John Thune

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize Stephen Gemar, an intern in my Aberdeen office, for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota. Stephen is a graduate of Mobridge-Pollock High School in Mobridge, SD. Currently, Stephen is attending the University of South Dakota, where he is majoring in political science. Stephen is a dedicated worker who has been committed to getting the most out of his experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Stephen Gemar for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize Shelby Ferstl, 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. Shelby is a graduate of Tartan High School in Oakdale, Minnesota. Currently, Shelby is attending the University of Minnesota Duluth, where she is majoring in financial markets. Shelby is a dedicated worker who has been committed to getting the most out of her experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Shelby Ferstl 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, today I recognize Cole Gustafson, an intern in my Rapid City office, for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota. Cole is a graduate of Sheridan High School in Sheridan, Wyoming. Cole is a recent graduate of Black Hills State University, where he majored in political science, and will begin at the University of Wyoming College of Law in August 2015. Cole is a dedicated worker who has been committed to getting the most out of his experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Cole Gustafson for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize Shane Binger, 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. Shane is a graduate of Hitchcock-Tulare High School in Tulare, SD. Currently, Shane is attending South Dakota State University, where he is majoring in business economics. Shane is a dedicated worker who has been committed to getting the most out of his experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Shane Binger for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize Robert Peterson, an intern in my Sioux Falls office, for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota. Robert is a graduate of Washington High School in Sioux Falls, SD. Currently, Robert is attending the University of South Dakota, where he is majoring in history and political science. Robert is a dedicated worker who has been committed to getting the most out of his experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Robert Peterson for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize Katherine Hickey, an intern in my Sioux Falls office, for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota. Katherine is a graduate of Roosevelt High School in Sioux Falls, SD. Currently, Katherine is attending Asbury University, where she is majoring in political science and sociology. Katherine is a dedicated worker who has been committed to getting the most out of her experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Katherine Hickey 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, today I recognize Eric Hurley, an intern in my Aberdeen office, for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota. Eric is a graduate of Aberdeen Roncalli High School in Aberdeen, SD. Currently, Eric is attending the University of South Dakota, where he is majoring in business administration. Eric is a dedicated worker who has been committed to getting the most out of his experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Eric Hurley for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the freight division of the DRIVE Act, the highway transportation bill that is under consideration before us at the moment. The freight provisions represent the combined efforts of both the Commerce Committee, which I have the honor of chairing, and the Committee on Environment and Public Works. To create this division, we incorporate a number of provisions from legislation offered by Senator Cantwell, Senator Markey, Senator Booker, Senator Murray, and the administration's GROW AMERICA Act proposal. We worked very hard to incorporate and make this a bipartisan product. We took into consideration suggestions that were made by our colleagues, many of whom serve on the Commerce Committee and some who don't, but we got to a point where we feel as if we had a good product that incorporates the best ideas--not everything, obviously, that everybody wanted but that addressed many of the issues that pertained to our particular part of this legislation. The language included in the Commerce Committee's freight program also drew from recommendations made by the Department of Transportation's nonpartisan National Freight Advisory Committee-- another entity we looked to and consulted with respect to these particular provisions of the bill. Because of our Nation's vast transportation network, freight can move by rail, it can move by aircraft, it can move by truck, and it can move by ship. It is multimodal. Under the bipartisan legislation before the Senate, freight-planning efforts will be concentrated under the Secretary of Transportation. This is to reflect the multimodal nature of how goods are transported and to ensure the involvement of various agencies which regulate different forms of transportation is properly coordinated. Because freight moves from truck to rail to port, freight planning must consider these connections, and it must include the development of a strategy to expand capacity and to increase efficiency to meet growing demand. This is especially true when it comes to focusing infrastructure investment decisions. Growing demand indicates and fuels a growing economy. We need a plan to handle the significant growth of freight traffic we expect in the coming years. The Department of Transportation notes that, by 2040, our transportation system is projected to haul an additional 9 billion tons of freight. That represents a 45 percent increase over what we move today. As our economy recovers and continues to grow, we will continue to need additional freight infrastructure. The freight network serves our import and export needs and is a critical element of our economic competitiveness. Bottlenecks and delays have significant economic cost. Freight is, by nature, not just a highway problem. Airports, ports, and railroads connect farms, manufacturing centers, and the markets they serve. Freight needs are not just urban issues. They are also very important for rural America. Advancing agricultural freight projects is necessary for the economies of many States, so ensuring planning and funding for these projects is also critical. Keeping freight transportation costs low keeps American farmers competitive in the global marketplace. In the winter of 2014, South Dakota faced significant challenges moving grain from the State due to congestion in the rail network. When the freight couldn't move, farmers weren't getting paid. Commodities faced spoilage due to a lack of available storage space. Agriculture is the leading driver of South Dakota's economy. Delays and the significant increased costs of moving grain by rail negatively impacted the pocketbooks of many of the farmers in my State. This, in turn, reduced Main Street's bottom line as well. More recently, the West Coast port slowdowns delayed shipments to and from stores in South Dakota and across the country. Agricultural products for export were delayed, and imports of products from lumber, medical supplies, and automobiles to basic retail goods were delayed. This was an unforced error that harmed our economy for way too many months. This labor strife underscored the interconnected nature of our transportation system and how vital our freight infrastructure is to each and to every State in this country. In fact, the resulting strife was widely cited as a contributing cause of the U.S. economy actually shrinking in the first quarter of 2015. Protecting our competitiveness is at the core of this legislation's freight program that was developed between the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee and my colleagues on the Environment and Public Works Committee. Planning for and fixing our freight network will create and maintain jobs over the long term. Reducing delays and lowering the price of freight transportation serves the entire supply chain and, ultimately, the American consumer. That is why the freight division in the DRIVE Act is so important. The bill improves the planning process, engaging States and stakeholders to help plan for future freight needs. States will provide a forward-looking plan to address these freight needs step by step. These plans will develop investment strategies and prioritize projects for funding. The bill's consolidated strategy that plans for both highway projects and multimodal projects is a significant improvement over what we have today--or the status quo. In addition, the Environment and Public Works Committee developed a highway trust fund formula program that will support critical projects in every State. In the first year alone, the bill provides $450 million of grant funding to assist with these critical investments. Projects to improve rail grade crossings, port facilities, and connections between freight modes of transportation will have access to these new resources. This will reduce the time and the cost of moving goods. The Coalition for America's Gateways and Trade Corridors noted that the planning and strategy outlined in the bill is ``a significant step forward for multimodal freight planning and policy.'' The American Association of Port Authorities says: ``Elevating a policy for freight within your legislation sends a strong message that freight must continue to be a priority and that planning, funding, and the establishment of a multimodal freight network are critical for the economic growth of our nation.