John Thune

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I would also like to conclude by underscoring my appreciation regarding the collaborative work with my friend from Florida, Senator Bill Nelson, ranking member of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, and his Committee staff. I would also like to thank the following Senate colleagues and staff: Leader McConnell; Senator Inhofe; Senator Boxer; Senator Hatch; Senator Cornyn; Senator Fischer, who chairs the Surface Transportation subcommittee and who also served on the conference committee; Neil Chatterjee, Hazen Marshall, Scott Raab, Sharon Soderstrom, and Jonathan Burks in Leader McConnell's office for helping to guide this bill through the Senate and ultimately through conference with the House; Dave Schwietert; Nick Rossi; Rebecca Seidel; Adrian Arnakis; Allison Cullen; Patrick Fuchs; Cheri Pascoe; Peter Feldman; Katherine White; Robert Donnell; Andrew Timm; Ross Dietrich; Jessica McBride; Paul Poteet; Jane Lucas; Frederick Hill; and Lauren Hammond.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, over the past few years, the public has grown increasingly skeptical of Congress being able to function. When Republicans took the majority in January, we promised the American people we would get the Senate working again, and we have been delivering on that promise. This Transportation bill conference report is another major legislative achievement and the result of hard work by several committees in the House and Senate who put together key provisions to spur long overdue infrastructure investment and safety improvements. This bill will give States and local governments the certainty they need to plan for and commit to key infrastructure projects. It will also help strengthen our Nation's transportation system by increasing transparency in the allocation of transportation dollars, streamlining the permitting and environmental review processes, and cutting red tape. Republicans and Democrats alike got to make their voices heard during this process, and the final conference report is stronger because of it. As chairman of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, I had the opportunity to work on various sections of the bill with Ranking Member Bill Nelson. The provisions under our committee's jurisdiction comprise roughly half of the 1,300 pages of legislative text. One particular focus was on enhancing the safety of our Nation's cars, trucks, and railroads, and the final bill we produced makes key reforms that will enhance transportation safety around the country. Over the past year, the Commerce Committee has spent a lot of time focused on motor vehicle safety efforts. Last year was a record year for auto problems, with more than 63 million vehicles recalled. Two of the defects that have spurred recent auto recalls--the faulty General Motors ignition switch and the defective airbag inflators from Takata--are responsible for numerous unnecessary deaths and injuries-- at least 8 reported deaths in the case of Takata and more than 100 deaths in the case of General Motors. Indications point to the Takata recalls as being among the largest and most complex set of auto-related recalls in our Nation's history, with more than 30 million cars affected. Given the seriousness of these recalls, when it came time to draft the highway bill, one of our priorities at the Commerce Committee was addressing auto safety issues and promoting greater consumer awareness and corporate responsibility. The conference report includes our committee's work to triple the civil penalties that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration can impose on automakers for a series of related safety violations-- from a cap of $35 million to a cap of $105 million--which should provide a much stronger deterrent against auto safety violations like those that occurred in the case of the faulty ignition switches at General Motors. I am also pleased that the conference report includes the Motor Vehicle Whistleblower Safety Act, which I introduced with Ranking Member Nelson and others to incentivize auto companies to adopt internal reporting systems and establish a system to reward employees who ``blow the whistle'' when manufacturers sit on important safety information. The conference report also improves notification methods to ensure that consumers are made aware of open recalls. The new notification requirements include a provision incentivizing dealers to inform consumers of open recalls when they bring in their cars for routine maintenance, as well as a grant program to allow States to notify consumers of recalls when they register their vehicles. Our committee also worked with the House Energy and Commerce Committee during the conference process to incorporate a modified provision from my Democrat colleague, the senior Senator from Missouri, which will prevent rental car companies from renting unrepaired cars that are subject to a recall. In the wake of the recall over the GM ignition switch defect, the inspector general at the Department of Transportation published a scathing report identifying serious lapses at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration--or NHTSA--the government agency responsible for overseeing safety in our Nation's cars and trucks. The concerns raised included questions about the agency's ability to properly identify and investigate safety problems--a concern that is further underscored by the circumstances surrounding the Takata recalls. In addition to targeting violations by automakers, our portion of the highway bill also addresses the lapses at NHTSA identified in the inspector general's report. While the conference report does increase funding for NHTSA's Office of Defects Investigation, that will only happen contingent on the agency's implementation of reforms called for by the inspector general, ensuring that this agency will be in a better position to address vehicle safety problems in the future. Combating impaired driving is also a priority. I am pleased to announce that the conference report creates a grant for States that provide 24/7 sobriety programs. I have been a long-time champion of these programs, which have been very effective in States, like my home State of South Dakota, where it originated. This provision is intended to allow States to certify the general practice on minimum penalties which can meet the definition under the repeat offender law, and we expect that NHTSA should reasonably defer to a State's analysis underpinning such a certification. Another significant portion of the final conference report is made up of a bipartisan rail safety bill put together by the Republican junior Senator from Mississippi and the Democrat junior Senator from New Jersey that we merged in conference with the passenger rail bill that the House passed earlier this year. The resulting passenger rail title includes a 5-year reauthorization of Amtrak that includes a host of safety provisions that our committee adopted following the tragic train derailment in Philadelphia. I know a number of my colleagues are very pleased with various provisions that will strengthen our Nation's rail infrastructure and smooth the way for the implementation of new safety technologies. Our transportation infrastructure keeps our economy--and our Nation-- going. Our Nation's farmers depend on our rail system to move their crops to market. Manufacturers rely on our Interstate Highway System to distribute their goods to stores across the United States. And all of us depend on our Nation's roads and bridges to get around every day. For too long, transportation has been the subject of short-term legislation that leaves those responsible for building and maintaining our Nation's transportation system without the certainty and predictability they need to keep our roads and highways thriving. I am proud of the final conference report that passed the House earlier today by a strong vote of 359-65. I urge my colleagues to join in passing this long-overdue bill so it can be signed into law by the President without further delay. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the Commerce Committee's related provision be printed in the Record.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, you just heard my colleague from Missouri talk about many of the things that could be used to replace ObamaCare. There were a lot of ideas that make sense when it comes to health care in this country, that put patients and consumers more in charge of their health care decisions, and that create more competition and allow market forces out there to work to drive health care prices down, which is the exact opposite of what we have with ObamaCare. For those who suggest there aren't other ideas out there, you just heard the Senator from Missouri go through a quite lengthy list of ideas that could be incorporated into a replacement for what has been a disastrous piece of legislation for the American people. The reason for that is because after 5 years now, one thing has become abundantly clear; that is, ObamaCare just isn't working. It flat isn't working. It is not lowering premiums, it is not reducing health care costs, and it is not protecting access to doctors or hospitals. Instead, Americans are paying more for their premiums. The average cost of a family health care plan has risen to $17,545 a year up from $13,770 in 2010. That is nearly $4,000 a year in additional costs that the typical family in this country is having to contend with. In addition to paying higher premiums, Americans with job-based insurance are also facing increased deductibles. The situation is also bad on the ObamaCare exchanges. Premiums on the exchanges will rise once again this year, with many Americans facing rate increases in the double digits. Then there are the tax increases Americans are facing as a result of the law. While the Obama administration did its best to hide the true costs of the law, the truth is ObamaCare implements almost a dozen new taxes to the tune of $1 trillion. American families are going to face an average of $20,000 more in taxes over the next 10 years thanks to ObamaCare. Now, I could go on. I could talk about the failing co-ops, the failed exchanges, the taxpayer dollars the law has wasted and much, much more. But today I would like to take just a few minutes to talk about the people behind those statistics--the individual Americans who are struggling under the tremendous burden ObamaCare has imposed. Over the past 5 years I have received numerous letters from constituents sharing the pain ObamaCare has caused them. I want to highlight just a few of the most recent. I had a constituent of mine from Hill City, SD, write to tell me: My premium is going from $624.16 a month to $1,054.42 per month, an increase of 68.93 percent. My wife's premium is going from $655.70 to $1,083.41 per month, an increase of 65.23 percent. I was under the assumption that the new Affordable Health Care Act was to be just that, affordable. How can a yearly bill of $25,653.96 be affordable to a retired couple? That is from a constituent in Hill City, SD. Another constituent in Aberdeen, SD, wrote to share a similar story: We just received