like a state, granting puerto rico the authority to restructure state-like obligations will be viewed as a very dangerous precedent for giving a state similar authority. now, of course, no state is going to ask to be covered by the house bill. rather, they'll say, if a territory can receive unprecedented authority from the congress, then why shouldn't a state do that? can't you imagine illinois coming here and asking that question? moreover, by creating this new authority, congress has invited material litigation risk. worst skas -- worst case, shoule

law be found unconstitutional under the takings clause, then the federal government would be liable for money damages, the very definition of bailout. and increased litigation will cause uncertainty, which is the last thing needed in puerto rico, making it impossible for puerto rico to access the capital markets for years. if that occurs, then, mark my words, sooner or later we'll be considering whether to provide direct financial assistance to puerto rico, despite the claims that this bill doesn't result in a taxpayers' bailout. and given that puerto rico has failed to provide congress with accurate financial information regarding their fiscal crisis, this unprecedented and very risky authority appears both unnecessary and, of course,

unjustified. given the bill's failure to satisfy the two requirements that i've laid out, which unduly harm retirees in my state and, more importantly, while also setting bad precedent, i can't support this bill. perhaps my concerns will be proven wrong and the bill will work perfectly. but it's been my experience that bad facts make for bad law. unfortunately, i fear that we're simply pushing this problem down the road and have failed to address the root cause of puerto rico's fiscal crisis at the expense of uncalled for risk and precedent. i yield the floor, and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. daines: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. daines: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate recess until 4:40 p.m. with time during the recess being charged to the republican side. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the senate stands in recess until 4:40.

>> ladies and gentlemen, please

welcome carol burnett. [applause] >> good morning. welcome. my heart soared when i saw president obama during his state of the union address ask vice president biden to lead the cancer moon shot. so i sat down and i wrote vice

president biden a letter asking him if i could do anything to help. i wanted to volunteer. as a result i am thrilled to be here today. unfortunately, the vice president and i share a common bond. i lost my daughter, carrie hamilton, to cancer 14 years ago. she was 38 years old. she had a passion for life. and i might add she had a great sense of humor that was a time when she was in and out of the hospital quite often during the last few months, and so it's one that i got the call that she had been readmitted. so i go to the hospital and i walked into the room. it was about 3:00 in the morning and i sat by her bed. she was asleep, and she can open her eyes and i made this kind of

stupid off-the-cuff joke i thought was funny or you know, anyway. and i said yeah, yeah, so you to come back and be in the hospital again. sheet without missing a beat, she said i miss the food. [laughter] and then i was leaving and a nurse, one of the floor nurses came up to me and she said i have to talk i have to talk you into something about your daughter. and i said what? and she said you know, when we come into the room in the morning and everything, there she is baldheaded from the chemo and lying there in bed, she cheers us up. i asked her, i said, carrie, how can you always be so cheerful? and she said, every day i wake up dashing this is the key work on every day i wake up and decide today i'm going to love my life.

well, she loved her life right to the end. i to say today is remarkable for many reasons. this cancer moon shot some is the first of its kind. and across the country in all 50 states summit like this one are taking place. at 270 regional summits in all 50 states, including d.c., puerto rico and guam, over 6000 people, researchers, hospitals, foundations have come together to share any and all, and to share any and all information about cancer. so today is remarkable for many reasons, none the least of which is hope, hope means many different things to different people but to a cancer patient, and the families affected by it, hope means everything.

today we will see in this room and in summits all over the country that we have every reason to hope. as a parent who lost my carrie to cancer, i've always felt that joe biden was in my corner. like so many of you i am inspired by his vision and determination. he's what they cancer moonshot effort is all about. he knows cancer he lived through cancer. and he sees that if we fight it together, we can have a world without cancer as we know it. i'm with you, vice president biden. we all are. ladies and gentlemen, without further ado, a vice president of the united states. [applause]

>> thank you very much, carol. please, thank you. please. please, thank you so much. mr. president, let me thank you by offering howard as the venue. this is an important meeting. you know, before i go to the introductions and recognitions of people, carol came into my office yesterday, and it was like we had known each other for ever, although i watched her, i felt like i know her. but like many of the survivors here in this room our patient advocates. the stories of our children and our spouses and our brothers and

our sisters who have not fought the good fight and ultimately succumbed, it's an amazing, the spirit of so many of them. she was telling me about carrie, and i started talking about, and i will not do this, i promised, about beau, my son. and i was thinking when she was speaking that he was at three different hospitals over a year and have. by the wacom is there any angels in heaven, they are all nurses. doctors are okay but they are all nurses. [applause] >> male and female. you're looking at a guy too much in icu, and embolism. i tell you what, i used to love it, stacy, when i would be in icu and looking at all those, you know, all the machines and you know that if it flatlined divided problem. you just get tired.

you get tired and i just want, and next thing i know a nurse in the icu, dr. camilli said doctor, here's what we have to do for the patient. and they would listen to the doctor, yes, doctor, okay. he would leave and then they would you what they thought was right. [laughter] any rate, what i was thinking about, carol, is that i believe almost every nurse in a two-year period took care of beau, showed up and waited as long as five hours in line in delaware to be at his viewing and his funeral, which is a hell of a testament to the nurses but also a testament to our children. look, carol has taken her celebrity and focused it on this site for a long, long time. added don't think any of us can't thank her enough. like many of you in this audience who have given your time and your passion and your emotion and your money to deal

with his god-awful problem. doctor frederick, again thank you for hosting this summit, for your leadership. not only does a great university but in the medical field, it's in the fight against cancer. you are part of this whole gigantic effort. and as we used as the innocent, a point of personal privilege one executive vice presidents at the dupont company like came up with kind of as a kid when i was a young guy, and he did much better than i did. stacy was that i think chairman of the board down here. stacy, it's good to see you and i haven't seen in a long, long time. but everything is ever important or good at home, you were always there. obviously, you haven't changed your stripes in retirement. let me thank everyone for being here. i want to thank everyone gathered at more than 260 summit sites in all 50 states, puerto

rico, guam and here in d.c. from miami, florida, to anchorage, alaska, from milwaukee, wisconsin, to lexington, kentucky, to hastings nebraska to my hometown in wilmington, delaware, your summits are being posted, serious undertakings, the department of health and human services, the american lung association of phoenix children to hospital, so so many others are hosting summit all across the nation. this is the first time in my, i believe, i'm told it is, the first time that physicians, scientists and nurses, patient advocates, families and cancer survivors, foundations, companies, institutions have all come together at one time in such extremely large numbers throughout the country to simultaneously begin to decide what changes do we have to make, if any, in this fight. all across the country, all under a national charge from the white house to do something big

but very possible, make a decades worth of progress in the next five years. i know when i first, moonshot was first announced some said, well, joe biden is being naïve, ending cancer in our time. that's not what i said. i believe we can make exponential progress, exponential progress. i firmly believe we can do in the next five years what would ordinarily take 10. and think of what that will mean. think of how many people you know who are saying, you doctors were saying, doc, i just want to make one more month to see my daughter get married. dot, dot com if i can just come if i could just come if i can just make it. i can make it another four months i will be able to do all the house and my wife will be okay when i go. doc, doc, on what to do is see my daughter graduate.