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the full statements of these two organizations I just mentioned.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, the legislation before the Senate is a critically important part of addressing our Nation's current and future transportation investments. As Senator Cantwell often says: Freight can't wait. The DRIVE Act includes these critical freight provisions that will help our economy and lead to job creation. Strengthening our freight program is yet one more reason to support this legislation. Mr. President, I hope before all is said and done in the Senate we will complete action on this legislation this week and get many of these provisions, which are so important to our economy, so important to jobs, and so important to America's competitiveness, passed into law. Of course, first we have to get action by the House of Representatives in order to get it to the President's desk, but the work that has gone into this is the product of a lot of various Members and committees, those from the stakeholder community offering their input and consultation to get us to the point we are today where I think we have a product we can be proud of and that we can say actually will help address the freight challenges and the needs we have across this country and make our economy even more competitive. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, the Senate has an opportunity to pass a multiyear transportation bill that ensures critical transportation projects move forward without disruption. As part of this bipartisanship bill, the DRIVE Act, we also have an opportunity to pass necessary policy changes that enhance safety and make our transportation system work better. Part of the DRIVE Act includes important work on transportation policy we have undertaken at the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. We will lose an opportunity to pass bipartisan reforms if we do not approve this critical legislation. The last time we passed a multiyear transportation bill into law was 2012. However, since 2009, we have passed 33 short-term extensions to avoid a funding gap that would stop much-needed transportation projects. Highway and transportation infrastructure projects--and in many urban areas, public transit projects--are important to our constituents and our Nation's economy. If we continue to do short-term extensions--again 33, literally 33 short-term extensions since 2009--that is a terrible way to run a highway program. It does not allow State departments of transportation to plan. It does not allow those who are involved in the construction, the contractors who build our roads and bridges, an opportunity to plan. It creates all kinds of uncertainty out there. We need the certainty that comes with a long-term highway program instead of having these 33 short-term extensions. So this is a unique opportunity that we have to actually put in place policies that would guide us at least for the next 3 years and hopefully beyond. Our transportation system is one of our government's visible assets. Our constituents who sent us here notice when there is a problem with it. The Federal infrastructure investment that Senator Inhofe and Senator Boxer have taken the lead on in the Environment and Public Works Committee and the transit projects for which the banking committee is responsible are not the only critical parts of our transportation system. There are policy decisions and advanced safety initiatives. We have rules governing how and when and where we build critical projects, as well as oversight of various regulations at the U.S. Department of Transportation regarding trucking, freight rail, passenger rail, and automobile safety requirements. These areas are the exclusive jurisdiction of the Senate commerce committee. I have the honor of chairing the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. I was pleased to see my friend from Florida, Senator Nelson, who is the ranking member of our committee, return last night following his surgery last week to help advance consideration of the DRIVE Act. Let's talk about some of the policies that I have worked on with colleagues on both sides of the aisle that will not become law if we fail to move forward with this bill. Keep in mind that Senators Wicker and Booker are the authors of the rail safety bill that the commerce committee passed by voice vote last month, and their bill is included in this legislation. Let's also recognize that commuter rail systems, including New Jersey Transit and Virginia Railway Express, have stated that they will not meet Federal deadlines for implementing positive train control technology. This legislation currently before the Senate would authorize grants and prioritize loan applications to help commuter railroads deploy this new technology to help address safety issues and to get positive train control up and running as soon as possible. The bill also includes numerous additional rail safety requirements, including the implementation of necessary automatic train control modifications and crew communication improvements, to improve operations while positive train control is being implemented. The National Transportation Safety Board recommended requiring inward-facing cameras in all passenger railroads to create more accountability. This bill requires all passenger railroads to install such equipment in their locomotives. In fact, I have a letter here from the National Transportation Safety Board, in which Chairman Christopher Hart says: I applaud the recent passage of the passenger rail safety bill. I was pleased to see the inclusion of our recommendations regarding inward and outward audio and image recorders. Thank you for your ongoing support of the NTSB. That is from the National Transportation Safety Board Chairman, Mr. Christopher Hart. So having these necessary improvements will make our passenger rail systems much safer as they travel across the country. The bill also streamlines the permitting process for improvements to existing railroad track and infrastructure and improves multimodal planning and permitting. The Secretary of Transportation will have new authority to speed up projects and to reduce paperwork burdens. Outside of improving rail safety, we include a proposal offered as an amendment during committee markup by Senator McCaskill to ban rental car companies from renting vehicles needing recall repair work. We also include several provisions to increase consumer awareness of recalls, increased corporate responsibility, and improved highway safety efforts in all the States. Following a harsh inspector general report criticizing the Federal Government's auto safety regulator, this bill requires the full implementation of reforms outlined in that report. Once these reforms are implemented, the agency's funding authorization will substantially increase to meet the GROW AMERICA requests for vehicle safety efforts. These are important safety provisions in this bill. They make our roads and our transportation system safer, and they deserve our support. At the committee level, some provisions of our title were the subject of constructive discussions that helped us improve this bill before it made its way to the floor. Here are a few things we did to broaden support for this proposal after our committee passed the bill last week. Senator Manchin raised concerns about a provision I authored that requires additional testing for a new train braking requirement