our rate increase for our family health insurance. We have been paying $1,283.81 a month and the $557.45 increase will bring it up to $1,841.26. This amount has gone from 26 percent to 37 percent of our income. . . . After having insurance coverage for the past 38 years, we are faced with dropping coverage, which is ironic since that is not the purpose of the Affordable Care Act. We are considering dropping insurance and facing the penalty just so we can continue to live in our house, pay the bills, and buy groceries. Another constituent from Redfield, SD, wrote to tell me: My current monthly premium is $863.12. The monthly change in my premium is $470.67, making my monthly premium a hefty sum of $1,333.79. I think this is outrageous. Again, this is from a constituent in Redfield, SD. She continues to say: I know I am not the only one facing such enormous premium increases. My son, who is married and has two small children, received notice that his monthly premium will increase $495, making his monthly premium $1,571. Well, unfortunately, she and her son are far from the only ones to face such enormous premium increases. A constituent in Sioux Falls, SD, is facing a 50-percent premium increase. The premium of a Deadwood constituent is increasing by 47 percent. A constituent in Milbank is facing a 62-percent premium increase. As I mentioned above, a constituent in Hill City is facing an increase of almost 69 percent. More than one constituent has written to tell me that his health insurance costs more than his mortgage payment--more than a mortgage payment. One constituent told me she and her husband would have to pay 60 percent of their income to insure themselves and their four children--60 percent of their income. Think about that. If any more evidence was needed to demonstrate ObamaCare has failed, that should be sufficient. The Affordable Care Act may have been a well-intentioned law, but it has failed to achieve its objective. Not only has it failed to make health care more affordable, but it has actually driven up health care prices to unthinkable levels for far too many Americans. South Dakota families cannot afford 50-percent premium increases or health insurance payments that are double their mortgage payments. No family can afford that--no family anyplace in the country. It is time for Democrats to stop defending this broken law and to work with Republicans to repeal it and to begin building a bridge to real health care reform for hard-working families across the country. The legislation before us today would do just that. It would give us that opportunity to move away from a health care plan that has failed, that has led to higher premiums and higher deductibles and higher copays and higher out-of-pocket costs and constructed networks where you can't get access to the same providers you perhaps could in the past. So the whole idea that if you like your health care, you can keep it is just not reflected in reality for most Americans. The promises that were made have been broken. This health care law is a failed law. We can do much better by the American people, if we have that opportunity, but it starts with repealing this bad law and starting over and putting in place a health care system for this country that creates more affordable, more accessible health care for more Americans. I hope our colleagues here in the Senate will join together on both sides of the aisle and repeal this bad law. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I am pleased to support S. Res. 323, a resolution I submitted today along with Senator Schumer, Senator Stabenow, and Senator Roberts, which expresses the sense of the Senate that Congress should recognize the benefits of charitable giving and express support for the designation of today, December 1, 2015, as #GivingTuesday. Celebrated annually since 2012 on the Tuesday after Black Friday and Cyber Monday, #GivingTuesday kicks off the holiday giving season with a global day dedicated to charitable giving through a social movement that encourages giving in all its forms by people and communities across the country. From the first year of #GivingTuesday, when more than 2,500 organizations from all 50 States came together to celebrate giving, to today, when more than 35,000 partners in the United States and around the world will participate, this movement has provided an annual opportunity for the country to come together to honor the long American history of giving back and working together. I would also like to recognize #GivingTuesday for its power to enact positive change and promote causes that further progress and prosperity for a better world, while also enabling local communities to meet specific needs. In my State of South Dakota, for example, many local organizations have already endorsed #GivingTuesday. Feeding South Dakota, located in Pierre, Rapid City, and Sioux Falls, is participating through numerous food programs and fundraisers with the ultimate goal of eliminating hunger entirely in my state. Likewise, the United Way & Volunteer Services of Greater Yankton is participating through a book drive that benefits local children as part of the Big Red Bookshelf program, and through financial support that will be used for the Connecting Kids Youth Scholarship program. The success of #GivingTuesday further highlights the work of the American charitable community, which boasts 1.5 million nonprofits, philanthropic organizations, and religious congregations dedicated to improving lives and strengthening communities. These charitable organizations employ 13.7 million workers, or nearly 10 percent of the U.S. workforce, with an additional 63 million people engaged in volunteer work. In all, more than 60 percent of Americans, including 84 percent of millennials, make financial contributions to support the work of nonprofit organizations. As we just gave thanks last week surrounded by friends and family, it is abundantly clear that we have much to be thankful for. I hope that my colleagues will join me to continue that spirit of giving and sharing, and support #GivingTuesday.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, 5 years ago, days after President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law, the senior Democratic Senator from New York went on ``Meet the Press'' to discuss the bill. He told the host: ``Well, I think as people learn about the bill, and now that the bill is enacted, it's going to become more and more popular.'' I don't need to tell anyone that never happened. Five years after ObamaCare was enacted, a majority of Americans disapproved the law, and that is a pattern we have seen since the law's passage. Why has the law failed to earn the support Democrats predicted? For one simple reason: The law is just not working as President Obama promised it would. The Affordable Care Act was supposed to lower health care premiums. It didn't. It was supposed to reduce health care costs. It didn't. It was supposed to protect the health care plans that Americans wanted to keep. It didn't. The law was sold as a health care solution, but it turned out to be yet another health care problem. Five years after the law's passage, here is where we are: Americans with job-based insurance are paying more for their health care, with the average employee seeing a $400 increase in his or her deductible since 2010. Small business employees have fared even worse, with average deductibles now close to $2,000. And Americans are paying more for their premiums as well. An average annual premium contribution for family coverage is currently $12,591, up from $9,773 in 2010. That is nearly $3,000 in additional premium costs or another $250 a month. For many families, that comes on top of an increase in their deductible. Meanwhile, thousands of part-time workers have lost their job-based insurance thanks to ObamaCare mandates that encouraged several large employers to stop offering health benefits to part-time employees. The situation with the exchanges is no better. Exchange premiums will rise once again this year, with many Americans facing rate increases in the double digits. Over the past few months, I have heard from numerous constituents wondering how they will be able to afford the massive premium increases they are facing. One constituent in Wessington, SD, wrote to tell me that her and her husband's health care plan is going from $17,194 this year to a staggering $25,370 next year. That is an annual increase of more than $8,000. What family can afford an $8,000 increase in expenses from one year to the next? Another constituent of mine wrote to tell me this: We just received our rate increase for our family health insurance. We have been paying $1,283 a month and the $557.45 increase will bring it up to $1,841.26. This amount has gone from 26 percent to 37 percent of our income. It is over twice of our house payment. . . . After having insurance coverage for the past 38 years, we are faced with dropping coverage, which is ironic since that is not the purpose of the Affordable Care Act. We are considering dropping insurance and facing the penalty just so we can continue to live in our house, pay our bills, and buy groceries. That is from a constituent of mine in South Dakota. I have received far too many letters like these from individuals who are facing enormous premium increases. Another constituent wrote to me and said they are facing a 69-percent premium increase--69 percent. She and her husband are facing a $22,884 insurance bill. She could buy a brand-new car for less than that. So it is no surprise that a recent survey from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation found that nearly 80 percent of uninsured Americans who have looked for insurance report that they cannot find or cannot afford to buy health insurance. The grim reality for millions of Americans is that the Affordable Care Act is anything but affordable. Unfortunately, higher health care costs are just one of the problems with this law. ObamaCare has already reduced Americans' health care choices. Faced with expensive ObamaCare mandates, insurance companies have chosen one of the few methods left to them to control costs, and that is restricting consumers' choice of doctors and hospitals. Americans were promised they could keep the doctor they liked, but for many Americans, that is not true. Then there are the taxes imposed by the law. Because the administration did its best to hide the true cost of ObamaCare, many Americans don't realize that the law hiked taxes by $1 trillion. In fact, the law imposed almost a dozen new taxes, including an annual tax on health insurance that is passed on to consumers in the form of higher premiums, a tax increase on flexible spending accounts and health savings accounts, and a tax on wages and self-employment income. President Obama promised not to raise taxes on those making less than $250,000, but, as we all know, he broke that promise many times over when ObamaCare was signed into law. Many of these taxes directly impact low- and middle-income families. Additionally, the law's tax on the makers of lifesaving medical devices, such as pacemakers and insulin pumps, which went into effect in 2013, has already