these are real, real, real, real life things. time matters days matter, minutes matter. there's nothing antiseptic of any of this. you all know that. you know the problem. right now there are 14 million new cases a year in the world, a 20 million cancer related deaths worldwide for you. the projections are by 2025 it was done exact course making the progress right now there will be 20 million new cases a year, and 14 -- 11.4 millions of deaths from cancer alone. again this is preaching to the choir but unlike other diseases, you all know there are over 200 distinct types of cancer that we have identified. which makes cancer far more complicated, a far more

complicated disease to treat and to understand. can't do is take a loved ones and robbing us of decades of new lives. we want to announce a decision to run -- by the way other if you want to become really popular elected official, announce you are not running for president. [laughter] it's amazing what's happened. [laughter] if i don't as i would've announced every year i wasn't running. [laughter] but after beau bascom jill and i concluded we couldn't. -- i said in the announcement is expected to make a formal announcement one way or the other, i said that, it was written on the page. it was spontaneous. i said that my regret is if i could do anything, i would've wanted to be the president to in detention as we know because i think it's possible. you know, my mom had an expression she is to say a

little bit of dollars is a dangerous thing your anytime your loved one, someone you care about, so what was part of your soul, part of who you are is in trouble, all of you do the same exact thing. he tried to as much about the thing causing the person the trouble. you try to learn as much as you can. and i had some great tutors, great hospitals we were in, anderson, jefferson, walter reed. i mean, i had great tutors. and that cancer moonshot grew out of a sentiment that i, i acquired, that we are in the cusp of an awful lot of change. in the united states after i made that statement, it wasn't planned, certainly after the state of union, president didn't even tony but he announced that the state of the union that biden is doing the moonshot. [laughter]

when i first heard i thought he wanted me to get in in the capl and head to the moon last night he's one of my best friends. but look, he asked me to lead this effort but he did this as we can lead. he gave me authority, like he did in the recovery act. authority over all the cabinet positions, as if he were doing it, to engage the entire federal government, every cabinet agency that has any impact, possible impact in the fight against cancer. nih which associate with to the department of energy. and i've traveled the country and the world touching many of the major nerve centers and the fight against cancer, to get the ideas of the experts, is it possible, can we double the rate at which we make progress? by the way, regardless of where i am i doing awful lot of foreign policy. you know, that old joke,

referred to as a foreign policy expert, an expert said from an account with a briefcase. i did not bring my briefcase but i must admit i know a hell of a lot more about foreign policy than a do or did particularly beginning about the fight against cancer. i was recently in the middle east talking about isis, and in the gulf with one of the leaders. and i felt we're going to have this long discussion. i brought my entire foreign policy team, my national security advisor. national security advisor. he had his whole team sitting on this beautiful doc outside one of his palaces. he starts off and he says can we talk about cancer bikes can we talk about cancer? when i was in jordan, when i was in israel, japan, south korea working on m.o.u.s and each one of those countries because they want to be part of this effort. i've been stunned, stunned, stunned at the response of the president's announcement.

just evidence can nothing about me or the president is about the intensity with which people feel about this subject. and the overwhelming desire to have some concrete hope of additional changes. and everywhere i go when i talk about what's possible in fighting cancer there's a consensus, consensus that we've reached an inflection point. we've reached pashtun let me explain what i mean by that. five years ago, six years ago, oncologist were not routinely working with geneticist, chemical engineers, biological engineers. but now they are. secondly, there's the recognition that by aggregating a shared data of millions of patients, including genomics, family history, lifestyle, treatment outcomes, we have the

potential to find new patterns and causes and successfully treat cancer in ways we never did before. we can now do 1 trillion calculations per second. it changes the world potential potentially, what with aggregated data we can learn. now we have the capability to do. supercomputing allows us to analyze enormous amounts of data, the finances we couldn't to five years ago would take scores and scores and scores of experts years of pouring over to find similar patterns. there was no hope. tract cancer cells, more accurate radiation therapies, targeted cancer cells that do less damage to the healthy cells, transforming many types of cancer into chronic and manageable diseases win 10 years ago they would have literally been a deficit. but in my view, to seize the

moment, we have to improve how we work together and get this all within our reach. one of the biggest problems we have in my view, to solve is treatments need to be affordable. we need a strong continuum in using dollars to fight cancer, and we have to change the entire path in my view, of our knowledge goes to small that the pharmaceutical companies to production facilities. the cost of life-saving drug are astronomical. we have to come up with a better way. what is the possible justification with a drug, life-saving drug is brought to market appetite it's brought to market it costs $26,000 a year, in 15 years later it costs 120,000? tell me. tell me. tell me what is the justification for that. i'm sure you can identify with a lot of other examples.

and i know there are hundreds of millions, billions of dollars sunk in the cause that actually come up with nothing. they have to be accounted for but i want to race and why should i get some answers. when i do get them to advertise committed to bringing together all the human financial and knowledge resources we have to break down silos, to seize the moment and to double our rate of progress. but i'm also committed to doing everything in my power to change the culture that too often -- >> vice president biden talk about that cancer moonshot.ve you can see all of this of course on our website. now back to the floor of the senate back into session. winningest basketball coach, man or woman, in division one history -- winningest coach in division one history. i had the privilege of going to the white house with coach summitt in 1989, in april. i was president of the university of tennessee at the time.

she had just won the national championship. president bush, the first president bush, reciteed the usual statistics about pat summitt's remarkable coaching year. the president said in 13 years, she brought tennessee to the final four nine times, winning it twice. later on we're going down to the fountain to see if she literally could walk on water. that is what president bush said of pat summitt. so when it came time for coach summitt to speak, this is what she said, the winningest basketball coach in our country's division one history. she said, mr. president, we're honored and delighted to be here. i was extremely proud of our academic success. we have won two national championships in the last three years. but, pat summitt said, the most important statistic for our team and our program is 100% graduation rate of which we will hold our heads very proudly.