known as ECP that will be required under law by 2021 and 2023. I worked with Senator Manchin. We came to an agreement that if new real-world tests show that the requirement isn't effective, it cannot proceed. If it is effective, there will be no delay in its implementation, and there will be no need for new rulemaking. We worked with Mothers Against Drunk Driving on another important issue to combat drunk driving. When we heard they had concerns with our 24/7 sobriety program grant language, we worked with them to address those concerns and to assure that the dedicated grant program with ignition interlock laws continues. A pilot program our bill proposed that would allow licensed truckdrivers between the ages of 18 to 21 to cross short distances outside the borders of their home State now requires not only the approval of participating States but also the approval of the Secretary of Transportation. At the Commerce Committee we have worked on a bipartisan basis to change, drop or add provisions since we marked up the bill to earn the support of colleagues on both sides of the aisle. There are still some differences. I expect amendments where this body will have the opportunity to decide important issues that we have debated throughout the committee process. One such issue, which I heard a variety of opinions about, concerns the current $35 million cap on fines that the Department of Transportation can assess on manufacturers for auto safety violations. This bill would double the cap to $70 million, provided that the Department first finishes a still undone rulemaking process on penalty assessment factors that was required in our last highway bill. I have heard arguments that this cap on fines for auto safety failure should be raised more or even set at an unlimited amount, but we are doubling this cap to $70 million and conditioning an additional increased authorization for vehicle safety on implementing needed reforms. This bill enhances safety. If we do not pass this bill, auto safety regulators don't get more funding, as called for by Secretary Foxx and various safety groups following the record 64 million auto safety recalls we have witnessed over the past 2 years. Penalties for auto safety violations will not go up if this bill doesn't pass, commuter railroads don't get new assistance to implement positive train control or the other critically important safety improvements that the NTSB, Amtrak, the FRA, and others have called for. None of that happens if this bill doesn't pass. Rental car companies don't face a Federal ban on renting vehicles that are subject to open recalls if this bill doesn't pass. Not passing the safety reforms in the DRIVE Act would be an incredible missed opportunity for addressing a host of key safety improvements. Some in this building believe it would be easier if we just passed another short-term extension. They are right. It would be much easier, but keeping highway and related transportation infrastructure projects funded for a few more months doesn't address safety and regulatory issues that we cannot afford to keep ignoring. Five months from now, if tax reform leaves us with new options, we can always decide to infuse additional funding into the bill before the Senate, but delaying action on transportation for 5 months could also compound our difficulties. Remember, there have already been 33 short- term extensions passed by Congress since 2009. A silent part of every argument for a short-term extension is let's not address safety and other critical transportation needs. The right decision for the American people is to seize the opportunity to pass a bipartisan, multiyear transportation bill without delay. I wish to share with you some of the letters of support we have received from various organizations that have looked at the body of work that is included in these particular provisions that I have mentioned. The Governors Highway Safety Association says: GHSA congratulates the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee on releasing S. 1732. This six-year reauthorization bill will provide needed stability and consistency for state highway safety agencies to reduce the number of crashes, injuries and fatalities on America's roads. This is from the American Public Transportation Association. It says: On behalf of the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), our 1,500 member agencies, and the millions of Americans that depend on public transportation, I write to commend the Committee's hard work to advance comprehensive rail legislation that attempts to address safety, funding needs, Amtrak enhancements, improved project delivery, and other important rail policy issues. We fully support the inclusion of a rail title within any broader surface transportation authorization package considered in the Senate. That was from the president and CEO of the American Public Transportation Association. The National Association of Railroad Passengers states that they are writing ``to endorse the inclusion of the Railroad Reform, Enhancement, and Efficiency Act (S. 1626) into the Comprehensive Transportation and Consumer Protection Act of 2015 (S. 1732). ``The move to include passenger rail authorizing language in a broader highway and transit bill is an important step in recognizing the critical role intercity trains play in a national transportation system.'' This letter is from the States for Passenger Rail Coalition: On behalf of the States for Passenger Rail Coalition, Inc., (SPRC) I write in support of the actions taken by the Commerce Committee to introduce sections of the highway bill. I am particularly pleased that the Railroad Reform, Enhancement, and Efficiency Act (R2E2)--as approved by the Commerce Committee--was included as a title of the bill. These are just a few of the examples of letters we have received. The final one I will mention is from Transportation for America, and there again they say they appreciate the fact that we are authorizing ``the federal passenger rail program with the transportation safety and freight provisions under the jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee through 2021,'' and that ``this proposal moves the federal transportation program in the right direction in addressing the nation's freight needs.'' The point I wish to make is there have been some of our colleagues on the floor who have been finding fault with various provisions in the bill, and obviously there are going to be a lot of people who aren't going to support this in the end anyway, but we ought to at least be talking about the facts. We ought to be talking about what is actually in the bill, and we ought to be talking about the important reforms that were made in this legislation that addressed safety issues, safety on the highway, safety on our rail system, improvements and reforms in our passenger rail systems, and the commuter railroads we have traveling across this country. There are a number of needed safety improvements and reforms that will be lost if we fail to act. The letters I have mentioned are just a few examples of the organizations that rely upon those forms of transportation, that recognize this is an opportunity we should not miss. I hope we will take advantage of the opportunity and not do another short-term extension, which would be the 34th now since 2009, and not put in place the types of changes, reforms, and improvements that are needed in our transportation system across this country. If we fail to act now--the window that people think we have now for a short-term extension--the 34th short-term extension--we will be looking at this sometime later this year, and we will be right back where we are right now. We shouldn't miss this opportunity. We should take advantage of it and try, and as best we can as we move this across the Senate floor and debate some of these issues--if there are ideas about improving it, making it better, making it stronger, I think that is what this debate is all about. But I want to make sure that as we talk about these issues we are accurately characterizing and reflecting what is actually in the bill and all the work that has been done on both sides of the aisle by both Democrats and Republicans and Members who are interested in these issues. There are a number of committees that have jurisdiction over transportation issues. As I mentioned, the Commerce Committee is just one. The Environment and Public Works Committee has had the lead on writing the bill. The Finance Committee, on which I also serve, is responsible for--at least largely responsible for--trying to come up with the pay-fors the way that we are going to fund this, and the banking committee