, and I am hoping we can move forward on this tomorrow. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, Veterans Day is approaching on Wednesday, and as the Presiding Officer knows, this is a very important day across the country. It is certainly an important day in my State of Alaska. Alaska has a statistic--I certainly like to talk about it a lot in hearings and on the Senate floor--of having the highest number of veterans per capita than any other State in the United States. It is truly an honor to be serving a State that has so many veterans who have served our country, and we look at Veterans Day as a very important and very somber day. We are also home to thousands of active duty military members and reservists--in large part because of our strategic location in Alaska. I was home, like a lot of Members of the Senate, this past weekend, and in Alaska we are already beginning to celebrate Veterans Day in churches, community halls, private homes, and parades. This weekend I had the honor of attending a few of these events. I went to a parade in Anchorage and a wonderful church service yesterday. It is so moving to see and hear from all of our veterans. Again, I had the opportunity to do that this weekend. I met with World War II veterans--the ``greatest generation''--Korean War, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Cold War veterans. I went to a number of these events and an issue came up--an issue that I think is important for this body to know about since our constituents are asking about it: What the heck is going on in Washington, DC, where Senators are filibustering the funding of our troops? What is going on? It is a good question. It confirms something that I think a lot of us sometimes forget. We look at the procedural maneuvers here on the Senate floor--filibusters, blocking funding for our troops--and sometimes we think that the American people aren't watching. Well, they are watching, and our troops are watching. Not only are our troops at home watching, but importantly, our troops overseas who are literally risking their lives during this Veterans Day week, protecting our Nation, protecting us, and protecting our security. They are watching and so are their families. When Members of this body decide to block funding for our troops, known as the Defense appropriations bill, the people know it. They especially know it when it has happened on this floor not once, not twice, but three times. The minority leader on the other side of the aisle has decided to filibuster our troops three times in terms of their funding. What is really amazing about that is that bill came out of the Appropriations Committee with a huge bipartisan majority. The legislation to support our troops is very bipartisan. So, why? I was asked this back home. I truly could not provide a coherent answer for the veterans, for their families or for our troops. I have heard a number of reasons on the Senate floor as this was being debated. I believe the minority leader said it was a waste of time. I guarantee my colleagues that the vast majority of Americans don't agree with him on that. I heard something about Republican tricks with regard to the budget deal. I just don't know why we would filibuster the Defense appropriations bill that funds our troops three times, including one time last week. I wish the minority leader would come to the floor and give a simple answer for why he insists on continually filibustering funding for our troops during the week of Veterans Day and, more importantly, when thousands--thousands--of young American men and women are risking their lives right now--right now--defending this Nation overseas. Some people are starting to fear that Members of this body are not making our troops the highest priority. They are starting to fear that we are not concerned about the welfare of our troops and our Nation's security. Now, I don't believe that is the case. I have the honor of sitting on the Veterans Affairs Committee. I also serve on the Armed Services Committee, and I believe that is a very bipartisan committee, where everybody is focused on our national security and our troops. As a matter of fact, I talked to a reporter last week and told her how on the Armed Services Committee so many Members on both sides of the aisle come together and focus. We have veterans in this country who still carry scars of their military service who were not supported by the public, who were not supported by the Congress. In particular, many of our veterans who served in Vietnam came home and were ridiculed. They were not treated well. They were spit on. We can never ever go back to that shameful period of American history-- never. This week we have important work to do on these issues. We have a Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill we will be voting on in the next few days. Again, that bill was previously filibustered. I don't know why, but it looks as though we are going to move forward on that. We have a defense authorization bill, which is hugely important for the men and women of our military. It was vetoed by the President. Again, it is not clear why the President vetoed it. We are going to take that up again. The bottom line is this: enough playing politics with our troops, their families, and our national security. It is time to come together during this week, of all weeks--the week of Veterans Day--to come together in a bipartisan way on these important bills that we are taking up this week to support our troops, to support our veterans, to support our national defense in the finest tradition of this body, in the finest tradition of the U.S. Senate. Filibustering the Defense appropriations bill three times is not in the finest tradition of this body. We need to move beyond that. Doing so this week--the week of Veterans Day--will send an important message to the American people that we know what the highest responsibility of the Congress is. It is to defend this Nation and to take care of the troops and the veterans who have sacrificed and whom we honor this week. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I want to talk about what we have been debating today on the Senate floor, the waters of the United States rule, and legislation that has received bipartisan support so far. We think it needs a lot more support on why this is so important for the country. I was a cosponsor of Senator Barrasso's bill. Unfortunately, that bill didn't get the 60 votes necessary, but Senator Ernst has a resolution that I think is going to be very important to pass that would stop this rule from being enacted by the EPA. Hopefully, we will see if the President, once this is put on his desk, has the common sense to sign it rather than veto it. I want to put this rule in a much broader context, to put the debate we are having on the waters of the United States rule into the broader context of actually what is happening in our country and how the EPA's waters of the United States rule is actually a symbol for much broader problems that I think the vast majority of Americans recognize. The other night I went to a premiere of a short film on the Trans- Alaska Pipeline system, what we call in Alaska TAPS. It is Alaska's 800-mile artery of steel that was done in the most responsible manner, in terms of the environment, that brings much energy to our country. When it was built, it was actually one of the biggest private sector construction projects ever in the history of our great Nation, and literally directly and indirectly employed tens of thousands of Americans. It has carried almost 17 billion barrels of American oil to energy-thirsty American markets and continues to provide thousands and thousands of jobs, not only in Alaska but throughout the country. It is certainly a technological and environmental marvel. Here is the thing: That kind of huge project was built in 3 years. Think about that, 800 miles of steel pipeline, crossing 3 mountain ranges, more than 30 major rivers and streams, and it took Americans 3 years to build it. Go to Alaska and it is functioning incredibly well today. We are reminded of how, when this Nation puts its mind to something, we can get great things done. In many ways, Congress played a critical role in making sure that incredible energy infrastructure system happened. We are a great nation, but I must admit when I was watching this movie last week with a bunch of Alaskans--Senator Murkowski, Don Young, and others--I did feel a sense of unease, almost a little nostalgia, when we were watching this film about this great project that Americans came together from all over the country to build. We all know we used to do great things here and built great things. Let me give a few examples. In Alaska is what is called the Alcan Highway, the Alaska-Canada Highway, through some of the world's most rugged terrain, 1,700 miles, built in under 1 year. We built the Empire State Building in 410 days. We built the Pentagon in 16 months, the Hoover Dam, the Interstate Highway System, putting a man on the Moon--I could go on and on and on. When we look at the history of this country, it is a history of getting big things done, and it is not just getting big things done. These projects were a symbol of American pride, of American greatness, and they also created tens of thousands of jobs--great jobs, middle-class jobs, which gave workers a sense that what they were doing was very important in their daily lives and very important to their country. In Alaska still, when you talk to someone who worked on TAPS, who constructed this--for the country--they talk about it in terms of pride, in terms of what they were doing for their State but also what they were doing for America and how everybody came together to build this. Here is a sad fact: These kind of projects are not being built today. Instead, we have become a redtape Nation. Instead of symbols of technological wonder, national pride, and American ingenuity, we now hear story after story--and we have all heard them in the Senate--of delay and discord and disappointment, all of which symbolizes a country that can't get things done. The main culprit--the main culprit--is right here: Washington, DC, the ``Capital of Dysfunction.'' Whether it is the Keystone Pipeline, transmission lines in California or bridges or highways or runways across the country, killing crucial development in infrastructure projects through permitting and regulatory delay and Federal agency overreach with new rules upon new rules--and all they do is stop development--this certainly has been a hallmark of the Obama administration. The WOTUS rule--the EPA's waters of the United States rule--is just the latest