pat summitt did everything by the book, and she made sure her players did as well. she had some of the most remarkable athletes in any program in the country. one of those was candace parker, still playing in professional basketball. candace, if i remember this right, there was a game finally when she got to play near her hometown in a midwestern city, and so the whole town turned out, all of her friends, all of her family, everybody came to see a young woman who was then the most celebrated women's basketball player in the country. but candace parker had missed a curve the night before -- a curfew the night before by a few minutes, so pat summitt sat her on the bench while her family, her friends and everybody who had come to see her watched. everyone understood that's how pat summitt did things. she began her career when she was 22. she was paid $150 a month for that. she was a graduate student at the university of teps.

for many, women's basketball consisted of three women on one end of the court, three on the other. the ncaa didn't even sponsor a national championship game at that time. but pat invented really many aspects of the women's college game, and what she didn't invent she talked to the -- taught to the rest of us. it will be hard for people outside tennessee to appreciate how much she became a part of us. she literally taught us the game. she was so up-front and personal about it all. she introduced us to her players. she told us about their great abilities and successes. she told us about their failures and when they weren't living up to their potential. she invited us to go into her locker room at half time and listen to her fiery half time speeches. she made time for every single person who touched her. there are countless stories about that, but the best wanted to play for pat summitt because

she was the best. tamika catchings still playing, retiring this year, one of the great players in women's college basketball was the national player of the year in the country. she was in high school when tennessee already had the best team and the best player, but tamika wanted to go to tennessee to play for pat summitt, to play with -- with holdsclaw because she wanted to be a part of the best team. tennesseans are very, very proud of pat summitt. we know that when the nation saw her, they might think a little better of us because she was one of us. she was a great friend, not just a friend of mine and our family but of thousands of tennesseans. we honor her life. we honor that she lived that life by the book, that she taught so many young women how to live their life by the book,

that she brought out the best in so many of them and inspired the rest of us to maybe think a little big forefor ourselves as well. at a young age, about 60, 59 years of age, suddenly she had alzheimer's disease. she confronted that just as well. and she set an example for the rest of us fighting for that. so for pat summitt, this is a day to honor a woman of style, a woman of substance, a farm girl who grew up to be the winningest college coach in the country and who by her example and by her life brought out the best in her players and set an example for the rest of us. so i join senator corker in offering this resolution which the senate will adopt later this evening. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee.

mr. corker: i'm so glad to join the senior senator from our state who set such an example here in the senate in recognizing and honoring pat summitt. basketball has lost a legend as i'm sure he said. tennessee has lost one of its own beloved daughters. perhaps no one who left with a more indelible mark on his or her profession than pat. in her 38 years as head coach of the university of tennessee, lady volunteers, she amassed a historic record of achievement and blazed a trail for women across our country. farm girl from henrietta, tennessee, pat attended the university of tennessee in martin earning a bachelor's degree and leadings the women's basketball team to two national championship tournaments. shortly after graduating she accepted a position at the university of tennessee knoxville as head coach at 22 years old. the rest they say is history. in those early years pat drove

the team van and was paid a $25a month. 38 years later she walked off the hardwood as the winnings ncaa division one basketball coach in history with 1,096 victories, eight national championships, 32 combined southeastern conference titles, and zero, zero losing seasons. but if you ask pat, there's only one number that she would point to, 161. 161 ladies who had the honor of wearing the orange and white over the span of her career. as she once wrote, i won 1,098 games and eight national championships and coached in four different decades, but what i see are not the numbers. i see their faces. and her influence on their lives was felt as much off the court as it was on it. every player who completed --

every player who completed her eligibility at the university of tennessee under pat summitt graduated. that's remarkable. every single player in 38 years. think about that. the impact she had on her players, the university of tennessee, the knoxville community, and the game of basketball will be felt for years to come. in closing as we look back on pat's life, i will echo the words of my friend and former tennessee football coach philip farmer who said coach summitt did not want a pity party. she said if you're going to have one, i'm not coming. so today i join all tennesseans in celebrating, celebrating her life, celebrating the victories, the titles, and the relationships, celebrating a life well lived and a fight hard fought. i extend my thoughts and prayers

to her son, tyler, the lady family and all those touched by her truly remarkable life. mr. president, thank you and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i rise today to discuss a really outrageous abuse of power on the part of members of this body, members of the house, washington officials in general. while imposing obamacare on everyone else, officials in washington have largely exempted themselves from obamacare's most inconvenient aspects through yet another illegal obama executive action that created the washington exempt from obamacare. now, unfortunately this is not a new practice on the part of the washington elite. washington lawmakers often create or support exempts for

themselves from the laws they pass on everyone else. this undemocrattic practice dates back to the 19 rgt century -- 19th century, civil service act of 1883, fair labor standards act of 1938 coming into the 20th century. the act of -- freedom of information act of 1966 and the list goes on and on. as the late representative henry hodd is famously quoted as saying many years ago -- quote -- congress would exempt itself from the law of gravity if it could -- closed quote. that's sadly true and this practice must end. i've always believed that the first rule of an american democracy should be that whatever washington passes on america, it should have to live under itself. no special exempts. no special subsidies, no special deals, no special treatment. this rule is important for two

reasons. the first reason is basic fairness, simply not fair for a select group of elites to live by a different and more beneficial set of rules than everyone else. and the second reason, perhaps even more importantly, is a key practical reason. and that is that when you make the chef eat his own cooking, it almost always gets better and often in a hurry. congress can only be an effective, responsive, truly representative of legislative body when it lives under the same laws it imposes on the rest of the country. now passing obamacare, the patient protection and affordable care act, was a huge complicated undertaking on the part of its advocates. it is certainly telling related to that when then speaker of the house nancy pelosi notoriously

declared -- quote -- we have to pass the bill so we can find out what's in it -- closed quote. when members of congress realized what was in it for them after passing the bill, they said, oh, you know what. and then they scurried to figure out a scheme that would protect their own elite health care, including taxpayer funded subsidies which don't exist in the obamacare statute at all much less for anyone else. of course there are even more serious problems of the obamacare statute for all americans. when president obama signed obamacare into law in march of 2010, it consisted of poorly written language that imposed drastic and unwanted health insurance changes on to countless americans. despite the president's promise that americans could keep their