deals with many of the transit provisions of the bill. So there are multiple jurisdictional issues involved here. All the committees have been active. All the Members on those committees have been active. I can certainly say that on our committee, the commerce committee, we had great participation from both Republicans and Democrats on the committee. We had a lot of good input, which didn't end when we reported the bill out of the committee but continued on through the weekend and into this week. So we continue to look at ways we can make this bill stronger. But I have to say, all the things that are included in here, all the things I mentioned along with the components and features of this bill that have been worked on by other committees, are important changes. Probably, most important of all, is that we get something that puts in place a multiyear bill that creates the kinds of conditions that are conducive to jobs and to economic growth. We all know how important transportation infrastructure is to our economy. I come from a part of the country where we rely heavily--we drive long distances, we have a lot of geography that we have to cover. Our economy, because we are agriculturally based, relies very heavily upon getting our products to the marketplace. So we have to have good roads and bridges, we have to have a railroad system that works, and we believe that many of the things that are done in this bill contribute to, enhance, make stronger, better, and more efficient our transportation system. That is good for jobs, that is good for the economy in this country, and that is why it is so important that we move forward. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to 15 minutes.

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Katherine White, Federal Trade Commission, and LCDR Robert Donnell, U.S. Coast Guard, detailees on the Commerce Committee, be granted floor privileges throughout the debate on the highway bill.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I will speak about the Iran nuclear agreement in just a moment. But before I do that, I will briefly talk about the legislation before us on the floor, and that is the reauthorization of the highway bill, which is something we have to do on a fairly regular basis around here. Every so many years the authority to spend out of the highway trust fund expires, and we can't fund the infrastructure needs that our country has in terms of roads, bridges, construction, maintenance, and all of those things that are so important to our competitive economy. This week we have an opportunity to do something that hasn't been done around here in a long time, and that is to fund a multiyear highway bill. The reason that is important is because people who rely upon highway funding that comes through the highway trust fund need to be able to make plans. State departments of transportation, those who are involved in the construction, such as contractors, and all the people who are involved and the jobs that are associated with this process need the certainty that comes with a long-term bill. Today I was told that there have been 33 short-term extensions over the last few years since the last long-term highway bill was passed, I believe, somewhere around the 2005 timeframe. I was part of that. I was a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee at the time. I worked on highway bills as far back as my days in the House of Representatives, when I served on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. This is something that we have to do here on a regular basis if we are going to ensure that we have a competitive infrastructure in this country suitable to moving people and goods in a way that keeps our economy moving forward and growing. That is why, in my view, when we have an opportunity to get a multiyear bill, we shouldn't pass on it. If we continue to pass 6-month and 1-year extensions, all we are simply doing is kicking the can down the road. I would say that 33 short-term extensions is not a very good way to run a railroad and certainly not a very good way to run a highway program. I know there are going to be differences. The committee that I chair, the commerce committee, was involved with marking up portions of the highway bill that pertained to highway safety and some railroad provisions and other items that would be included in this bill. We worked on that through the weekend, and I think we addressed many of the concerns that Members on both sides had, and I feel very good about where that part of the bill is. I worked as a member of the Finance Committee and tried to find ways to pay for this. If we can get a multiyear bill in place that provides the certainty, the predictability, and the reliability that we need in our highway funding process in this country, it would be a very good thing. As we all know, it is incredibly important to economic growth and to jobs. The certainty that comes with a long-term bill is something that we all ought to strive for. So I hope, notwithstanding the differences that exist in the vote we had earlier, that tomorrow when we take up this legislation again we will get the votes that are necessary to proceed to the bill and begin to move forward with the process in the hopes that we might get something to the House that they might be able to act on and then we can get it to the President's desk. Then, at least for the foreseeable future, we can get this issue dealt with so we don't have to come back and do this every 6 months or every 3 months or whatever those 33 extensions have consisted of over the past few years.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, former President Jimmy Carter was recently asked about President Obama's successes on the world stage. He said in response: I think they've been minimal. . . . [O]n the world stage, just to be as objective about it as I can, I can't think of many nations in the world where we have a better relationship now than we did when he took over. He went on to say: If you look at Russia, if you look at England, if you look at China, if you look at Egypt and so forth--I'm not saying it's his fault--but we have not improved our relationship with individual countries and I would say that the United States influence and prestige and respect in the world is probably lower now than it was six or seven years ago. That is former President Jimmy Carter describing current President Obama's foreign policies. Unfortunately, that is an accurate assessment of President Obama's rocky history on foreign policy. Last week's deal with Iran does not look likely to improve the President's record of minimal success on the world stage. Last week the administration announced that the United States--along with five other nations--had reached an agreement with Iran that the administration claims will prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. The contents of the agreement, however, were met with skepticism and concern from a number of quarters. Former Senator and Democratic Presidential candidate Jim Webb said that the deal sends a signal that ``we, the United States, are accepting the eventuality that they will acquire a nuclear weapon.'' The senior Senator from New Jersey said, ``The bottom line is: The deal doesn't end Iran's nuclear program--it preserves it.'' The Washington Post noted that Tehran ``fought for, and won, some troubling compromises'' on inspections, especially considering Iran's record of violations. The Post also pointed out what many Republicans have noted--that ``Mr. Obama settled for terms far short of those he originally aimed for.'' Israel, the only functioning democracy in the Middle East, called this deal a ``historic mistake,'' and neighboring countries like Saudi Arabia expressed concern that this agreement may actually increase the threat Iran poses to their security. Then, of course, there was Iran's reaction. Iran's President hailed the agreement, while Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei praised negotiators. Lest anyone think this marked a softening of Iran's attitude toward the United States, however, Khamenei emphasized that ``our policy toward the arrogant U.S. government won't change at all.'' Echoing the chants coming from the people, he stated, ``You heard `Death to Israel,' `Death to the U.S.' . . . we ask Almighty God to accept these prayers by the people of Iran.'' These are not the words of a reliable partner. These are the words of the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. There is good reason to be concerned about this agreement. This deal not only fails to provide reassurance that Iran will not acquire a nuclear weapon, it may actually