manifestation of this. As we know, this is happening all over the country. Frequently, because of the political risks, the President and members of his administration, like Gina McCarthy, will not openly oppose economic development projects. Instead, they will wrap them in redtape until they delay them to death. Let me give some examples. In 2008, Shell acquired leases in the Arctic Ocean off the coast of Alaska for over $2 billion. That is a company going to the Federal Government. The Federal Government is saying: We want to lease this land to you. A company says: We will give you billions in return--the Federal Government; that money has already been spent, the billions--to develop natural resources. Of course, this was big news in Alaska. New production of oil would have filled up three-quarters of TAPS, which I talked about earlier. It would have created jobs, some estimates are in the tens of thousands of jobs, direct and indirect jobs, and provided much needed State and local revenue and energy security for our country. So what happened? Remember, the Federal Government is inviting a private sector company to do this. It didn't take long for this project to run into a maddening array of often conflicting and confusing permitting challenges, drilling moratoriums, new regulations, environmental lawsuits, permitting confusions, that year after year kept the drill bit above the ground. Now, jump to 2015. What had once been a very robust exploration program has resulted in what happened this summer: The permission, finally, to drill one exploration well off the coast of Alaska where hundreds of wells have already been drilled safely. We have been doing this safely in Alaska for decades. Let me sum it up. It took 7 years, $7 billion, to get permission to drill one exploration well in 100 feet of water; 7 years, $7 billion, to finally get the Federal Government's permission to drill one single exploration well in 100 feet of water. No company in the world can endure that. This was a project that was meant to be delayed, delayed, delayed until it was killed. Some of my colleagues have been celebrating this--celebrating this. I think that is sad because what they are really celebrating is the loss of very good jobs for Americans throughout the country. In many ways they are celebrating what is a symbol of America's decline. These resources in the Arctic are going to be developed one way or the other, and it is either going to be by countries like us who have the highest, most responsible standards on the environment or countries like Russia and China who don't. So the Russians and Chinese are now going to be in charge. They are going to be producing the energy, they are going to be getting the jobs, and they are not going to care at all about the environment. So instead of a win-win-win for the United States, this is a lose-lose-lose. Yet we have Members of this body celebrating this. Again, this is not a problem confined to my State or energy programs in terms of the delay, delay, delay. Let me provide a few examples. We had a recent Senate commerce committee hearing on aviation infrastructure. Everybody thinks aviation infrastructure is important. I certainly do. The manager of the Seattle airport was testifying. As part of his role as CEO of the American Association of Airport Executives, he talked about how it took almost 4 years to build the Seattle airport's new runway. It seems like a fair amount of time. Maybe a construction project like that takes a fair amount of time. I had a question for him, which I didn't know the answer to. I asked him: How long did it take to get the Federal permits, to go through the Federal permitting system to build this additional runway at the Seattle airport? His answer: 15 years--15 years to get the Federal permits to build a runway. You could have heard--well, you did hear the whole committee, the whole audience. They gasped. Then he said: They built the Great Pyramids of Egypt faster than that. This is what is going on in our country, and this town is to blame. It is happening all over the country. Americans need to know this. It only took 9 years to permit a desalinization plan, which would provide much needed fresh water to drought-stricken California. Simply razing a bridge in New York--not building a new bridge, razing one--took 5 years and 20,000 pages of Federal permitting requirements. The average time it now takes in America to get Federal approval for a major highway project is more than 6 years--again, not to build a highway but to get the Federal permission. It took almost 20 years, if you include the litigation, to get Federal permission to build a single gold mine in Alaska--20 years. We had to take that all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court because the Federal Government was not supporting us. Now the Kensington mine employs over 300 people at an average wage of $100,000 per person. Those are great jobs. We have a Federal Government that wants to delay, delay, delay. Let's talk about the Keystone Pipeline. We had a debate here--7 years and counting to build a pipeline in terms of the Federal permits. Who is hurt by this? Our friends on the other side talk a lot about the companies and everything--TransCanada. The people who are hurt by this are American families, middle-class workers, union members. One of