existing insurance, the law said otherwise. the cost of complying or failing to comply with obamacare belied the president's false assurances otherwise, and the following months insurers and employers and americans realized this through the cancellation or nonrenewals of insurance plans for millions of americans. and so ultimately millions of americans, american workers faced burden, including losing their individual and employer-provided coverage, being forced into alternatives that involved paying higher premiums with unwanted or useless new coverage, and having to change doctors and health care providers against their will. now, as i said earlier, simultaneous with all of this, members of congress started to realize what was in obamacare for them. when they passed obamacare, they

had revoked congress' own generous health care coverage and the monthly employer government premium contributions that went with it. prior to obamacare, members of congress and their staff received health insurance coverage through the federal employees health benefits program or the fehbp run by the office of personnel management. it had served as the health care network for federal workers since 1959. in 2013 alone, fehbp represented the country's largest employer-sponsored health insurance program with costs approaching $32.4 billion in premiums for about 8 million enrollees. one of the benefits of fehbp was the wide variety of health insurance policies that provided coverage for individuals and their family members.

even more important was how fehbp provided a taxpayer funded government contribution to each enrollee's monthly premium. in 2013 alone the maximum fehbp contribution averaged $413 a month or almost $5,000 per year for individual coverage and $920 a month or over $10,000 a year for family coverage. an added bonus about these taxpayer funded contributions counted as tax free income to employees. now this is certainly a great benefit for federal employees, and i absolutely believe that they should be treated fairly in return for the public service they provide, but i also believe that congress has to follow the law as written, and that's when we get to obamacare. obamacare specifically changed

all of this very clearly and specifically changed all of this. it mandated that members of congress and congressional staff give up that fehbp health coverage beginning january 1, 2014 and join an obamacare health insurance exchange. the relevant section of the act is crystal clear. it says -- quote -- "notwithstanding any other provision of law, after the effective date of this subtitle, the only health plans that the federal government may make available to members of congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a member of congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are created under this act and our amendment made by this act or offered through an exchange established under this act or an amendment made by this act." changed our entire coverage

clearly, unequivocally. now, the word "notwithstanding" means in spite of, sweeping aside any other provision of law. it definitively dictates that section 1312d3d takes precedent over any other conflicting provision in the bill or anywhere in the code. some folks may not like that but that is the law, that became the law clearly unequivocally when obamacare was passed into law. it didn't have to be exactly that way. for instance, senator chuck grassley introduced an amendment during debate on the obamacare bill that would have changed this final language regarding how obamacare impacts congress. the grassley amendment clearly described which federal employees were subject to the law and must enroll on the new exchanges. that wasn't different. it included the president, the vice president, each member of

congress, each political appointee, and each congressional employee. but it also permitted federal employees to continue receiving the employer government contributions like those received under fehbp. however, the senate never voted on that language, on that grassley amendment before obamacare became law. even more telling, even more significant, after obamacare became law, senator grassley again offered that language. he got a vote then and that language was defeated here in the senate 56-43. so the final obamacare language very clearly states that members of congress must purchase their health insurance on a state-based or federal exchange and it has absolutely no provision for a rich taxpayer funded subsidy.

that's why i followed that law. i personally signed up for health insurance on louisiana's individual health care exchange. it definitely costs me more money. it definitely costs my family more money, but that's what the law says we have to do. so as millions of americans face the possibility of losing the health insurance that they had, that they liked, that they wanted to keep -- as i mention add few minutes ago -- members of congress faced increases expenses on their own personal new healt health insurance plan. now, which of these two problems do you think congress scrambled to solve? you guesses it: their own. not all americans' problems; the washington elite's problem. they made a determined effort to find a way to protect themselves and, sadly, this was a fully

bipartisan, bicameral effort that ultimately led to washington's exemptions from obamacare. with the january 1, 2014, deadline quickly approaching for congress to give up its fehbp benefits, congressional leadership scrambled for a solution. press reports at the time indicated that top lawmakers initiated confidential talks with obama administration officials to carve out a suitable exemption from obamacare. after extended closed-door deliberations, a proposal emerged that involved using o.p.m., the office of personnel management, to promulgate a special agency rule that only applied to congress. now during the rule-making process, o.p.m. admitted that -- quote -- "many commenters on the rule expressed their view that a

government contribution is antithetical to section 1312 of the affordable care act, which they interpret to require members of congress and congressional staff to purchase the same health insurance available to private citizens on the exchanges. commenters asserted that members of congress and congressional staff should be subject to the same requirements as citizens purchasing insurance on the exchanges, including individual responsibility for premiums and income restrictions for premium assistance." close quote. this was in "politico." i certainly agree with this sentiment. that's what obamacare said. that's what the statute said. members of congress should absolutely live under the laws they pass. unfortunately, though, under this cleverly hatched scheme, o.p.m. disregarded these comments and moved forward with its insider rule. through a legal executive

action, a rule, an executive action contrary in this case to the obamacare statute, the final o.p.m. rule in effect declared congress to be a small business so that members of congress and staff could purchase plans on d.c.'s small business exchange, explicitly reserved under the obamacare statute for small businesses of 50 employees or less. and this rule also permitted the washington insiders to receive a generous employer contribution toward their premiums that is nowhere -- nowhere noted in the obamacare statute. so o.p.m.'s final rule did two things. first, it allowed all members of congress and staff to purchase insurance on this d.c. small business exchange created for small businesses, and the d.c.

case clearly created for businesses of 50 employees or less. and, secondly, it made sure that the small employer contribution would be equal to congress' previously acquired fehbp contributions. with o.p.m.'s final rule, members of congress and congressional staff would not have to pay that extra out of pocket, like so many millions on the obamacare exchanges have to pay. now, i guess this is great news for congress, but there are major problems with this final rule that make is just flat-out wrong and flat-out illegal, contrary to the obamacare statute. first -- the first thing that makes it just flat-out wrong is that it was specific to members of congress and congressional staff, a solution for the washington insiders when millions of americans continued

to suffer the serious negative consequences of obamacare. second, it suggested -- it pushed congress into this d.c. small business exchange when congress is obviously not a small business, and this exchange was created for the benefit of small businesses. and, third, the relevant statute in obamacare says nothing about any employer subsidy for members of staff, no taxpayer-funded subsidy, and yet o.p.m.'s rule created this out of thin air. a fourth problem is one of the most egregious examples of how big a scam this rule is. members of congress actually have the option to designate some, any, all potentially of their staff as -- quote -- "not