eliminated jobs in the medical device industry and driven up the price of essential medical equipment. The medical device industry is not the only industry in which ObamaCare is costing jobs. ObamaCare's requirement that employers provide their workers with government-approved insurance or pay a tax has made employing full-time workers more costly, which has discouraged employers from hiring. Workers in the retail and restaurant industries, many of them younger, less skilled workers, have been hit particularly hard. In all, the Congressional Budget Office has predicted that ObamaCare will result in the equivalent of 2 million fewer full-time jobs in 2017 and 2.5 million fewer full-time jobs by 2024. That is not good news for our already sluggish economy. All Americans remember the President's claim that under ObamaCare, ``If you like your plan, you can keep it''--a claim that was named, interestingly enough, PolitiFact's ``Lie of the Year'' in 2013 after ObamaCare eliminated the health care plans of 4 million Americans. Now hundreds of thousands of Americans will be losing their ObamaCare health care plan after a number of the health insurance co-ops established under the law proved unsustainable. In all, 12 of the 23 health care co-ops established by the President's health care law have collapsed, resulting in the loss of billions in taxpayer dollars, in addition to the loss of Americans' health plans. Taxpayers have also lost more than $1 billion spent on failed or failing State exchanges, such as the failed exchanges in the States of Oregon, Hawaii, Vermont, Maryland, and Massachusetts. Four years after telling ``Meet the Press'' that ObamaCare would become ``more and more popular,'' the senior Senator from New York admitted that the Democrats had made a strategic error by focusing on ObamaCare. Americans, he admitted, were ``crying out for an end to the recession, for better wages and more jobs; not for changes in their health care.'' The senior Senator from New York is right. Americans didn't want ObamaCare then, and they certainly don't want it now. ObamaCare is broken, and Americans know it. It is time to repeal this law and start moving toward the kind of health care reform Americans are actually looking for: an affordable, accountable, patient-focused system that gives individuals control of their health care decisions. This week the Senate will take up a repeal bill that will begin the process of lifting the burdens ObamaCare has placed on Americans. I look forward to debating the bill and working with my colleagues to begin building a bridge to a better health care system for hard-working families across the country. It is time to give the American people the real health care reform they deserve. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, today I recognize Seth Gerberding, an intern in my Washington, DC, office for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota. Seth is a graduate of Sturgis Brown High School in Sturgis, SD. Seth is planning on attending college next fall and majoring in math or political science. Seth is a dedicated worker who has been committed to getting the most out of his experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Seth Gerberding for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, today I recognize Caroline Crinion, an intern in my Washington, DC, office for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota. Caroline is a graduate of Brookings High School in Brookings, SD. Currently, Caroline is attending Georgetown University, where she is majoring in international political economy. Caroline is a dedicated worker who has been committed to getting the most out of her experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Caroline Crinion for all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, today I recognize Mary Wright, an intern in my Washington, DC, office for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota. Mary is a graduate of Walt Whitman High School in Bethesda, MD. Currently, Mary is attending the University of Maryland, where she is majoring in communications. Mary is a dedicated worker who has been committed to getting the most out of her experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Mary Wright for all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, today I recognize Mackenzie Baker, an intern in my Washington, DC, office for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota. Mackenzie is a graduate of Augusta Preparatory Day School in Augusta, GA. Currently, Mackenzie is attending American University, where she is a business and entertainment major. Mackenzie is a dedicated worker who has been committed to getting the most out of her experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Mackenzie Baker for all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, it is a great honor for me to be able to welcome to the Senate today our pastor from Sioux Falls, SD, Jeff Wheeler, who just offered our invocation this morning, and to express how much Kimberley and I have appreciated the opportunity to worship and to benefit from his ministry. We enjoy and are blessed by his teaching each and every single week when we are back home in South Dakota. His ministry has and continues to impact people all across our community, across our State, and across our region. He and his wife Shirlene are with us today in the Senate, and on behalf of myself and my colleagues, we extend the warmest welcome and appreciate the great work he does in serving the Lord in South Dakota and across our country. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, for the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I wish to begin by echoing the condolences shared by millions around the world regarding last week's attacks in Paris. Our thoughts and prayers go out to the families and loved ones of those who died. As a nation, we remain committed to supporting and defending the people of France in whatever way we can. The attacks in Paris last week remind us again of the dangerous world in which we live. Although Paris has become the focus of attention, the day before the attacks in France, two ISIS suicide bombers in Beirut blew themselves up, killing 40 people in a bustling urban area. Our thoughts and prayers go out to the people in Beirut and to all those who have suffered loss at the hands of this horrific terrorist organization. ISIS remains one of the most brutal and indiscriminate terrorist organizations in recent history. Its campaign of violence is not limited to a specific region, nationality or religion. As the events in Paris have shown us, the threat posed by ISIS reaches well beyond the borders of Iraq and Syria. If it can, ISIS will spread its campaign of violence to innocent people all over the world. The United States, as a champion of freedom and democracy, has a duty to stand up against ISIS's brand of radical Islam and stomp it out wherever it exists. ISIS represents a clear and present danger to the American people and our allies and it must be stopped. President Obama, when asked about ISIS the day before the Paris attacks, made the following statement. He said: I don't think they're gaining strength. . . . From the start our goal has been first to contain, and we have contained them. ``We have contained them.'' Those were his words. Unfortunately, ISIS does not appear to be contained. My colleague from California, the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, responded this week by saying: I've never been more concerned. I read the intelligence faithfully. ISIL is not contained. ISIL is expanding. Yet yesterday President Obama, unbelievably, doubled down on this failing strategy by stating: ``We have the right strategy and we're going to see it through. . . . '' And when referring to the Paris attacks, he called them a ``setback.'' Based on the number of casualties and population of France, this attack was the equivalent of a 9/11. I would hardly call such an attack a mere ``setback.'' When it comes to the U.S. strategy against ISIS, one thing is clear: ISIS cannot simply be contained. ISIS must be defeated. From what we have learned so far, most of the terrorists involved in last week's Paris attack were individuals who already resided in France and Belgium. That means these are individuals who became radicalized at home, received training or support from ISIS, and in some cases traveled to Iraq or Syria for training and then returned to France to carry out these attacks. Since ISIS first occupied territory in Iraq and Syria and began recruiting foreign fighters, the possibility of these combatants returning home has been a concern to the United States and to our allies, and this attack in Paris demonstrates the validity of that concern. As a nation we must remain vigilant in defending our homeland against this type of attack by radicalized individuals holding U.S. or European passports. I also wish to speak for a moment about the Syrian refugee crisis because it ties into everything that has happened in that region of the world. As we are all aware, the regime of Bashar al-Assad is responsible for the civil war in Syria that allowed ISIS to gain a foothold and to expand. Assad used chemical weapons on his own people and hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost as a result of the conflict he created. It is completely understandable that the peace- loving people of that country want out. Just this week, several of my colleagues sent a letter to President Obama expressing concerns about the possibility of ISIS infiltrating the Syrian refugee population and asking what is being done to thoroughly vet these refugees. Over half the Governors in this Nation have stated they don't want Syrian refugees resettled in their States. I share their concerns. The United States should not accept Syrian refugees as long as there is a threat posed by ISIS. If we cannot be 100 percent certain that additional refugees from Syria do not put Americans at risk, the President's plan to accept up to 10,000 additional refugees this year should be rejected. If the President tries to act unilaterally, Congress should cut off funding to prevent the President from taking any action that would put the American people at risk. If we are going to be serious about solving the Syrian refugee crisis, the answer is not deciding which countries are accepting how many refugees, the answer is to defeat ISIS and remove Basher al-Assad from power so the peace-loving people of Syria can return home. On that point, I want to speak about a realistic strategy for defeating ISIS. So far the United States has relied almost entirely on airstrikes. Prior to the attacks in Paris, France was already the coalition partner conducting the second greatest number of airstrikes against ISIS. Those airstrikes have been ramped up in recent days, but this is not a fundamental shift in our strategy. Airstrikes are important, but ultimately they cannot be a solution in and of themselves. It was President Obama's politically motivated decision to withdraw troops from Iraq that ultimately led to ISIS expanding into Iraq to begin with. President Obama stated yesterday that boots on the