the most surprising things I saw as a freshman this year when we were debating the override of the Keystone Pipeline--the State Department had predicted this would create as many as 30,000 jobs. These are good jobs--construction jobs, real jobs, real Americans working to build something important. I was presiding in the Chair like you, Mr. President, and some of the Members on the other side of the aisle started arguing that these aren't real jobs because they are temporary, that this isn't going to create 30,000 jobs because they are temporary jobs. I about fell out of my chair. Construction jobs aren't real jobs? Since when is that the case? According to the President's own Small Business Administration, the regulatory costs on small businesses in the United States are close to $2 trillion per year. That is $15,000 per family. The bottom line is, we know we can do better. We have to do better if we want to grow this country and create jobs. I believe there is a silver lining. I believe things have gotten so bad that this delay is happening everywhere on projects that matter to us as a nation. Projects that are so weighted down under redtape are making Americans, regardless of party, start to take note. I have seen a silver lining here. Both Democrats and Republicans are starting to demand change. They are demanding bold and serious regulatory reform. I have had conversations with Members of both sides of the aisle here about how important this is for our economy, how important it is for jobs. That is why this debate today on the waters of the United States is so important. Unfortunately, we didn't get the number of bills. We did have a pretty strong bipartisan group. I think we would have gotten to 59--1 vote short to move forward. It is unfortunate that the other side couldn't see the merits of this. But this rule will not help grow our economy. This rule will continue to stifle growth. This rule will certainly continue to kill jobs. It takes what we all want--certainly, the whole idea of protecting our water, clean water. In my State of Alaska we have the cleanest water of any State in the country. We win awards every year for our clean, pristine water. It is not because the EPA is making that happen; it is because Alaskans are making that happen. But it takes the Clean Water Act and somehow, through a rule that the EPA itself has devised, it gives the EPA the power to regulate not major rivers but water in our backyards, literally. Almost certainly this rule doesn't comport with Federal law. We have now had two courts say that. There is a stay on it nationally. The Sixth Circuit has put a stay on this rule. Over 30 States have sued to stop this rule--a bipartisan coalition of States--because it is almost certainly not legal. I asked Administrator McCarthy about the legal opinion, the legal basis they had for this rule. I have never gotten an answer from the EPA Administrator. I am not sure they even care. In the last two Supreme Court terms, the EPA has lost two big cases in the U.S. Supreme Court. They have lost the Sixth Circuit case for now. Unfortunately, we had the Administrator of the EPA on TV a few months ago, on the eve of this Supreme Court case--EPA vs. Michigan. When asked if she was going to win the case, she said: We think we are going to win, but ultimately it doesn't really matter because the companies have already had to comply with hundreds of millions of dollars. Think about that. Think about what she said. This rule is going to have a huge, profound impact on my State. Alaska has more waters under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act than any other State in the country. Over 50 percent of America's wetlands are located in Alaska. I held multiple field hearings as a chairman of the subcommittee on fisheries, water, and wildlife on the waters of the United States rule. It is clear to me that Alaskans of vastly different backgrounds, ideologies, and different parts of the State are opposed to this rule. One group in my State said the rule would ``straitjacket any development.'' Another said that it would have negative impacts on ``virtually any economic development project'' in Alaska. One project we are very focused on in Alaska--we are having a special session right now in our State legislature--is the Alaska LNG Project, a very large-scale LNG project that, like TAPS, will be great for the country and create thousands of jobs and energy security for Americans and our allies. This rule, if left in its present form, will very negatively impact the cost and timeline of that project. Simply put, the waters of the United States is one of the largest land grabs in history, and it is an example of the kind of challenges we need to address here to get our economy moving again, to create good jobs for Americans. It is why this debate we are having is so important. These are problems we can fix. We know we can fix them. Americans sent us here to fix these problems, and we need to start by stopping rules like the waters of the United States that undermine our country's future and the jobs that we need throughout this country. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 21, 2015, at 10 a.m. in room SD-106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Agriculture Biotechnology: A Look at Federal Regulation and Stakeholder Perspectives.''