official" -- cloture vot-- --close quote -- thus allowing their staff to stay on the old fehbp together, to avoid the exchanges altogether, which is the intent of that obamacare provision. this completely frustrates the crystal clear language of obamacare for those staff members, in a blatant way. and, again, that problem is egregious. it just underscores how big a scam this rule is. those staff members use official taxpayer-funded resources. they get paychecks funded by the taxpayer. it is official. they use official letterhead, official everything, official resources. but somehow they're not "official" for purposes of this obamacare provision. it's just outrageous. and in 2014 when all of this went into effect, i served as the ranking member of the senate

e.p.w. committee. i certainly considered all of my staff, including committee starvetion to be official -- including committee staff, to be official government staff. when i took over as chairman of the small business committee last year, again i absolutely did the right thing, designated my committee staff as well as my personal staff as official. they clearly are. now, let's go back to the o.p.m. rule. in order for u.s. house and senate members and staff to enroll in this d.c. small business exchange, the u.s. senate and the u.s. house of representatives had to submit online applications. in september 2014 judicial watch, a government watchdog organization, asked for and eventually received several documents from the d.c. health

benefits exchange authority in response to their freedom of information act request related to congress receiving benefits under this d.c. small business exchange. the documents included nine pages of applications completed and submitted online for u.s. house and senate members and for house staff to enroll on that d.c. small business exchange. now, had the house and senate completed the online applications with truthful information, they would have been automatically rejected on the computer by the d.c. exchange software system based on employee size and other prohibitive factors. so what happened? well, as you can see, what was submitted were blatantly false applications, applications with completely and blatantly false information. and we have an example from the

u.s. senate here. first, all of the applications state that each legislative body -- the house on the one hand, the senate on the other -- employed 45 full-time equivalent employees during the previous calendar year. so in order to get on this small business exchange, they were asked how many employees? the united states house of representatives -- 45. s united state -- the united st- 45. there is the number right here on the application, blatantly, obviously, laughably false. second, all three applications include blatantly false employee names and birth dates that were asked to be listed. and, third, they falsified the category of the u.s. house of representatives and the u.s.

senate, both federal legislative bodies were entitled "state or local government entities" again to squeeze onto this small business exchange. it should be noted that the applications submitted on behalf of the house on the one hand, the senate on the other, contain these three identical misrepresentations. so these identical false statements are evidence of a carefully coordinated scheme. the two forms allege exactly the same ai erroneous number of equivalent employees -- 45 -- just under the maximum allowed of 50. they contain the exact same false employee name and birth date information. they use exactly the same false employer classification -- state and local government. the coordinated effort shown on both applications likely originated from the same source,

who either personally completed them or gave instructions to others on how to complete them. now, knowingly filing false information on a government document is illegal. no legitimate private business would be able to get away with this, what congress did to gain access to this d.c. small business exchange without facing serious personalities, serious adverse consequences. but maybe even more concerning than the information we see on these applications is the information we don't see, because on the documents that judicial watch obtained, much of the information was redacted, it was blacked out. redactions are a tool generally used to protect an individual's personal or confidential information. in this case, the redactions intentionally established additional obstacles for those

seeking transparency and accountability regarding congress' action. in other words, they just hide exactly who was responsible for submitting these blatantly false applications. the redacted applications are really a startling illustration of the extent to which congress is willing to go in order to protect itself and its special perks and privileges. now, as chairman of the small business committee, i'm authorized to investigate -- quote -- "all problems of american small business enterprises." close quote. and for a large entity like congress to improperly take advantage of systems in place that are meant for small businesses, that's really doubly insulting and within our jurisdiction. so on february 3, 2015, i sent a letter to officials in the house of representatives, in the senate, and the d.c. exchange

authority requesting information and included copies of the nine pages of the applications we talked about unredacted -- all the information, nothing blacked out. the chief administrator officer for the house of representatives declined to respond based on the claim that the senate small business committee lacked jurisdiction to investigate the -- quote -- "internal operations of the house of representatives." close quote. the clerk of the senate disbursing office recited a baca background of the o.p.m. rule and nothing more. in other words, just stonewalled. the d.c. health benefits authority refused to comply on the grounds that a pending lawsuit filed by judicial watch prevented it from doing so. in march 2015 is officials from that authority agreed to meet with my committee staff to discuss producing the nine pages of applications in their original unredacted form. but at the meeting these

officials flatly refused to produce this, citing new privacy concerns. follow-up correspondence with all three entities again yielded nonresponses, basically more stonewalling. during this time, i also sent three letters to then-o.p.m. director katherine archletter requesting information from officials at the white house regarding the final o.p.m. rule. o.p.m. failed to provide any of that information. the only viable option i could see to move forward with my investigation was compulsory means through the issuance of a subpoena to the d.c. health benefits exchange authority to get the nine pages of applications in their original form, unredacted, without protecting those responsible. now, in order to issue a subpoena, committee rules dictated that as chairman i

would need either the consent of the committee's ranking democratic member or the approval of a majority of the committee members, which would be 10 members. on april 23, 2015, i convened a committee business meeting that included deliberation and a vote on issuing that speern subpoena. members regardless of party are willing to go to great lengths to protect their perks, taxpayer-funded subsidies, because the motion to issue the subpoena failed by a vote of 5-14 with five republican members, just the necessary number, to stop the subpoena joining all of the committee's democrats. -- to block the subpoena. it's no surprise to anybody who knows me that we didn't stop there, the committee investigation and the work didn't stop there. in february of this year, when the senate committee on homeland security and government affairs

conducted a hearing on the president's nomination of beth cobert to become permanent o.p.m. director i again became engaged over this issue. in my numerous attempts to engage o.p.m. in an honest conversation about how their final rule came to be i never received meaningful response so i followed up with a letter to ms. cobert who is serving as acting director. while her office did provide some useful information, her response largely failed to answer my questions. it's interesting, while all of this was going on, at the same time everyone employed by congress received a form from the i.r.s. it's called form 1095-c. excuse me, it's an i.r.s. form, comes in the case of the senate employees, from the senate

disbursing office, and it confirms the obvious. that people who work in the senate, members, staff, people who work in the house -- members, staff -- are employed by a large employer. as you may know, the internal revenue code requires applicable large employers, the definition of which is 50 or more full-time employees, to report information about offers of health coverage and enrollment and health coverage for their employees. so it demands this form, and everybody in the senate, everybody in the house got this form. now this i.r.s. form sent to all members, all staff shows that everything we're talking about that enable senate and house to get on the d.c. small business exchange was just that. it was a lie. it contradicts everything that was represented in that category.