ground would be a mistake, but it was his decision to withdraw U.S. troops that is partially responsible for creating this problem, and now we are at a point where retaking territory from ISIS will require ground forces. There is no way around it. If President Obama is going to be realistic about defeating ISIS, he needs to form a coalition capable of taking the war to ISIS on the ground. That does not require the United States committing ground troops, but it does require the United States leading by example and forming a coalition capable of fighting both in the air and on the ground. The President needs to stop talking about containment and start acting on a strategy that will root out and defeat ISIS wherever it can be found. I thank the Presiding Officer and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, Americans have had a tough time during the Obama administration with a sluggish economic recovery that is barely worthy of the name, stagnant wages for middle-class families, a health care law that ripped away millions of Americans' preferred health care plans, and burdensome regulations that have made it more challenging for businesses, large and small, to grow and create jobs. One Agency has done more than its fair share to make things difficult for Americans, and that is the Obama EPA. During the course of the Obama administration, this Agency has implemented one damaging rule after another--from a massive national backdoor energy tax that threatens hundreds of thousands of jobs to unrealistic new ozone standards that have the potential to devastate State economies. Reputed rebukes from various Federal courts have done little to check the EPA's enthusiasm for crippling, job-destroying regulations. This week, the Senate is taking up legislation introduced by my colleague from Wyoming Senator Barrasso to address one of the EPA's biggest overreaches--the so-called waters of the United States regulation. The EPA has long had authority under the Clean Water Act to regulate ``navigable waters,'' such as rivers, lakes, and major waterways. The inclusion of the term ``navigable'' in the Clean Water Act was deliberate. It was deliberate. The reason it was put there is because Congress intended to put limits--real limits--on the Federal Government's authority to regulate water and to leave the regulation of smaller bodies of water to the States. Defining the waters to be regulated as navigable waters ensured that the Federal Government's authority would be limited to bodies of water of substantial size and would not infringe on minor bodies of water on private land, but over the last few years it became clear the EPA was eager to expand its reach. The waters of the United States regulation, which the EPA finalized this year, expands the EPA's regulatory authority to waters such as small wetlands, creeks, stock ponds, and ditches--bodies of water that certainly don't fit the definition of ``navigable.'' It specifically targets the prairie pothole region, which covers five States, including nearly all of eastern South Dakota. If we look at this chart, this is something that is a very normal landscape in South Dakota. It is a field that one would see in South Dakota, and of course when it gets some rain, some of the low-lying areas get a little water in them, but this is basically a puddle. If we look at what the regulation would do to the way in which farmers and ranchers manage and are able to use their lands for production agriculture, it has some profound impacts. We are not talking about lakes and rivers. We are talking about small, isolated ponds that ranchers use to water their cattle or prairie potholes that are dry for most of the year but do collect some water after heavy rains and snows along the lines of what we see in this photo. Under this regulation, even dry creekbeds could be subject to the EPA's regulatory authority. That is how far-reaching this regulation is. Let me talk about that authority for just a minute. When we talk about a body of water coming under the EPA's regulatory authority, we are not talking about having to follow a couple of basic rules and regulations. Waters that come under the EPA's jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act are subject to a complex array of expensive and burdensome regulatory requirements, including permitting and reporting requirements, enforcement, mitigation, and citizen suits. Fines for failing to comply with any of these requirements and regulations, such as the one that is now being filed by the EPA, can accumulate at the rate of $37,500 per day. Under the EPA's new waters of the United States rule, creeks and ditches would be subject to this complex array of regulations. The irrigation ditches in a farmer's cornfield, for example--ditches where the water level rarely exceeds a couple of inches--would be subject to extensive regulatory requirements, including costly permits and time- consuming reports. Needless to say, these kinds of requirements will hit farmers and ranchers hard. Agriculture is a time-sensitive business, and these types of requirements would strain a farmer's ability to fertilize, plant, and irrigate their crops when the seasons and weather conditions dictate. Farmers can't afford to wait for a Federal permit before carrying out basic land and resource management decisions. I have received numerous letters from South Dakota farmers and ranchers, as well as local governments, expressing their concern with the EPA's new rule. One constituent writes: We live in Deuel County, South Dakota, where we raise cattle and plant wheat, alfalfa, corn, and soybeans. . . . Our land consists of rolling hills and many shallow low spots. . . . According to the new rules, our entire farm would be under the jurisdiction of the EPA. . . . That same constituent goes on to say: Mandatory laws by the EPA are just wrong and are often written and enforced by someone who has never lived or worked on a farm and doesn't understand how the forces of nature cannot be dictated. The weather is often extreme, and we must work with it. . . . Under this rule, it will be more difficult to farm and ranch, or make changes to the land even if those changes would benefit the environment. That is from a constituent from my State of South Dakota. Another constituent, also from my home State, said: [O]ur business is going to be put into acute peril if the EPA is not stopped. . . . By removing the word ``navigable'' from the Clean Water Act, they will be in control of EVERY drop of water in the United States, which is disastrous for those of us engaged in farming and ranching. This is from the Pennington County Board of Commissioners in South Dakota. Pennington County is the second largest county and home to our second largest city, Rapid City. They wrote: In addition to tourism, agriculture is a critical piece of our local economy. . . . This proposal would cause significant hardships to local farmers and ranchers by taking away local control of the land uses. The costs to the local agricultural community would be enormous. This would lead to food and cattle prices increasing significantly. The board also warned: If stormwater costs significantly increased due to this proposed rule, not only will it impact our ability to focus our available resources on real, priority water quality issues, but it may also require funds to be diverted from other government services that we are required to provide such as law enforcement, fire protection services, etc. I have received letter after letter like these from farmers, ranchers, business owners, and local governments across my State, and they are not alone. Concern is high across all of the United States. That is why 31 States have filed lawsuits against the EPA's regulations, as have a number of industry groups. The courts have already granted them some temporary relief. Last month, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals expanded an earlier injunction and blocked implementation of the EPA's rule in all 50 States, but a final decision of the courts could be years away. To protect Americans affected by this rule from years of litigation and uncertainty, this week the Senate is taking up the Federal Water Quality Protection Act, introduced by Senator Barrasso, which would require the EPA to return to the drawing board and write a new waters of the United States rule in consultation with States, local governments, agricultural producers, and small businesses. It seems only fitting that you actually ought to consult with the people who are impacted by this. If that had happened, maybe there wouldn't be 31 States that have already filed lawsuits against the Federal Government, and maybe we wouldn't have all of these local governments, agricultural producers, small businesses, homeowners, and developers that are mortified about the impact this will have on them. In my time in Washington, I have never seen an issue that has so galvanized opposition all across the country. Sometimes there might be an issue that might affect a specific area or industry sector in our economy, such as agriculture. We talk a lot about those issues in my State because this is our No. 1 industry, but there is rarely an issue which generates opposition from so many sectors of our economy. That is how far-reaching this regulation is. Arguably, this is the largest Federal land grab in our Nation's history. What the legislation also does is explicitly prohibits the EPA from counting things like ditches, isolated ponds, and storm water as navigable waters that it can regulate under the Clean Water Act. It takes away these things we are talking about--the stock ponds, ditches, and frankly the puddles--from areas that the EPA can assert its jurisdiction in and regulate. Everybody agrees on the importance of clean water. Farmers in my State depend on it, and the legislation we are considering today will ensure that the EPA retains the authority to make sure our lakes and rivers are clean and pollutant-free. Members of both parties should be able to agree that allowing the EPA to regulate what frequently amounts to seasonal puddles is taking things a step too far. The cost of this rule will be steep, and its burdens will be significant, impacting those who have an inherent interest in properly managing their water to protect their livelihoods and health. Back in March, a bipartisan group of 59 Senators voted to limit the EPA's waters of the United States power grab, and 3 Democratic Senators are cosponsors of the legislation before us today. It is my hope that more will join us to protect farmers, ranchers, small businesses, and homeowners from the consequences of the EPA's dangerous new rule. Americans have suffered enough under the Obama EPA. It is time to start reining in this out-of-control bureaucracy. I hope we will have a big bipartisan vote today in support of the legislation before the Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator from Kansas, who is the distinguished chairman of the agriculture committee, on which I serve, as well as the leader and the whip in the Senate. I rise in support as well of restoring what would be some very devastating cuts to an important program, the crop insurance program. The cuts were supposed to be imposed by the budget agreement that was reached and that we are going to be voting on later today. Crop insurance plays a critical role in supporting South Dakota agriculture. It is my State's No. 1 industry. Crop losses due to drought, wind, hail, and excessive moisture provide the greatest challenges to economic survival and sustainability in production agriculture. Crop insurance provides the only viable risk management tool to meet those challenges. So it is imperative that we preserve crop insurance and maintain its viability. I support the agreement that has been discussed on the floor today. I will work with the leader, the chairman, my Senate colleagues, and my colleague from South Dakota, Senator Rounds, who has been involved in these discussions, to make sure we find a reasonable alternative to the unworkable cuts to crop insurance that are found in section 201 of the Bipartisan Budget Act. I thank the majority leader, the whip, and the chairman of our agriculture committee for their commitment to our farming families and rural economies across this great country. I also thank those who have worked in the House to come to a point where we can have this discussion and move forward in a way that will preserve what is a very important program for production agriculture in this country. I ask the chairman of the agriculture committee, Senator Roberts, through the Presiding Officer, if the House has reached a similar agreement in terms of the discussion that we are having in the Senate today.