enhance Iran's chances of acquiring a bomb. For starters, this deal fails to include any adequate method of verifying that Iran is complying with the agreement. Time and time again, Iran has made it clear that it cannot be trusted to comply with any deal. Iran has a history of building nuclear facilities in secret. The enrichment facility at Fordow, which will remain in place as part of this agreement, is just one example of an enrichment facility that was originally hidden from the outside world. The fact that Iran cannot be relied on to follow the outlines of an agreement means that verification--specifically, ``anytime, anywhere'' inspections of suspicious sites--is an essential part of any credible deal. But the final deal that emerged doesn't come close to ensuring anytime, anywhere inspections. It does provide for 24/7 inspections of Iran's currently known nuclear sites, but it forces inspectors to request access to any other site they deem suspicious. Iran can refuse requests, and appealing those refusals could take close to a month, leaving the Iranians plenty of time to hide evidence of suspicious activity. Forcing Iran to dismantle its nuclear infrastructure and halt uranium enrichment would have provided some assurance that Iran's quest for a bomb had been halted. But the nuclear agreement the administration helped reach doesn't require Iran to dismantle any of its nuclear infrastructure. The agreement does require Iran to take some of its centrifuges offline, but they do not have to be removed or dismantled-- simply put into storage. The agreement also explicitly allows Iran to continue enriching uranium. While it prohibits Iran from enriching uranium to the level required for a nuclear weapon, the restriction is of limited value considering that Iran retains the equipment and production capacity it would need to build a bomb. I haven't even mentioned other areas of concern with this agreement. In exchange for Iran's agreeing to--supposedly--stop its effort to acquire a nuclear weapon, billions of dollars in Iranian assets will be unfrozen and the sanctions that have crippled the Iranian economy will be lifted. Right now, despite its struggling economy, Iran manages to provide funding and other support to Syria's oppressive government, to Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in the Gaza Strip, to Houthi rebels in Yemen, and to militias in Iraq. It is not hard to imagine what it will do with the billions of dollars it will gain access to under this agreement. The deal negotiators reached with Iran will also expand Iranian access to conventional weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles, which are generally used as a vehicle for the delivery of nuclear weapons. While the deal does temporarily extend restrictions on the import of these weapons, it does so for just 5 years in the case of conventional weapons and for just 8 years in the case of ballistic missiles. That means that in as few as 8 years, Iran will be able to purchase a ballistic missile capable of delivering a nuclear warhead. Obviously, there is a lot to be concerned about when it comes to this deal, and after the agreement was released last week, both Democrats and Republicans expressed the desire to examine those provisions and hear from members of the administration. So what did the President do? He declared that the agreement was a triumph of diplomacy and took immediate action to send the bill to the United Nations for a vote. That is right. The President didn't wait to hear from Members of Congress or the American people; he just went ahead and asked the United Nations for its approval. In other words, the President unilaterally committed the United States to supporting the deal without knowing whether the United States Congress or the American people are in favor of the agreement. This is especially disappointing considering that just 2\1/2\ months ago, Democrats and Republicans in the Senate voted overwhelmingly to require that the President submit full details of any nuclear agreement to Congress before it could be agreed to. The President signed this legislation--the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act--into law on May 22, but apparently he feels free to ignore the spirit, if not the letter, of the act. When word emerged that the President was going to send a resolution directly to the U.N. without waiting for the American people or Congress to weigh in, both Democrats and Republicans asked the President to hold off. Democrats who requested that the President wait to submit the agreement included the leading Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who characterized the White House's decision as ``somewhat presumptuous,'' and the Democratic whip in the House of Representatives, who said, ``I believe that waiting to go to the United Nations until such time as Congress has acted would be consistent with the intent and substance of the Nuclear Agreement Review Act.'' Circumventing elected Members of Congress to gain the U.N.'s approval before Congress has had a chance to review the agreement suggests that the President has a higher regard for the United Nation's opinion than for the opinion of the American people. President Obama is apparently betting on the chance that in 10 years' time, Iran's views toward the rest of the world will have changed and will no longer be seeking death to Israel and America or furthering terrorism in the Middle East. It is a nice notion, but nothing in Iran's history of terrorism, violence, and deceit suggests it is a scenario that is likely to come to pass. And if it doesn't happen, as a result of this agreement, Iran will be in a much better position to develop a nuclear weapon than it is today, as even the supporters of this deal acknowledge, not to mention that Iran will be in a position to purchase the missiles necessary to deliver nuclear weapons to locations in the Middle East and beyond. During negotiations on this deal, it became obvious that the President was determined to make reaching an agreement with Iran his legacy. It is possible that he will get his wish, but it may not be the legacy he wanted. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I wish to make just a quick couple of comments on an amendment that I appreciate the floor managers, Senators Alexander and Murray, agreeing to accept by voice vote. It deals with an issue that is really important to my home State. This amendment would expand the authorized use of Project School Emergency Response to Violence--what we call Project SERV--grants to include violence prevention. Currently, Project SERV funds are used to restore the learning environment by addressing the disruptive effects of a traumatic crisis or event. However, these funds cannot be used to fund violence prevention activities, such as afterschool programs, mentoring, anger management or skills-building programs. My amendment would permit a limited and focused expansion of Project SERV to permit prevention activities as part of the efforts to restore the learning environment in cases where there is a continued risk of disruption. This would better tie prevention to a crisis or trauma that has already occurred and better restore and preserve the learning environment in cases such as the tragic suicide crisis in Indian Country or gang violence. For example, on South Dakota's Pine Ridge Indian Reservation alone, two high school and two middle school age students have committed suicide just since December. My amendment would help give these areas of crisis additional flexibility in restoring our schools to safe and positive environments. I have worked closely with Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray to keep this expansion limited so as not to detract from Project SERV's current scope, and I appreciate very much their help and the Senate's support. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that following the disposition of the Warren amendment No. 2249, all postcloture time on the substitute amendment be yielded back; further, that the cloture vote on S. 1177 be at 1:45 p.m. today, and that if cloture is invoked, all postcloture time, except for 4 minutes equally divided between Senators Alexander and Murray, be yielded back; and following the use or yielding back of time, the Senate vote on passage of S. 1177, as amended, if amended.