the senate disbursing office submitted an application that said the senate has 45 total employees to the d.c. small business exchange. but the same senate disbursing office distributed an i.r.s. form that labels the senate a large employer, over 50 employees. so what is it? well, it seems pretty clear. the i.r.s. form is accurate. obviously the senate and the house are large employers. while the o.p.m. rule allows the senate to fraudulently claim to be a small business as part of this scam washington exemption from obamacare. o.p.m. palm gated a rule that a -- promulgated a rule that allows the senate to purchase insurance on a small business exchange. the law states only small employers may purchase that on

the exchange. the o.p.m. rule makes a mockery of the law and does this to establish that washington exemption from obamacare. this is a lot to take in and certainly very confusing. that's why i asked the head of the i.r.s. and the acting head of o.p.m. to clarify. i wrote to i.r.s. commissioner kostinin and asked can you firm the house and senate is a large employer. apparently they didn't have a simple answer. the i.r.s. responded they forwarded my question up the chain of command to the department of treasury, and i still await treasury's answer from february. i also asked o.p.m. acting director cobert -- quote -- "can you confirm the position of the o.p.m. as to whether congress is a small business or is it a large employer as indicated by the 1095-c form sent to

congressional employees? close quote. o.p.m.'s response was -- quote -- "o.p.m. does not take the position that congress is a small employer, nor has o.p.m. taken such a position in the past. nothing in the proposed or final rule indicates that congress shall be considered a small employer." close quote. why the heck is congress in a small business exchange limited under statute to 50 or fewer employees? it is then when i decided to place a hold on ms. cobert's nomination to become permanent o.p.m. director, and i continue to block that nomination because of o.p.m. and her clear role in this flagrant abuse of power regarding washington's exemption from obamacare. her failure to revoke the

illegal rule as well as her failure to disclose relevant information about the rule making process allows o.p.m.'s illegal rule to remain in place. and this in turn allows congress to continue to purchase health insurance on d.c.'s small business exchange and to continue to receive a generous and illegal employer contribution taxpayer-funded subsidy. my objective today remains what it has been for the last several years, and that's to flat-out end washington's exemption from obamacare. and so i won't lift my hold on this nomination until we do that, until my colleagues have joined me in following the law, until o.p.m. overturns its illegal rule, something of that sort. yes, it's more expensive to purchase my health insurance on the exchange in louisiana, but

that's what the law dictates. i don't believe this body will find the overall fix to obamacare until it truly has to live under obamacare, and that starts with no special washington exemption from obamacare, no special deal, special rule, special subsidy for congress. i don't particularly care if we fix this administratively or legislatively. i've certainly offered several legislative solutions in the past. but my colleagues seem to be intent on protecting their special perk and status. now if not for themselves, many say at least for their valued staff. on that point, i'm willing to compromise. every time a member of congress objects to my past proposals, they always talk about staff. we all value staff. i get that. certainly i agree with that sentiment, so i'm willing to

take staff out of it. that's a distraction to this debate. and i'm going to offer members to take ownership and eat their own cooking. live by the obamacare statute. be treated as millions of other americans are. go to the obamacare exchanges with no special exemption, no special subsidy, no special deal, no special rule. we could start today, and by holding congress accountable accept that important victory and certainly release my hold on ms. cobert's nomination. and with that end in mind, mr. president, i have here a new bill focused on members of congress, the president, and the vice president to end their special exemption from obamacare. and i will be formally introducing this legislation

tonight. it's simply wrong for washington insiders to carve out loopholes for themselves in order to avoid living under the laws congress passes on the rest of america. this new bill, again, will cover members of congress, the president, the vice president. not staff. we should do that as a minimum first step to live under the laws congress passes on the rest of the country and live under the obamacare statute as it exists today. now is the time for action, so i urge my colleagues to join me in taking this first step toward restoring the public's confidence in this body and the impartial rule of law. it's time to end the scam that is washington's exemption from obamacare. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

u

mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president, about 24 hours ago, our democratic friends filibustered an appropriation bill for $1.1 billion that they themselves had said was an emergency to deny mothers pregnant with babies potentially like this one depicted here from suffering the devastating birth defects associated with microcephaly. you can see the shrunken skull associated with shrunken brain and devastating impact. this is the principal danger of the zika virus, which has heretofore been limited really

to south america and central america, places like puerto rico, sadly, and haiti. but this mosquito that carries this virus is native to places like texas, louisiana, florida, the southernmost parts of the united states. and while so far the only cases, save one, recently in florida of infection from the zika virus has been from people who travel to those regions and then return to the united states. as i have said, there has been one reported case in florida it appears that has been contracted here on the mainland of the united states. but i simply do not understand how the democratic leader from utah and his colleagues could turn this public health crisis into a political circus. when a pregnant woman contracts zika, it can cause microcephaly

like this, and of course you can imagine even if it you're just a woman of child-bearing age, the possibility that you might contract zika, not knowing how long that virus remains in your body, or would cause them tremendous anxiety, and you can imagine what this devastateing birth defect does not only to the baby involved but to the families that must necessarily support them. this condition is -- is tragic. it can cause seizures, intellectual disabilities, hearing and vision problems and developmental delays, and of course premature death. that's the kind of life that awaits these children and the families of children born with microcephaly if they are fortunate enough to survive. as i mentioned just yesterday, it was reported that a child with microcephaly was born in florida. now, in this case, i stand

corrected. that was not as a result of a mosquito bite in the united states but rather the mother contracted the virus while in haiti and traveling back to her home in florida, but the simple point is this is playing with fire. it was just a few weeks ago, actually may 23, 2016, when the democratic leader said this. he was actually insisting back at the end of may that we immediately fund the president's request of $1.9 billion in emergency funding, but this is what he said. he said instead of gambling with the health and safety of millions of americans, republicans should give our nation the money it needs to fight zika, and they should do it now. not next month, not in the fall -- now. well, i think the urgency that senator reid was expressing was felt by all of us, but we know that there is a right way and a