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, the one thing the Senator from California and I share is a commitment, a longstanding commitment to getting a multiyear highway bill through here. I hope that is going to happen in the next few weeks. We did need to move on a positive train control extension, and I am going to get into the reasons for that in just a minute. I think probably the most important fact is, as we look at this particular issue, that nearly every railroad in the country--including every major freight railroad--will not meet what is an unrealistic December 31, 2015, deadline for positive train control. Positive train control--or PTC--when working as intended, is a critical safety technology that will prevent certain types of rail accidents and save lives. We have the ability to make rail transportation even safer by ensuring full implementation of positive train control. As the chairman of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, I can assure my colleagues that these disruptions would have caused cascading and devastating effects for nearly every sector of the economy and every region of the country. Railroads have already started notifying customers that they will stop accepting certain chemical shipments in late November and early December to ensure that such cargoes are off their system when the existing deadline hits at the end of the year. As rail-dependent businesses and their customers prepare for the shutdown, they have already started to feel the negative supply chain effects on logistics and inventory management. The House-passed short- term highway extension provided an option to avert this completely avoidable and unnecessary harm. This is not just about the railroads--contrary to what has been said on the floor that somehow this is a special benefit that only helps railroads. It is about the farmers--many of whom I represent in South Dakota--who depend upon the railroad for fertilizer. It is about the manufacturers and other businesses that depend upon rail for critical inputs, and it is about water treatment facilities that depend on rail for chemicals to purify drinking water. It is about all the workers and the households that benefit from this safe mode of transportation. Rail-dependent commuters and customers cannot afford a congressionally caused railroad shutdown. That is exactly what would happen if we failed to act. Each day well over 1 million riders in the United States board commuter railroads to get to and from their places of work. Over 2 million people work in industries that use hazardous chemicals hauled by rail, and the gross economic output of these industries alone is over $2 trillion. In fact, the effects of a looming railroad shutdown would have occurred well in advance of the year-end deadline, which is where we are today. Over 130 farmers, manufacturers, and retailers wrote to Congress last week, stating that ``rail customers are already starting to feel the impact . . . [w]ith a shutdown just around the corner rail customers must start putting contingency plans into motion, including adjusting production schedules and workforce loads.'' This isn't just an economic issue. It has major implications for public health and safety. I mentioned earlier water treatment facilities across this country have urged a deadline extension and wrote a joint letter to me reiterating that point. I will quote from the letter, which is what they said: ``Even a temporary interruption of water disinfection chemical deliveries could risk a public health disaster for communities across this country.'' The U.S. Conference of Mayors also urged a deadline extension and wrote that switching from rail to other modes of transportation would lead to additional accidents in our Nation's communities and greater exposure to the risks of hazardous materials. The Federal Railroad Administration's Acting Administrator, whom we just made permanent Railroad Administration Administrator, has the responsibility for conducting oversight of our Nation's rail network, and she expressed concern at a September commerce committee hearing. She said a rail shutdown would ``lead to significant congestion and it does lead to safety impacts.'' Keep in mind, total train accidents per year have decreased by nearly 50 percent since 2005. Rail is often the safest available way to haul many types of products, especially hazardous chemicals. It would take more than 600,000 trucks on our Nation's roads to replace freight rail, let alone the additional cars and buses needed to replace commuter rail. When Congress passed legislation in 2008 mandating the implementation of positive train control, it never intended to punish rail customers or to harm the economy, but this law failed to properly consider the complexity and time involved in developing, mass producing, installing, and testing a new technology involving a complex network of new computers and communications equipment deployed on more than 20,000 locomotives and 60,000 miles of railroad track. There is plenty of finger-pointing to go around as to why it didn't get done. The bottom line is this: After 7 years of work, over $6 billion of mostly private funds spent, and with about 2 months to go before the legal deadline, not one single railroad in this country-- commuter or freight--has fully implemented positive train control. For years, study after study, including those from the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, found that the 2015 deadline for full implementation of PTC was unrealistic. The independent experts at the GAO concluded that the vast majority of railroads, including all freight railroads, would not meet the deadline by the end of the year. I am pleased the Senate came together and acted on a solution. The bipartisan, bicameral proposal I helped craft does not just extend the deadline for implementing positive train control, it significantly increases accountability and transparency. Our proposal gives the Secretary of Transportation the authority to fine railroads if they fall behind metrics and milestones on their way to completing installation and full implementation. It requires detailed and publicly available reporting to ensure progress each step of the way. Under our bipartisan proposal, railroads must implement positive train control by December 31, 2018. To ensure that PTC works as intended, the Secretary has very limited case-by-case discretion to allow railroads additional time for testing and certification but only if railroads complete all installation, spectrum acquisition, and employee training. To qualify for this additional time, freight railroads must have started using PTC on the majority of their territories or track. These accountability-focused changes, with objective criteria and rigorous oversight, are designed to ensure that we never need another extension. I wish to extend my thanks to our colleagues on the House side-- Representatives Schuster, DeFazio, Denham, and Capuano--for their strong bipartisan leadership and collaboration to address this major transportation issue. This issue has been extensively debated in the Senate. This proposal incorporates principles and text that have twice been reported out of the commerce committee and have passed the full Senate in July by a vote of 65 to 34. Let me repeat that. Everything we are talking about today--and it was modified a little bit when we negotiated this with the House--but the basic text, basic framework, basic outline of what we just passed had already passed the Senate as part of the Transportation bill with 65 votes earlier this year. The idea that this is somehow something that is being sprung on Members in the Senate is not consistent with the facts. I am grateful to Senator Blunt and Senator McCaskill for their partnership and leadership to bring Congress together to ensure that PTC is made safely available as soon as possible. Some have suggested different ways to approaching this issue. At a time when we are making progress to finally end the kick-the-can mentality through the enactment of a multiyear transportation reauthorization bill, this proposal will ensure that we are not injecting that same type of uncertainty into another transportation mode, which is our Nation's rail system. Attaching the bipartisan agreement on extending the PTC deadline as part of the short-term highway extension solves this problem while keeping pressure on the House of Representatives to pass a multiyear transportation bill that we can then reconcile with the Senate-passed DRIVE Act, the multiyear transportation bill that passed in this Chamber earlier this year. I wish to applaud Leader McConnell, Chairman Inhofe, Ranking Member Boxer, and Ranking Member Nelson for their continued efforts to push for the completion of a multiyear transportation reauthorization bill. Due to constant pressure from the Senate, as was noticed with last week's markup by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, we can actually see the path to getting a bill done with our House colleagues. The fact that the short-term extension before the Senate sets a November 20 deadline, along with the House planning to take up a multiyear transportation bill next week, indicates that it is, in fact, possible to soon get a multiyear transportation bill across the finish line. Nobody should misinterpret my work and my efforts with my colleagues here in the Senate in addressing the harms associated with failing to fix the looming positive train control deadline. As a major part of the overall DRIVE Act, the transportation bill that passed Senate, the legislative text originated from the Senate commerce committee, and I will not be backing down in my efforts to see a host of transportation, safety freight, and rail provisions signed into law in the coming weeks. Together we have averted the potential harm that would come with a congressionally caused rail shutdown. We have set a realistic positive train control deadline. We have held the railroads accountable and ensured the job is done swiftly and safely. It was important that be done in a swift and safe way. Earlier my colleague from California quoted a story from the Washington Post that ran earlier this week. The Washington Post editorial board, the very same paper that my colleague from California cited, opined: ``Congress should revise the 2008 legislation to give railroads more time to come into compliance, with consequences for those who fail to produce concrete plans for immediate improvement and meet milestones along the way.'' But the very newspaper that the Senator from California was quoting actually editorialized on their editorial page that Congress needed to fix and to put in place an extension that would allow the railroads to come into compliance. That was echoed by a lot of the large newspapers across the country. The Chicago Tribune's editorial board wrote: PTC is coming. It's just not coming fast enough to meet what was always an unrealistic deadline. So if your commute is a mess come January, don't blame Metra. Blame Congress. The Chicago Sun-Times editorial board opined: ``Congress should extend the deadline to give Metra and railroads a chance to get the job done.'' The Los Angeles Times editorial board wrote: ``Rather than risk a shutdown of crucial transportation services, Congress ought to fast- track a solution.'' The problem we had here is that we didn't have the luxury of time, and so the vehicle that came over from the House of Representatives, which is a short-term extension of the highway bill, presented a chance for us to address this issue knowing full well that it had to be addressed and that it had to be addressed in a timely way. We have railroads and shippers in this country, that, as I mentioned earlier, have already indicated they are modifying and adjusting their operations and plans right now and notifying customers of the impacts and effects of Congress failing to act in a timely way. The reason that this needed to be fixed now is that if we hadn't fixed it, we would have started to see the disruptions in our economy that would have come with a shutdown because, as I said, no railroad, to date, has been able to meet the positive train control deadline. We approached this in a way that we felt was reasonable, rational, logical, and kept the pressure on the railroads and required the accountability that is necessary to see this done in a realistic way. I think the end result that just passed the Senate is a good outcome and a good solution, not just for the railroads in this country but for the shippers, farmers, and States such as South Dakota that depend upon those railroads, for the commuters around this country who rely on that form of transportation every day to get to work, and for the thousands and thousands and thousands of people who work in those railroad- related industries across this country. This is one example where Congress demonstrated that it actually could, in a timely way, act responsibly to bring about a solution that will avoid what surely would have been not only an economic disaster but a public safety disaster as well. I am pleased that our colleagues here in the Senate found a way to approve this today, and I hope, as I said before, that we will continue to keep the heat on to get a multiyear transportation bill through the House and the Senate with this short-term extension through November 20. It gives us a few weeks to complete action on that piece of legislation. But we didn't have the luxury of time nor could we afford to wait to act and to make sure that this positive train control extension was put in place in a timely way. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would state to my colleague from California that this is the practice she and I so often lament when it comes to highway bills, and that is kicking the can down the road. We know full well that a year from now, we will be back here doing this again. This language, which is agreed upon by both the House and the Senate--Democrats and Republicans of the relevant committees worked very hard to draft consensus language. That is what we have arrived at today. We believe it addresses the situation and provides the correct solution. I think it would be a big mistake to try to modify something that people have worked so hard to get to, knowing full well we will never get what the Senator from California wants to do passed through the House or the Senate. The House acted yesterday, and acted unanimously. Very rarely do you get a voice vote out of the House of Representatives. Democrats and Republicans in the House came together behind a solution that is incorporated into this base bill. With that, I object to the request of the Senator from California.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. I will request, through the Chair, if the Senator from Maine is not going to speak, that I be allowed to speak at the conclusion of the remarks of the Senator from California and the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, this week we have been discussing and taking up legislation to address the problem of sanctuary cities. In fact, just earlier today, we had a procedural vote on a motion to proceed to actually get on the bill. It failed. It only had 54 votes. The threshold in the Senate to get on a bill is 60 votes. Democrats here in the Senate decided to block consideration of this bill and to have that 60-vote threshold in play, and as a consequence, it failed. We had 54 votes. I think only two Democratic Senators voted to proceed to this legislation, and I would argue that is very unfortunate because this is a piece of legislation which represents common sense and what I think the American people want us to be focused on when it comes to the issue of dealing with crime in our communities and illegal immigration in a way that ensures that those who come to this country and commit crimes aren't allowed to stay here. According to the Department of Homeland Security, there are 334 jurisdictions across our country right now that have official policies discouraging cooperation with Federal immigration enforcement officers. Among other things, that means these jurisdictions regularly ignore what are called detainers, requests from the Department of Homeland Security to hold an individual for deportation. As a city prepares to release an illegal immigrant who has been convicted of or charged with a crime, the Department of Homeland Security will send a detainer asking that the individual be held for a brief period--usually 48 hours--until Federal immigration officers can take custody. In a majority of the cities across the country, law enforcement would simply comply with this request and hold the individual until the Department of Homeland Security can arrive, but in sanctuary cities officials regularly ignore these requests and simply release these individuals from jail and back into the population at large--a practice that has resulted in the release of approximately 1,000 undocumented criminals per month. According to information from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 9,295 imprisoned individuals whom Federal officials sought to deport were released into the population between January 1 and September 30 of last year. They released 9,295 imprisoned individuals in just 9 months. Of those 9,295 individuals, 5,947, or 62 percent, had a significant prior criminal history or presented a threat to public safety even before the arrest that preceded their release, and many went on to be arrested again within a short period of time. There is a terrible human cost to sanctuary cities' decision to refuse to cooperate with U.S. immigration law. There has been a lot of discussion on the floor about Kate Steinle. Kate Steinle paid that cost when she was murdered on a San Francisco pier while walking with her father on July 1, 2015. She was shot by an undocumented immigrant who had been convicted of no fewer than seven felonies--seven felonies-- prior to the decision of the city of San Francisco to ignore a request from the Department of Homeland Security and then go on and release this man into the population. Unfortunately, Kate Steinle is not alone. Marilyn Pharis of Santa Maria, CA, was raped and then bludgeoned by an undocumented immigrant who had previously been arrested for battery but had been released after the local sheriff's office decided to ignore a request to detain him until he could be taken into Federal custody. A 2-year-old California girl--a 2-year-old--was brutally beaten by her mother's boyfriend, an undocumented immigrant with felony drug and drunk driving convictions, who was released on bail after the crime despite a request from Federal officials that he be detained. In 2011, Dennis McCann was killed when he was hit and dragged by a car driven by a drunk driver with a blood alcohol content nearly four times the legal limit. His killer turned out to be Saul Chavez, an undocumented immigrant with a prior drunk driving conviction. After Dennis McCann's death, the Department of Homeland Security filed a request asking that Immigration and Customs Enforcement be notified if Chavez was scheduled to be released. Cook County, however, chose to ignore this request, and after being released on bail, Dennis's killer apparently fled the country. Four years later, Dennis's family is still waiting to see justice done. Unfortunately, I could go on and on. Decisions to release undocumented immigrants convicted of crimes, instead of detaining them for Federal officials, have resulted in far too many tragedies like those of Marilyn Pharis and Kate Steinle, and too many families in this country are mourning as a result. Cooperation between local and Federal law enforcement is essential to protecting Americans, and detainer requests from the Department of Homeland Security are a key tool that helps Federal officials make sure dangerous individuals are not going back onto our Nation's streets. When cities and counties ignore these requests, they force immigration officers to attempt to track down undocumented criminals after they have been released into the community. According to the Center for Immigration Studies, this requires an exponentially larger expenditure of funds and manpower and success is not guaranteed. Immigration and Customs Enforcement needs the support of cities and local law enforcement if it is going to keep these individuals off our Nation's streets. The legislation we have been discussing today would take a substantial step forward toward handling the threat posed by sanctuary cities. The Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act, which has strong support from law enforcement organizations and victims' families, will withhold Federal funds under three grant programs and redirect those funds to jurisdictions that comply with Federal immigration laws. It will also provide crucial legal protections to law enforcement officers that will allow them to cooperate with Federal immigration authorities without the fear of lawsuits. This act also incorporates provisions known as Kate's Law, named after Kate Steinle. These provisions would increase the maximum penalty for illegally reentering the United States after being deported and create a maximum penalty of 10 years for reentering the country illegally after being deported three or more times. Kate's Law would also create a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years for those reentering the country after having been convicted of an aggravated felony prior to deportation or for those who reenter the country after two previous convictions for illegal reentry. What happened to Kate Steinle on that pier in San Francisco should never have happened. It likely could have been prevented if San Francisco had chosen to respect the Department of Homeland Security's request to hold her killer until immigration officers could pick him up. I hope the stop sanctuary policies act will move forward in the Senate so we will be able to send a version of this legislation to the President. It is time we started ensuring that dangerous criminals like Kate Steinle's killer don't end up back on the streets. We have that opportunity today. We ought to vote to move to this bill. What is truly remarkable and amazing is that we couldn't even get on the bill to debate it. It was blocked by our colleagues on the other side who prevented even proceeding to the bill--a motion to proceed, which takes 60 votes in the Senate. It would have been very easy to get on the bill and at least have that debate. If they didn't like the provisions in the bill, they would have an opportunity to amend it and discuss the bill as we should be doing in the Senate, but instead the Democratic Senators chose to block the consideration, even the very consideration of legislation that would go to great lengths to try and prevent the types of tragedies we witnessed this last summer with Kate Steinle and so many others who have fallen prey to acts of violence by those who are here illegally and have prior experience with the law, prior convictions, and who are clear dangers to people and families all across this country. It is a tragedy we weren't able to get on the bill. I hope our Democratic colleagues will change their minds and allow us to proceed to this legislation, to debate it, to vote on it, to pass it, and to send it to the President for his signature. Cybersecurity Information Sharing Bill Mr. President, I also wish to speak in support of S. 754, which I think we will be discussing momentarily, the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act, or what is referred to as CISA, which the Senate is going to be debating this week. I commend Chairman Burr and Vice Chairman Feinstein for their bipartisan work to bring this bill to the floor. It seems that every week we learn of another serious cyber attack against U.S. businesses and government agencies. The most devastating recent attack is the one against the Office of Personnel Management that compromised the background check information of more than 21 million Americans. The pace of such attacks appears to be accelerating. According to the security firm Symantec, last year alone, more than 300 million new types of malicious software or computer viruses were introduced on the Web or nearly, if my colleagues can believe this, 1 million new threats each and every day. Just last month, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testified before the House Intelligence Committee that ``cyber threats to U.S. national and economic security are increasing in frequency, scale, sophistication, and severity of impact.'' From my position as head of the Senate commerce committee, I have promoted the great potential of the emerging Internet of Things--which promises to yield improvements in convenience, efficiency, and safety by connecting everyday products to the Web--but I have also held several hearings on the cyber security risks and challenges that accompany an increasingly connected world. By increasing the sharing of cyber threat information between and among the private and public sectors, the bill would authorize the voluntary sharing of cyber threat information and would provide commonsense liability protections for companies that share such information with the government or their peers, when they abide by the bill's requirements. The goal is to help companies and the government better protect their networks from malicious cyber attacks by sharing information about those threats earlier and more broadly. Similar bipartisan legislation was reported by the Senate Intelligence Committee last year that was never considered by the Democratic-controlled Senate at the time. This year the Intelligence Committee passed a bill by a bipartisan vote of 14 to 1, which should portend a strong bipartisan vote on the floor of the Senate. The House of Representatives has also passed two bills to facilitate the sharing of cyber threats, so we are now within striking distance of finally enacting critical cyber security information-sharing legislation after several false starts in recent years. I know some have questioned whether this bill provides appropriate protections for personal privacy and civil liberties. I appreciate these concerns, and I believe the bill's sponsors have meaningfully addressed them, including through modifications to be included in a managers' amendment. This bill is not a surveillance bill. Among other things, the modified bill would limit the sharing of information to that defined as ``cyber threat indicators'' and ``defensive measures'' taken to detect, prevent or mitigate cyber security threats. The bill also requires private sector and Federal entities to remove personally identifiable information prior to sharing threat indicators, and the Federal Government can only use the cyber threat information it receives for cyber security purposes and to address a narrow set of crimes, such as the sexual exploitation of children. The bill also requires regular oversight of the government's sharing activities by the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board created after 9/11 and by relevant agency inspectors general. In the end, it is important to remember that CISA is about cyber threats--like the malware being used by criminals in hostile states-- not personal information. Meanwhile, failing to enact this bill could actually make it easier for criminals in rogue states to continue collecting our personal information from vulnerable systems. Let me be clear. This is not a silver bullet and it will not render cyberspace completely safe--no bill can do that--but CISA is an important piece of the ongoing effort to improve our cyber security. Late last year, after a decade without passing major cyber security legislation, Congress enacted five cyber security laws that target other pieces of the cyber puzzle. I coauthored one of these--the Cybersecurity Enhancement Act--with former Senator Jay Rockefeller. This law ensures the continuation of a voluntary and private sector-led process at the Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology, or what we refer to as NIST, to identify best practices to protect our Nation's critical infrastructure from cyber threats. The Cybersecurity Enhancement Act also promotes cutting-edge research, public awareness of cyber security risks, and improvements in our cyber security workforce. CISA will work together with this new law and others to ensure that businesses have timely warning about current threats so they can better protect themselves--and all of us--from cyber attacks. It does so in a manner that protects individual privacy and avoids government mandates. I look forward to the coming debate on the bill--including a healthy consideration of amendments--and I urge my colleagues to join the bipartisan sponsors and a broad coalition of stakeholders around this country in supporting this much needed legislation. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize Mr. James Brubaker, director of the Department of Veterans Affairs regional offices in Sioux Falls, SD, and Fargo, ND, since 2010. Mr. Brubaker will be retiring from the Department of Veterans Affairs on October 30, 2015, after an accomplished career. Mr. Brubaker graduated with a bachelor's degree in financial administration from Michigan State University in 1982. He joined the Department of Veterans Affairs in 1987 and has diligently served veterans in offices throughout the Nation. As the director of the Dakotas Veterans Affairs regional offices, he administered benefits for nearly 156,000 veterans in South Dakota, North Dakota, and 15 counties in Minnesota. Under Mr. Brubaker's leadership, the Sioux Falls and Fargo regional offices have maintained an excellent compensation rating related claim-based accuracy of over 95 percent, one of the best ratings in the Nation. This significant achievement demonstrates Mr. Brubaker's management ability and his dedication to serving our Nation's veterans. I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Mr. Brubaker for his fine work. I wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, Democrats have spent a lot of time lately talking about the importance of keeping the government open. Well, the Senate Republicans couldn't agree more. We know Congress has a responsibility to ensure that our Nation's priorities are funded, and we spent a lot of time this year working on that. In May, we passed the first joint House-Senate balanced budget resolution in more than a decade, and by the end of July the Senate Appropriations Committee had approved all 12 appropriations bills for the first time since 2009. It was the first time in 6 years that the Senate Appropriations Committee approved all 12 of the appropriations bills, but there is one problem. For all their talk about providing for the government, apparently Democrats are reluctant to take any action when it comes to actually passing these bills through the Senate. Republicans tried to bring up the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill last week, but Democrats refused to allow the Senate to even consider it. We couldn't get on the bill. They blocked the motion to proceed to even get to debate that bill. That is right. Senate Democrats, who spent weeks talking about funding the government, refused to allow the Senate to even debate a bill that would fund military construction, protect our homeland, and keep the promises we made to our veterans. I might be able to understand Democrats' position if they had been shut out of the process on this legislation, but they weren't. The Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill was debated in the Appropriations Committee, where Members of both parties were given an opportunity to offer amendments and to help shape the bill's contents. The bill passed out of the committee with an overwhelming bipartisan majority. If Democrats had allowed the bill to reach the floor, they would have had yet another opportunity to debate and amend the legislation, but the Senate Democrats wouldn't even let the bill come to the floor to be debated. They blocked the motion to proceed to the bill that would even allow us and allow them an opportunity to be heard and an opportunity to offer amendments. Some Democrats have threatened to block the bill that we are currently considering this week, which is the National Defense Authorization Act, which again is a bicameral agreement that authorizes funding for our Nation's military and our national defense. This is the bill that ensures our soldiers receive the bonuses and the pay they have earned, that their equipment and training will be funded, and that our commanders will have the resources they need to confront the threats that are facing our Nation. Like the bill Democrats blocked last week, this legislation is the product of a bipartisan committee process, and it received bipartisan support when it came out of the committee. More than that, it received strong bipartisan support on the Senate floor when it first came up for consideration in June. This bill, the National Defense Authorization Act, which funds our military's priorities, was reported out of the Senate Armed Services Committee--a big vote--it came to the floor of the Senate, received a big bipartisan vote in the Senate, but now some of the very same Democrats who supported this bill a little more than 3 months ago are planning to vote against it. On top of that, President Obama has threatened to veto this bill when it gets to his desk. The question is, Why are Democrats opposing a bill that would authorize the funding our troops need to operate? Historically the National Defense Authorization Act has received strong bipartisan support, and there is a good reason for that. Historically both Democrats and Republicans have known that we have a great responsibility to the men and women who keep us safe, and we have made a habit of working together to try and meet that responsibility. Why are things different this year? Well, basically Democrats have decided that since they can't get everything they want, they are going to take their ball and go home. Republicans knew Democrats were considering this, of course, but we had hoped that after months of successful collaboration, they would rethink that strategy because, as I said, all 12 appropriations bills were reported out of the Senate Appropriations Committee with bipartisan majorities, collaboration, input from both sides, amendments offered and amendments voted on, but unfortunately it has been clear over the past week that Senate Democrats and the President are committed to following through on their plans to obstruct these bills. Their argument is that they want more money for this or for that, and they are not going to fund the military until they get more money for whatever their domestic priority is--whether it is more funding for the EPA or the IRS or some other agency of government. That is what this is about. It is somewhat staggering to think that some Senate Democrats would think of blocking the National Defense Authorization Act after supporting this bill in June. It is pretty hard to explain why one would think a bill is good one day and not the next. Let's just remind ourselves what they are voting to block and what the President is threatening to veto. The National Defense Authorization Act authorizes funding for our Nation's military and our national defense--from equipment and training for our soldiers to critical national security priorities, such as supporting our allies against Russian aggression overseas. In my State of South Dakota, we are proud to host the 28th Bomb Wing at Ellsworth Air Force Base, one of the Nation's two B-1 bomber bases. The B-1s are a critical part of the U.S. bomber fleet, and bombers from the 28th Bomb Wing have played a key role in armed conflicts that the United States has engaged in over the past 20 years. During Operation Odyssey Dawn, B-1s from Ellsworth launched from South Dakota, flew halfway around the world to Libya, dropped their bombs and returned home all in a single mission. This marked the first time in history that B-1s launched combat missions from the United States to strike targets overseas. Without the National Defense Authorization Act, however, the funding levels needed in 2016 to maintain these bombers and the readiness of our airmen at Ellsworth will not be authorized. It is that simple. That is what is at stake with this bill. If the President chooses to veto this legislation, he is vetoing the bill that authorizes benefits for our troops and the funding our military needs to operate. He is also vetoing authorization for the weapons, vehicles, and planes our military needs to defend our country against future threats, such as the Long Range Strike Bomber, which is one of the Air Force's top acquisition priorities, and it also represents the future of our bomber fleet. By vetoing this bill, the President would also be vetoing a number of critical reforms that will expand the resources available to our military men and women and strengthen our national security. For instance, this year's National Defense Authorization Act tackles waste and inefficiency at the Department of Defense. It targets $10 billion in unnecessary spending and redirects those funds to military priorities like funding for aircraft, weapons systems, and modernization of Navy vessels. The bill also implements sweeping reforms to the military's outdated acquisitions process by removing bureaucracy and expediting decisionmaking which will significantly improve the military's ability to access the technology and equipment it needs. The act also implements a number of reforms to the Pentagon's administrative functions. Over the past decade, Army headquarters staff has increased by 60 percent. Yet in recent years the Army has been cutting brigade combat teams. From 2001 to 2012, the Department of Defense's civilian workforce grew at five times the rate of our Active- Duty military personnel. The Defense authorization bill we are considering changes the emphasis of the Department of Defense from administration to operations, which will help ensure that our military personnel receive the training they need and are ready to meet any threats that arise. This bill also overhauls our military retirement system. The current military retirement system limits retirement benefits to soldiers who served for 20 years or more, which does not apply to 83 percent of those who have served, including many veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The National Defense Authorization Act replaces that system with a modern retirement system that would extend retirement benefits to 75 percent of our servicemembers. No time is a good time to veto funding for our Nation's troops. But with tensions in the world where they are, the decision by Senate Democrats and the President to block this funding authorization is particularly unconscionable. As we speak, ISIS is carving a trail of slaughter across the Middle East, Russia is becoming increasingly aggressive, and Iran is continuing to fund terrorism. Thanks to Iran's nuclear deal, Iran will soon have access to increased funds and the ability to purchase more conventional weapons. That is right. While President Obama is threatening to veto a bill that funds our Armed Forces, he has agreed to a deal with Iran that gives Iran access to over $100 billion to fund terrorism and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. That same flawed Iran deal waives the sanctions on Iranian leaders, including General Soleimani, who is responsible for the deaths of American soldiers in Iraq, yet the President is threatening to veto pay bonuses and improved military retirement benefits for our soldiers here at home. The President's Iran deal also gives Hezbollah and Hamas more funding to spread terrorism, yet the President is threatening to veto additional resources for our allies to defeat ISIS as well as missile defense systems for our allies, including Israel. Right now, President Obama is threatening to veto funding for our advanced weapons systems for U.S. military forces, yet his nuclear agreement gives Iran access to conventional weapons, ballistic missiles, and advanced nuclear centrifuges. Now, above all, in the wake of this flawed Iran deal and growing chaos in the Middle East, holding up funding for our troops by blocking this authorization bill is unacceptable. While Senate Democrats and the President may have decided to pursue a strategy of obstruction, it is not too late for them to change their minds. They can still cast a vote in favor of funding for our military and our national security priorities. I hope that before this vote happens today, they will rethink their opposition and join Republicans in supporting this critical bill. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize Aaron and Tami Fite of Platte, SD. I selected the Fites to receive the 2015 Angels in Adoption Award presented by the Congressional Coalition on Adoption. I chose this couple for the way they have opened their hearts and homes to their children Cody and Cate through adoption and the way they have helped inspire their community to better understand adoption and children with all types of abilities. Though they initially intended to adopt a child from abroad, God changed their hearts and brought Cody into their lives. During the first 3 years of his life, Cody had a variety of complex medical needs, but thanks to Aaron and Tami's love and support, today he is a healthy and vibrant 11-year-old who competes in basketball, track, and softball at the Special Olympics. Two years after adopting Cody, Aaron and Tami welcomed a baby girl, Cate, into their home through adoption. Cate has a condition she developed in the womb that prevents her from being able to walk or talk on her own. Despite these challenges, she has mastered using a Mustang walker to walk and using an Eyegaze communication tool that allows her to talk to others using her eyes. Cate captivates others with her beautiful smile and gentle spirit. Not long after adopting Cate, Tami unexpectedly became pregnant. Chloe was born in 2010, and another daughter, Clare, was born in 2012. I am inspired by the Fites' faith in the Lord and their desire to spread the word about life. I am pleased they were able to travel to Washington, D.C., to help advocate for their message that opening homes to children through adoption can help spread the word that every life is valuable. The Angels in Adoption award recognizes individuals, couples, and organizations that have made extraordinary contributions on behalf of children in need of a family. Awardees from all 50 states, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, come together in Washington, D.C., each year to participate in events that celebrate their heroic actions and enable them to use their personal experience to effect change on a national level. Aaron and Tami's exemplary actions demonstrate the positive impact adopting a child can have on a family and a community, and the Fites are more than deserving of this award. I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Aaron and Tami and their family, and I wish them the best of luck in the future.