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I wish to begin by taking a few moments to discuss the nuclear deal with Iran that was announced this morning. While I am still reviewing the intricacies of the deal, right now I am deeply skeptical that this agreement will prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. The Obama administration appears to have capitulated on almost every redline it established at the outset, and I have strong doubts about whether the final provisions requiring inspections and curtailing enrichment and research and development are strong enough to be effective. Another significant concern is the fact that removal of sanctions will give Iran access to billions of dollars and other resources to fund its campaign for increased regional influence, which includes proxy wars and material support for terrorist organizations. In fact, if we look at almost anywhere in the Middle East, whether it is Hezbollah in Lebanon or Hamas in the Gaza Strip or the Houthis in Yemen or the Shia militias in Iraq, they all trace their lineage back to and are proxies for Iran. I am deeply concerned about the fact that the deal creates a timeline for lifting the embargo on conventional and ballistic weapons without requiring Iran to change its behavior in any meaningful way. Given that Iran is the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism and is already intervening in conflicts in the region, the last thing we should be doing is expanding Iran's access to weapons. In the lead-up to this agreement, Members of both parties expressed their concerns about the direction this deal was headed, and the release of the final document has confirmed many of those fears. Unfortunately, the President is apparently unwilling to listen to Members of either party, and in his speech this morning he threatened to veto any legislation that would prevent his deal from going into effect. Well, that is very disappointing, and it lends credence to the concern that the President is more worried about securing his political legacy than he is about actually preventing Iran from acquiring a weapon. Regardless of his veto threat, Members of both parties will carefully examine this deal and continue to do everything we can to ensure Iran never acquires a nuclear weapon. Mr. President, I wish to speak as well this week about what the Senate is currently doing. The Senate is taking a huge step forward on education. Nearly 8 years after No Child Left Behind expired, Congress is finally taking up legislation to reauthorize Federal K-12 education programs. While the law's focus on improving education for our students was laudable, No Child Left Behind must be updated. The Every Child Achieves Act--the legislation we are considering this week--will restore control of education to the people who know students best: teachers, parents, and local school boards. Just 10 percent of education funding each year comes from the Federal Government. Despite this, the Federal Government has a huge oversight role in education. Every day, teachers and administrators and students have their day shaped by a host of Federal mandates, from testing requirements to precisely what to do if a school is deemed ``failing.'' Federal control of education has reached its peak in recent years, with the Federal Government going so far as to coerce States into adopting its preferred curriculum and educational standards. No Child Left Behind demanded that schools meet a number of benchmarks to be judged as adequate. Failure to meet these requirements would result in a school being labeled as failing. Unfortunately, the rigid nature of these standards meant that many schools were at risk of being labeled as failing. In response, States have made it a habit to apply to the Federal Government for waivers from the terms of the law so they can avoid the burdensome requirements that come along with the ``failing'' label. The Obama administration has generally complied--but with Federal strings attached. Essentially, the administration informs States that it is happy to grant them waivers as long as they agree to implement the Federal Government's preferred academic standards, adopt the Federal Government's preferred method of evaluating teachers, and take the steps the Federal Government believes are the appropriate steps to address failing schools. Neither Congress nor the administration should be telling States and local communities what to teach in their schools. Decisions about education should be made by those who actually educate students, not by a group of bureaucrats or politicians in Washington, DC. As any teacher will tell us, education is not a one-size-fits-all proposition. Even within a single classroom, students are likely to come from a wide variety of backgrounds and experiences and have different learning styles. Teachers are constantly adapting their methods and material to meet the needs of the particular students they have in front of them. That is a lot harder to do when Washington is dictating those methods. The legislation we are considering today--the Every Child Achieves Act--will revoke the Federal Government's authority to dictate standards to the States. Specifically, this legislation explicitly prohibits the Federal Government from tying Federal funds to a State's adoption of specific educational standards. In other words, the Federal Government will no longer be able to blackmail States into adopting its preferred academic criteria. This is a huge victory for students and for teachers. Thanks to this legislation, States and localities will have much more freedom to adopt the standards and curricula that will help their students achieve. Another one of the problems created by No Child Left Behind, as any parent or teacher will tell you, is the phenomenon of overtesting. I have received hundreds of letters this year from teachers and parents concerned about the effect overtesting is having on students' education. While NCLB only required two or three tests per year, the law made these tests the primary indicator of a school's performance, which resulted in many schools deciding to teach to the test. The result? Not surprisingly, instead of teachers deciding what is important material based upon their knowledge of their subject, teachers' instructional priorities are often dictated by the material they think will be on the required tests. As a result, students may never receive instruction in important topics or concepts simply because they are not covered on the tests. In addition, instead of one or two yearly tests required by law, students are subject to months of preparatory testing in order to make sure the school maintains its ranking by gaining acceptable average scores on the mandated tests. It is undoubtedly true that the tests, including standardized tests, can be incredibly useful in the teaching process both as a diagnostic tool and as a measurement of student progress, but problems arise when tests become the only measure of progress. The Every Child Achieves Act keeps the testing requirements of No Child Left Behind but gives States the option to give a single comprehensive test, as they do now, or break up the assessment into smaller components that can be given throughout the school year. Most importantly, the Every Child Achieves Act removes test results as the primary indicator of a school's performance. In fact, it takes progress measurements out of the hands of the Federal Government entirely and gives them to the States. Under this bill, States, not the Federal Government, will be the ones developing accountability systems to measure schools' effectiveness. Instead of a one-size-fits-all Federal standard, each State will be able to identify the best ways to chart the progress of its schools and measure student performance. In addition, the Every Child Achieves Act removes the Federal Government's national teacher evaluation requirements and allows States to decide whether and how to measure the effectiveness of their teachers. I have offered several amendments to the Every Child Achieves Act, including two very important measures to address the tragic rash of student suicides that has beset Indian Country over the past several months. The first of these amendments would require the Secretary of Education to coordinate with the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Health and Human Services to report on their Federal response to these suicides, compile and analyze available Federal resources, and make recommendations for improving Federal programs. The second measure would strengthen the Project School Emergency Response to Violence Program--or Project SERV--to help schools prevent tragedies such as youth suicide. I am hopeful that the Senate will pass both of these measures. I am also pleased that the underlying bill contains important improvements that I championed to the Federal Impact Aid Program--a program that provides districts with revenue to make up for nontaxable Federal activity in school districts. The reforms contained in the Every Child Achieves Act have been a long time coming, and they have been greeted eagerly. This bill is supported by everyone from the school superintendents organization, to the National Governors Association, to Teach for America. And, of course, this legislation is strongly supported by both Republicans and Democrats in the Senate. One big reason a No Child Left Behind reauthorization has moved from legislation no Member of Congress wanted to touch to the bipartisan bill that is before us today is Republicans' commitment to restoring regular order to the Senate. We have restored the committee process and ensured that Members of both parties are able to make their voices heard through amendments. The result is legislation like the Every Child Achieves Act--a bill with strong bipartisan authorship and strong bipartisan support. I hope we will have many more achievements like this in the Republican-led Senate this year. We need to get control out of the hands of Washington bureaucrats-- people who have never been to South Dakota, much less a South Dakota school. They shouldn't be telling South Dakota teachers what to teach. The legislation before us today will help strengthen education in this country by putting decisionmaking about education where it belongs--in the hands of State and local school districts. I look forward to the Senate passing this bill later this week. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I do want to compliment the HELP Committee and Senator Alexander, who chairs that committee, for the great work they have done in bringing the Every Child Achieves Act legislation to the floor of the Senate. This is long overdue. Anybody who meets with school administrators, teacher groups, parents or school boards realizes that people for a long time have been looking for us to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and to make reforms that are important and that will return control and power to school districts, to parents, to teachers, and to administrators, rather than having it here centralized in Washington, DC. So I am pleased that we can have this debate. I am encouraged by the discussion that has already been held and by the willingness of both sides to work together to allow amendments to be considered. This is an important issue--how we educate our children, equipping them, preparing them for the challenges that will be ahead of them. There is no more important task that we have. So to the degree that this legislation makes it more possible for our kids to learn at the very fastest rate possible, this is something that this Senate ought to be focused on. I am hopeful that we will be able to get through the amendment process and be able to move this bill across the floor of the Senate and to the House, and hopefully, eventually, to the President's desk. But I think it is also an example of what happens when you get people who are willing to open the Senate process up and allow legislation to be considered. Republican-Led Senate The Senate has now been under Republican control for a full 6 months. Those months have been some of the most productive that the Senate has seen in a long time. So far this year, the Republican-led Senate has passed more than 45 bipartisan bills, 22 of which have been signed into law by the President. Committees have been hard at work and have reported out more than 150 bills for floor consideration by the full Senate. In May, the Senate passed the first 10-year balanced budget resolution in over a decade--over a decade. One reason the Senate has been so productive is because the Republican majority has been committed to ensuring that all Senators, whatever their party, have the opportunity to have their voices heard. Under Democratic leadership, not only Republicans but many rank-and- file Democrats were shut out of the legislative process in the Senate. As an example of that, the Democratic leadership allowed just 15 amendment rollcall votes in all of 2014--an entire year. That is barely more than one amendment vote per month here in the Senate. Republicans, by contrast, had allowed 15 amendment rollcall votes by the time we had been in charge here for merely 3 weeks. In all, Republicans have allowed more than 136 amendment rollcall votes so far in 2015. That is not only more amendment rollcall votes than in all of last year, but it is more amendment rollcall votes than the Senate took in 2013 and 2014 combined. We still have 6 months to go in 2015. Nuclear Agreement With Iran Mr. President, one of the most important bipartisan bills the Senate has passed this year is the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act. This legislation, which was signed into law in May by the President, ensures that the American people, through their representatives in Congress, will have a voice in any final agreement with Iran. Specifically, the law requires the President to submit any agreement with Iran to Congress for review and prevents him from waiving sanctions on Iran until the congressional review period is complete. The bill also requires the President to evaluate Iran's compliance every 90 days. I am particularly glad that this legislation is in place because the negotiation process so far has given cause for deep concern. The primary purpose of any deal with Iran is to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. But the interim agreement the President unveiled in April casts serious doubt on the administration's determination to achieve that goal. The framework does not shut down a single nuclear facility in Iran. It does not destroy any single centrifuge in Iran. It does not stop research and development on Iran's centrifuges. It allows Iran to keep a substantial part of its existing stockpile of enriched uranium. It is not surprising that Members of both parties are concerned about this agreement. Again and again during the process, Secretary Kerry and the President have seemed to forget that the goal of negotiations is not a deal for its own sake but a deal that will actually stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Administration negotiators have repeatedly sacrificed American priorities for the sake of getting an agreement. In the process, they have created a very real risk that the deal that finally emerges will be too weak to achieve its goal. A Washington Post editorial this week declared that any agreement with Iran that emerges from the current talks ``will be, at best, an unsatisfying and risky compromise.'' That is from the Washington Post. The editorial board continues by saying: Iran's emergence as a threshold nuclear power, with the ability to produce a weapon quickly, will not be prevented; it will be postponed by 10 to 15 years. In exchange, Tehran will reap hundreds of billions of dollars in sanctions relief it can use to revive its economy and fund the wars it is waging around the Middle East. Again, that is a quote from the editorial in the Washington Post from yesterday. When Iran recently failed to comply with the provision of the interim nuclear agreement currently in place, the Obama administration, in the words of the Post editorial, ``chose to quietly accept it'' and even ``rush to Iran's defense.'' Again that is the quote from the Washington Post editorial. This is an example of what the Post aptly describes as ``a White House proclivity to respond to questions about Iran's performance by attacking those who raise them.'' Well that is a deeply troubling response on the part of the White House, and it raises doubts about the President's commitment to achieving an agreement that will shut down Iran's nuclear program. The stakes could not be higher on this agreement. At issue is whether a tyrannical, oppressive regime that backs terrorists, has killed American soldiers, and has announced its intention of wiping Israel off the map will get access to the most apocalyptic weapons known to man. Even as negotiations continue, Iran continues to advance its nuclear program. If Iran continues its research and development into more advanced centrifuges, the breakout period--the time needed to produce enough nuclear material for a bomb--could be weeks--weeks instead of months or years. If we fail to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, we will not only be facing a nuclear-armed Iran; we will be facing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. That is what is at stake. Every Member of Congress obviously would like to see the President successfully conclude a deal to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. But the President needs to remember that a deal is only acceptable if it achieves that goal. We have heard the President say that he will walk away from a bad deal. But each time we reach a deadline, that deadline is extended. As negotiations continue, it is essential that negotiators push for a strong final deal that includes rigorous inspection of Iranian sites and full disclosure of all Iranian weapons research to date. If the administration cannot secure a sufficiently strong deal, then it should step back from the negotiation table and reimpose the sanctions that were so successful in driving Iran to the table in the first place. No deal is better than a bad deal that will strengthen Iran's position in the Middle East and pave the way for the development of a nuclear weapon. For a deal to be acceptable to the American people, it must be verifiable, it must be enforceable, and it must be accountable. It also needs to promote stability and security in the Middle East and around the world. Any deal that does not reach that threshold is a bad deal. I hope the President will listen to the American people and reject any agreement that falls short of that goal. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize Danielle Kerr, an intern in my Rapid City, SD, office, for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota. Danielle is a graduate of Stevens High School in Rapid City, SD as well as the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, UNL, with an English major. Currently she has been accepted into the 2018 class at the UNL College of Law. Danielle is a dedicated worker who has been committed to getting the most out of her experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Danielle Kerr 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, today I recognize Maci Burke, 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. Maci is a graduate of Chamberlain High School in Chamberlain, SD. Currently, Maci is attending the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, where she is majoring in political science. Maci is a dedicated worker who has been committed to getting the most out of her experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Maci Burke 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, today I recognize Tiara Tingle, 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. Tiara is a graduate of Brandon Valley High School in Brandon, SD. Currently, Tiara is attending the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, where she is majoring in economics. Tiara is a dedicated worker who has been committed to getting the most out of her experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Tiara Tingle 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, today I recognize Raegan Arnoldy, 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. Raegan is a graduate of Lyman County High School in Presho, SD. Currently, Raegan is attending the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, where she is majoring in communication studies and business administration. Raegan is a dedicated worker who has been committed to getting the most out of her experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Raegan Arnoldy 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, today I recognize Alex Sachtjen, 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. Alex is a graduate of Burke High School in Burke, SD. Currently, Alex is attending Augustana College, where he is majoring in government and international affairs and business administration. Alex is a dedicated worker who has been committed to getting the most out of his experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Alex Sachtjen for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, it has been said that there is nothing certain in life but death and taxes. I would suggest there is a third item that can be included in that saying, and that is bad news about ObamaCare, because if there is one thing that can be counted on, it is the regular revelation of new ObamaCare failures. This past week, we learned that the Obama administration cannot verify whether almost $3 billion in subsidies that it paid to insurance companies during the first 4 months of 2014 was properly paid. Thanks to the government's failure to ensure that a reporting system was in place by the time exchange plans went into effect in 2014, the government made payments to insurance companies without any way of verifying if the payments were correct or if the people it made payments for were still enrolled in their plans. Unfortunately, missing systems are just par for the course when it comes to the President's health care law. I don't need to remind anyone of the massive breakdowns that occurred when the partially finished healthcare.gov kicked off 2 years ago. The President himself referred to healthcare.gov last week as a ``well- documented disaster.'' But as bad as these problems have been for a health care law that the President once claimed would make purchasing health care as easy as shopping on Amazon, they are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to ObamaCare. Two weeks ago, I came to the floor to talk about the massive rate hikes customers on exchanges are facing for 2016. Let me just read a couple headlines from the first week in June. CNN: ``Obamacare sticker shock: Big rate hikes proposed for 2016.'' From the New York Times: ``Many Health Insurers Go Big With Initial 2016 Rate Requests.'' From the Wall Street Journal: ``More Health-Care Insurers Seek Big Premium Increases.'' From the Associated Press: ``8 Minnesota Health Plans Propose Big Premium Hikes for 2016.'' From the Newark Star-Ledger: ``Premiums to jump more than 10 percent on many Obamacare policies.'' I could go on. Nationwide, insurers have requested double-digit premium increases on hundreds of individual and small group plans for 2016. More than 6 million people are enrolled in plans facing average rate increases of 10 percent or more. Around the country, rate increases of 20, 30, and even 40 percent are common. Yet the President promised that his health care plan ``would bring down the cost of healthcare for millions.'' Well, in fact, the President's health care law has been driving up the cost of health care for millions since its inception. The average family health care premium has increased by almost $3,500 since 2009, despite the President's promise that health insurance costs for families would decrease by $2,500 if his law were passed. I could go on about ObamaCare's many failures. I could talk about the State exchanges that are failing or those that have already failed. I could talk about the individuals who lost their health insurance plans--plans, I might add, that they liked--as a result of this law. I could talk about the people who no longer can see doctors they saw for years because their new ObamaCare plans have severely limited the network of doctors they can see. I could talk about the small businesses that are struggling with the costs imposed by ObamaCare or the fact that the Congressional Budget Office has stated that the law will reduce work hours equivalent to 2 million full-time workers by the year 2017. I think every American gets the point. ObamaCare is broken. It has been broken from the beginning. It has failed to deliver on the promise--the President's promise--of more affordable, accessible health care, and it has made things worse for American families. In the next few days, the Supreme Court will release its decision in the King v. Burwell case. If the Supreme Court abolishes or phases out the ObamaCare subsidies, Republicans will take action to provide effective assistance to Americans to repeal the mandates that forced these Americans to buy government-approved insurance in the first place. Our plan will protect families while we move away from costly, top-down, government-mandated health care and toward a system that will actually drive down costs and increase choices for American families. President Obama promised that his health care law would be a solution to the problems plaguing our health care system. The last 5 years have proved that ObamaCare is anything but. Not only did ObamaCare fail to solve the existing problems in our health care system, it has created entirely new ones, and American families are those who are suffering as a result. It is time for Democrats to stop defending this broken law and start working with Republicans to replace it with real health care reform that will lower costs, put patients back in charge, and provide greater access to quality care. That is what we should be working on. That is what the American people expect, and it is long overdue. I yield the floor.