wrong way to appropriate money here in the united states congress. we have to pass legislation in the senate. we have to pass legislation in the house. and then we have to come together in a conference committee to reconcile those differences. but it is the conference report that was a product of the negotiations between the house and the senate that funded this effort at the level that actually passed the senate just a few short weeks ago. so every single one of our democratic friends had voted for funding the zika crisis at $1.1 billion, and yet yesterday all but, i believe, one of our democratic colleagues then voted against the very funding which they said was an emergency back at the end of may. but we know, given the warmer weather in the southernmost part of the united states and the fact that the mosquito that carries this virus is native to

the southern part of the united states, we know that this risk is on our door step. and it is really shameful that our democratic colleagues put politics ahead of sound public policy. here are some of the excuses they gave. none of them withstand any sort of scrutiny. first of all, they said well, this doesn't provide enough money, even though all of them voted for funding at this level of $1.1 billion. and they know that if, in fact, the public health needs of the country are significant enough, that more funding is necessary, that there will be an opportunity at some point after due deliberation and discussion and appreciation for the nature of the problem and what the proper response would be for us to then act again. but they already voted for this funding at that level. well, the next bogus argument is that this is somehow an attack

on women's health and specifically on planned parenthood. well, the fact of the matter is there's not a word of planned parenthood in this bill. you will look in vain for the words planned parenthood because it's simply not there. what the appropriations committee decided to do and the senate and the house working together decided to direct funding for contraceptive birth control purposes to community health centers. it didn't exclude planned parenthood, and in fact if you're a medicaid beneficiary, planned parenthood is a medicaid provider, and you can get those services provided for at planned parenthood. the other bogus argument is that somehow there are environmental protection concerns. well, the very virus that causes

this terribly devastating birth defect is carried by, guess what, by mosquitoes. and why in the world would our colleagues across the aisle interfere with efforts to try to kill more mosquitoes before they cause this sort of devastateing birth defect? this legislation doesn't erode environmental protections. it provides targeted regulatory relief to combat mosquitoes that carry this virus for a short period of time by making more insecticides available to public health officials like those in houston that i visited with recently that said part of their front-line effort to combat this virus is to kill mosquitoes and it's to inform the public that if you have pooling water, let's say in a flower bed or somewhere, that that can be a breeding ground for mosquitoes and you need to be attentive to that and eliminate that place where the mosquitoes can breed and propagate.

so there is simply no good reason, there is no good reason to deny funding to mothers who are worried about the possibility that they may contract the zika virus and result in the birth of devastate ing -- bullet in devastateing birth defects like that exhibited by laura here. that's her name, laura, 3 months old. but i hope that when we come back next week, the majority leader has said that the democratic colleagues that voted against this funding bill, this emergency funding bill that they so ardently have insisted upon for so long, that they will have another chance to vote. and i hope in the interim that our friends across the aisle will search their soul, really their conscience, and maybe they

will have a little twinge of regret for having voted to deny the funding for development of a vaccine or insect control and for research so we can learn more about this virus so we can learn how to combat it more effectively. that's what they have denied us yesterday, that's what they denied women like lara's mother who need this money so this doesn't happen to anybody else's child. mr. president, in just a few moments, we're going to have a chance to vote on a fiscally responsible bill to help puerto rico better take care of its economy. now, we know the government of puerto rico has gotten themselves into an impossible situation. $70 billion of debt that its government can't repay, and we can all think about reasons why they shouldn't have done that,

and it is fiscally responsible obviously to do so, but they are in dire financial trouble, and they're going to have some $2 billion of payments that they owe on july 1 to avoid defaulting on the debt. now, i have been here long enough to know what happens when there is a fiscal crisis, and puerto rico is, after all, part of the united states. puerto ricans are american citizens. but i have been here long enough to know that in an emergency setting with the financial crisis, that one of the first things that will happen is people will come to congress and say well, can you provide a bailout? a bailout using taxpayer dollars. well, the good thing, maybe the best thing about the legislation we're getting ready to pass and that passed from the house of representatives is that not one penny of tax dollars is going to be used to deal with this financial crisis in puerto rico. you can look at the congressional budget office

score. they score zero in terms of expenditure of tax dollars for bailing out puerto rico. now, i realize some of us have seen ads on television which claim that this bill is a bailout. well, those are run by the very hedge funds that have enjoyed the tremendous profits from investing in puerto rican bonds that are now going to take a haircut because of the restructuring of that debt. of course they're going to try to discourage us from doing anything about it, but we shouldn't listen to the hedge funds on wall street and the people that have gotten rich investing in these risky bonds. we ought to do right by all american taxpayers and make sure that they are protected from a run on the treasury by passing this legislation. as we know, this legislation would establish a federal oversight board that would help them restructure their debt and going forward help them get on a

fiscally responsible path, because the thing that our fellow citizens in puerto rico need most is an economy that's growing and creating jobs and opportunity so people can live where they were born if they want to. they can stay there. while many of them have been leaving the island for some time because, frankly, it's turned into a fiscal and health-related nightmare. so i'm glad we advanced this bill a little bit earlier today. we need to pass it and get it to the president's desk. i realize it's not perfect, and i know many of us wish we had had an opportunity to offer other amendments and constructive suggestions, but given the timing of both the deadline for default, july 1, and the fact that we did not get this bill from the house until recently, we are on this constrained timeline which -- which makes it hard if not impossible to offer additional amendments. but it's important that we pass this legislation and get our

work done. we'll have a chance to vote on three matters. we'll have an effort by the senator from new jersey to tear down the amendment tree, so-called, so he can offer some additional amendments, and those amendments are things like eliminating some of the protections that i think are necessary to make this bill a better bill. and then we're going to have a budget point of order. i've talked to the chairman of the budget committee. he said the budget point of order is really a technicality because it has more to do with jurisdictional matters and not the fact that it busts the budget. in fact, as i said earlier, this bill doesn't spend a penny net of federal taxpayer dollars. and then finally we'll have a chance to vote on final passage and then get it up to the president's desk. so i hope our colleagues will work with us. we had 68 votes on the earlier vote earlier today. i hope we'll have a big vote in

favor of fiscal responsibility, in favor of legislation that would avoid the potential for a taxpayer bailout and demonstrate that we can simply work together on a bipartisan basis to pass good legislation. mr. president, i would yield the floor. mr. carper: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: good afternoon, mr. president. for more than -- it's been more than a year now, i have come to the senate floor on a pretty regular basis. one of our colleagues who is sitting over here, i think he is your relief to preside, has heard me come here and talk about some of the great work that's being done by the men and women, some of the 225,000 men and women who work for us at the

department of homeland security. and as you know, mr. president, the department of homeland security is made up of some 22 component agencies, has more than 220,000 employees all over the world. these men and women perform some of the toughest jobs in the federal work force from stopping drugs from crossing our borders to protecting our cyber networks from hackers to securing nuclear and radiological materials. the department of homeland security has a diverse, have a complex and frankly difficult mission. they have a really tough mission. in fact, they have a lot of really tough missions. each and every day tens of thousands of department of homeland security employees work quietly. they work diligently behind the scenes to achieve those missions which at their core are helping to keep over 300 million of us in this country safe as they go about, as we go about our daily lives. one of the smaller teams within the department of homeland

security, one that punches above its weight, though, is called the domestic nuclear detection office. it's not one that we've heard of very much. it's called the domestic nuclear detection office. as you might imagine, we've got an acronym for it. it's called dndo. i'm not going to use that acronym today because i don't like acronyms, especially ones that are rarely used. but the domestic nuclear detection office has a staff of only 125 people, 125 people out of 220,000 that make up d.h.s. but they are responsible for keeping us all safe from the threats imposed by nuclear and radiological materials. for tracking radioactive materials to supplying detection equipment to federal, to state and to local law enforcement, to conducting research and building better detection technologies, the men and women at the -- at

this office play an integral role in our nation's effort to, one, detect radiological materials and, two, to keep them from falling into the wrong hands. to my left we're going to see very shortly some images of just a few of the technologies that are used at this agency. and also a few of the employees who work there as they try to detect and track some of the most dangerous materials that are known to mankind. on the top half of this poster, on the top half of this poster, we'll see a couple of images. one is a field agent. one is a field agent who's using mobile detectors mounted on a jeep to determine if a substance is radioactive or not. the other shows radiation portal monitors. these are right over here. some of you who have been to our

border patrol, border crossing between this country and others will see these. you'll see them at some of our ports, too. but the second image is the mobile detection monitors. and -- excuse me, the radiation portal monitor, these yellow posts that are stationed at the ports of entry and exits. they can scan cars. they can scan trucks. they can even scan shipping containers as they pass between those tall yellow posts at our borders. the men and women at the domestic nuclear detection office are charged with detecting and reporting unauthorized attempts to import, to possess, distort, develop and transport nuclear or radiological material. they rely heavily on strong partnerships with local, with state and with federal and tribal law enforcement to achieve this mission. they act as force multipliers. they equip thousands on the front lines with the resources and with the knowledge that they need to protect our communities

from nuclear and radiological threats. one of the individuals who takes on this task every day is a fellow named brian kuleski. as an operational support program analyst, brian oversees detection operations in eight states and one u.s. territory. brian makes sure that the first responders have the training to coordinate and carry out detection, operations, whether at a major event or a sudden emergency and through regular training exercises and strategic planning, brian kuleski gives our first responders the tools they need to protect some of the most valuable, some of the most vulnerable areas of threats from nuclear materials. before joining the department of homeland security, brian worked at the florida department of transportation as a state police officer. in that role he was supporting efforts to detect and track radiological materials throughout his state. he conducted radiological and

nuclear detection operations at over 18 large-scale events including the 2009 superbowl, the 200 # world series -- 2008 world series and 2008 republican conference. he's learned -- earned the respect of his colleagues and is an expert on radiological and nuclear detection. through his thoughtful leadership i'm told and a little bit of humor along the way, brian has helped federal agencies. he's helped state and local enforcement to work together as one team, one team to protect against terrorist attacks. to brian, to brian, you and your team, we want to say a really big thank you today and every day. and while brian and his team are hard at work tracking nuclear material and stopping it before it enters our borders, others within the domestic nuclear detection office are working to track the source of these materials so they can cut off the pipeline before it ever becomes a threat here in the

united states. when brian or anyone in the federal government detects and confiscates nuclear materials, they're delivered to the national technical nuclear forensic center at this agency. the experts there use advanced technologies to break down and analyze the nuclear and radiological materials. in the bam half -- bottom half of these images to my left, you can see some of the sophisticated technologies and these two games right here. you can see some of the sophisticated technologies that we need to analyze the materials and track their sources. by the way, operating these state of the art scientific equipment and instruments requires years of training and years of education. with the right information employees of this office can track material to their source. find out who produced those materials, and arrest the criminals who buy or sell or transport them. this is an essential part of our efforts to keep nuclear and radiological materials away from

terrorists who we know would like to use them in an attack against our country. one domestic nuclear detection office employee charged with making sure that we are the best in the world, the best in the world at tracing the origins of nuclear material is emily zatoon. emily serves as a program analyst with the national technical nuclear center overseeing nine universities and national laboratory initiatives. emily is responsible for hiring the best and the brightest in the field of nuclear forensics. since 2008, emily has hired 42 ph.d.'s on to our nuclear forensics work force. these individuals work every day to improve our technologies and to help us track down the sources of these dangerous materials. and her continued work will ensure that we continue to attract and retain the top scientists in the world.

partnering with our detection experts in the field like brian and his team, the forensics experts hired by emily help state and local law enforcement track down and bring to justice those who seek to traffic nuclear material and sell it to criminals and to terrorists. without emily's efforts to keep our technology and expertise moving in the right direction, detection experts in the field like brian and countless first responders and law enforcement personnel across our country would have a lot more material to track and a much harder job ensuring the safety of our communities. emily's colleagues describe her as the ultimate team player. she works tirelessly to bring together government agencies anded academic community to make sure we're the best in the world in tracking nuclear material. she's intently focused on maintaining our abilities and researching the goalts, reaching the -- goals -- reaching the goals rather set for her program. knowing the failure to reach

them will make it much more difficult for brian to achieve his goals. it is to our benefit as a country that many say emily rarely takes no for an answer. both brian and emily are the ultimate team players. with just 125 employee, domestic nuclear detection office where they work can't be everywhere at once. it requires everyone, federal agencies, state and local law enforcement, emergency planners and even the academic and scientific community. together we can do more with less, continuously improving our training and equipment and staying one giant leap ahead of the bad guys who seek to use these materials to harm americans here at home. so to brian, to emily, to all the folks with whom they work at the domestic nuclear detection office and to everyone around the country who helps detect and track nuclear and radiological materials, we want to thank each of you. we want to thank members of your

team. and we want to thank you for coming together to keep the rest of us safe. to all of you we say thanks and god bless. and with that, mr. president, i see no one waiting to speak. i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will cal the roll. -- will call the roll. quorum call: