[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 118 (Sunday, July 26, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5703-S5710]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      HIRE MORE HEROES ACT OF 2015

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 22, which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 22) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     to exempt employees with health coverage under TRICARE or the 
     Veterans Administration from being taken into account for 
     purposes of determining the employers to which the employer 
     mandate applies under the Patient Protection and Affordable 
     Care Act.

  Pending:

       McConnell modified amendment No. 2266, in the nature of a 
     substitute.
       McConnell (for Kirk) amendment No. 2327 (to amendment No. 
     2266), to reauthorize and reform the Export-Import Bank of 
     the United States.
       McConnell amendment No. 2328 (to amendment No. 2327), to 
     repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the 
     Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 
     entirely.
       McConnell amendment No. 2329 (to the language proposed to 
     be stricken by amendment No. 2266), of a perfecting nature.
       McConnell amendment No. 2330 (to amendment No. 2329), to 
     change the enactment date.
       Cruz motion to appeal the ruling of the Chair that Cruz 
     amendment No. 2301 is not in order because it is inconsistent 
     with the Senate's precedents with respect to the offering of 
     amendments, their number, degree, and kind.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I ask through the Chair if the Democratic leader has a 
request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, has the bill been reported?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill has been reported.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that before the 3 
p.m. vote that Senator Boxer be permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes 
and that Senators Wyden and Murphy be permitted to speak for up to 5 
minutes each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask if the Democratic leader would 
modify his request to give me 12 minutes and Senator Hatch 10 minutes 
following Senators Boxer, Wyden, and Murphy. 
  Mr. REID. Why does the Senator from Tennessee get so much time? But I 
don't object, Mr. President. Just before the vote.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Just before the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, someone was speaking with me. What is the 
order? I get up to 10 minutes; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has up to 10 minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Presiding Officer.
  Mr. President, it is Sunday, and it is unusual for us to be here, but 
as I have said many times, this is the reason we are here. Look at this 
photo. This is the bridge collapse in California, and there is another 
report coming that says this is going to be far from the last one we 
have.
  This is a bridge that carries thousands of people a day from 
California to Arizona. This can happen in any one of our States, and 
the fact is we need to pass a transportation bill. I am so grateful to 
my colleague Senator Inhofe and to everyone on that committee who got 
this started.
  The Environment and Public Works Committee had a 20-to-0 vote so we 
don't have to face this anymore. After that, we had other committees 
act, just not in as bipartisan a fashion, so it was difficult. At that 
point, Leader McConnell and Senator Durbin stepped in with Senator 
Inhofe and me, and all we did was try to get to where we are right now, 
which is a place where we can pass a fair funding bill.
  I have a list. It is very interesting, and I ask unanimous consent 
that it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

   FEDERAL SHARE OF EACH STATE'S CAPITAL OUTLAYS FOR HIGHWAY & BRIDGE
                                PROJECTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          State                             Percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rhode Island............................................             102
Alaska..................................................              93
Montana.................................................              87
Vermont.................................................              86
South Carolina..........................................              79
Hawaii..................................................              79
North Dakota............................................              78
Wyoming.................................................              73
South Dakota............................................              71
Connecticut.............................................              71
New Mexico..............................................              70
Idaho...................................................              68
Alabama.................................................              68
New Hampshire...........................................              68
Missouri................................................              65
Mississippi.............................................              65
Colorado................................................              64
Minnesota...............................................              64
Oklahoma................................................              63
Arkansas................................................              62
Georgia.................................................              62
Tennessee...............................................              62
West Virginia...........................................              61
Iowa....................................................              59
Ohio....................................................              58
Virginia................................................              57
Maine...................................................              57
Wisconsin...............................................              55
Oregon..................................................              54
Indiana.................................................              54
New York................................................              54
District of Columbia....................................              52
California..............................................              49
Nevada..................................................              49
Arizona.................................................              49
Nebraska................................................              49
Kansas..................................................              49
Louisiana...............................................              48
North Carolina..........................................              48
Maryland................................................              48
Texas...................................................              47
Pennsylvania............................................              46
Washington..............................................              45
Kentucky................................................              44
Michigan................................................              41
Delaware................................................              41
Florida.................................................              39
Illinois................................................              39
Utah....................................................              38
Massachusetts...........................................              37
New Jersey..............................................              35
------------------------------------------------------------------------


  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, my State counts on the Federal Government 
for one-half of its transportation funding, highways, and transit. 
Rhode Island counts on the Federal Government for 100 percent; Alaska, 
93 percent; Montana, 87 percent; South Carolina, 79 percent; Hawaii, 79 
percent; North Dakota, 78 percent; Wyoming, 73 percent; Connecticut, 71 
percent; New Mexico, 70 percent, and it goes down from there, but the 
vast majority of our States count on the Federal Government for 
funding.
  What we have done, as both Senators Reid and McConnell have pointed 
out, is we just keep patching up the highway trust fund.
  I could go to a bank and say: I want to buy a House. The banker says: 
You have great credit. That's the good news. The bad news is you can 
only get a 5-month mortgage. What would I do in that case? I would 
sadly walk away. I can't afford to invest in a home if I have only 5 
months of a mortgage. It is the same way with the States. The way the 
House went about it, and the way some of my colleagues on both sides 
want to handle it, is another 5-month extension, and our States are 
stopping.
  On Tuesday, the general contractors told us that in 25 States they 
have

[[Page S5704]]

begun to lay off many, many, many construction workers. We all know at 
the height of the great recession we had millions of unemployed 
construction workers. It has been tough to get them back to work, and 
remember the businesses that employ them, it has been tough to get them 
back to work.
  It has been so hard and now we are seeing a reversal of all the hard 
work we did because we did a 2-year transportation bill that was 
helpful. This would be the first 6-year authorization in decades and 
the first 3-year funding, I believe, in 10 years. It could be more. We 
need to do this.
  I want to close by saying this: Working across the aisle is always 
difficult, but it is exciting, it is interesting, and the staffs from 
both sides have shown they can do it.
  Last night, I was on the phone with Senator McConnell's staff--I 
think it was 20 minutes until 12--and I kept saying: If we can't fix 
this, I have to call the Senator. They said: Please don't. Well, we 
worked it out this morning.
  I see the Senator from Rhode Island Mr. Whitehouse is coming in now. 
I told the Senators that Rhode Island counts on this Federal highway 
trust fund for 100 percent of the funding. I also did not mention that 
Senator Whitehouse is on the Environment and Public Works Committee. He 
is a very active and productive member. There is a program in there 
that is important to all of our States--major programs that will 
finally have a fund, regardless of whether it is Kentucky, Utah, Rhode 
Island or California.
  This is a fair bill. It has a good increase for highways and a good 
increase for transportation. States and cities want it. Yesterday, I 
found out from Senator Inhofe--who, by the way, did a terrific national 
radio address on this issue, and I thank him for that--that the mayor 
from Oklahoma City and the mayor from New York City wrote a letter 
saying how desperately they need the certainty. We are on the cusp.


                           Amendment No. 2327

  Mr. President, I personally support the Ex-Im Bank. I know my 
colleague Senator McConnell and I do not agree on this. I think the Ex-
Im Bank is important.
  We should not forget that we are still recovering from the worst 
recession since the Great Depression. We need to stay focused on 
putting people back to work, creating jobs, and growing the economy.
  We can do that by passing the transportation bill. I thank my 
colleagues for working together on this bill, and for their patience 
with this process. This bill will support millions of jobs and 
thousands of businesses nationwide, it will help rebuild our country's 
infrastructure, and it will strengthen our economy.
  It will also provide funding certainty for State and local 
governments and the construction industry, which was hard hit in the 
Great Recession. There are approximately 1.4 million fewer construction 
workers today compared to 2006--which equals roughly 20 percent of all 
construction jobs--and over 522,000 construction workers remain out of 
work in the U.S.
  The law that authorizes our transportation programs will expire in 
just 5 days--on July 31st--and the Highway Trust Fund is going to run 
out of money shortly after that. Many States, including Utah, Arkansas, 
Georgia, Tennessee, and Wyoming, have delayed or canceled construction 
projects due to the uncertainty in Federal transportation funding.
  We have the opportunity to pass a bill, the DRIVE Act, which is vital 
for jobs and the economy. Last week, a letter was sent from 68 groups 
calling on the Senate to vote for a six-year reauthorization of federal 
surface transportation programs. This letter was signed by labor groups 
such as the Operating Engineers, the Laborers International, and United 
Brotherhood of Carpenters, as well as business groups such as the U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the 
National Retail Federation.
  This letter was also signed by the American Association of State 
Highway and Transportation Officials, AASHTO, our State DOTs, who know 
better than anyone the importance of certainty from a long-term bill.
  Today we have the opportunity to do even more to help grow our 
economy by reauthorizing the Ex-Im Bank. I applaud my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle who worked so hard to reach a bipartisan 
agreement for a multi-year reauthorization.
  At a time when too many of our workers are still looking for jobs, 
the Ex-Im Bank helps American businesses create jobs. Last year alone, 
it financed $27.5 billion in exports for over 3,000 businesses, 
supporting over 164,000 American jobs. And over the last 6 years, it 
has supported a total of 1.3 million jobs.
  Not only that, the bank helps the United States level the playing 
field when so many other countries heavily subsidize their exports. The 
Ex-Im Bank helps American businesses compete fairly.
  Even more important, this job creation comes at no cost to the 
public. The Ex-Im Bank covers its own costs--sometimes even returning 
money to the Treasury--and maintains a default rate of under 2 percent.
  Unfortunately, as of July 1, the Ex-Im Bank has been unable to 
process any new transactions--and this poses a real threat to our 
economy. Business deals that are months or years in the making are now 
on hold, and may fall through, unless we reauthorize the Ex-Im Bank 
immediately.
  Let me tell a few stories about the Ex-Im Bank's impact in 
California. Since 2009, the Ex-Im Bank has helped almost 1,000 
California exporters--702 are small businesses--to make deals to export 
$18 billion in American products.
  Here are just a few examples of what the Ex-Im Bank has done for 
California businesses.
  FirmGreen, based in Newport Beach, CA, is a veteran-owned business 
that converts landfill gas and other renewable resources into renewable 
energy and clean fuel. Financing from the Ex-Im Bank enabled FirmGreen 
to lead a landfill gas project in Brazil, which generated 165 new 
manufacturing jobs across seven States. Unfortunately, FirmGreen 
recently lost a $57 million contract because of the uncertainty 
surrounding the Ex-Im Bank reauthorization. The company's CEO Steve 
Wilburn put it well recently, ``For Congress to create a partisan issue 
out of a bipartisan entity that is supporting U.S. business and growing 
jobs simply for the debate is just wrong.''
  Los Kitos Produce, a minority, woman-owned produce company in Orange, 
CA, wanted to expand its business to new markets overseas. To reduce 
the risks involved in selling to new foreign buyers, the company 
applied for an insurance policy from the Ex-Im Bank. This insurance 
facilitated $750,000 in sales and the company's expansion into Colombia 
and Korea. This helped to increase exports from 5 percent to 25 percent 
of their total sales.
  Martha Montoya, CEO of Los Kitos Produce, said:

       Without the Ex-Im Bank, I'd lose my growers' trust to ship 
     overseas. Our growers reinvest everything back into their 
     business and back into their community. They can't afford to 
     risk not being paid. Congress needs to support American small 
     business by reauthorizing the Ex-Im Bank. The bottom line is: 
     without Ex-Im Bank, we wouldn't be able to export.

  ProGauge Technologies of Bakersfield, CA, manufactures machines that 
inject steam into reservoirs to thin out oil so it is easier to pump. 
In recent years, the company received $15.6 million in Ex-Im loan 
guarantees. Exports now make up 65 percent of the company's revenue. 
ProGauge President Don Nelson said:

       Without Ex-Im bank, [a lender] would make us put up 100 
     percent collateral, and we would have no money available for 
     operations. . . . Revenues would go down by about 75 percent 
     and I'd have to lay off between 50 and 60 people. Ex-Im is 
     critical to our business.

  The Washington Post reported that ProGauge will have to withdraw its 
bid for a $30 million project in the Middle East if the Ex-Im Bank is 
not reauthorized. ``It's going to be devastating for us'' said CEO Don 
Nelson. ``Basically, we just won't be able to operate anymore.''
  Wiggins Lift Company is a small business in Oxnard, CA, that employs 
over 50 workers and has been family owned for three generations. The 
Ex-Im Bank recently provided financing of $1.4 million for Wiggins to 
export its forklifts to three Brazilian companies. This deal will help 
to sustain an estimated 30 jobs at Wiggins Lift.

[[Page S5705]]

  ``Ex-Im's guarantee is a positive for everyone'' said Wiggins Lift 
CEO Michelle McDowell. ``These sales are helping us continue to grow, 
add employees, and contribute to the U.S. economy.''
  These are just a few stories of what will be lost if the Ex-Im Bank 
is not re-authorized. Every day that the Ex-Im Bank is unable to make 
new loans, more and more businesses will lose opportunities to compete 
and sell their products worldwide, and that means jobs lost right here 
in America.
  Let's do the right thing. Let's reauthorize the Ex-Im Bank. Let's 
pass the highway bill. Let's create jobs and strengthen our economy.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important reauthorization.
  To sum it up, we have a lot of small businesses that count on the Ex-
Im Bank to finance them so they can export our products. We have so 
many in our State.
  I hope it passes on a bipartisan vote, and I thank Leader McConnell. 
I know this is not something he likes at all, but he made a commitment 
and he is sticking to it.
  Lastly, we are going to have a vote to overturn ObamaCare. Senator 
Hatch and I were discussing how much we disagree on this point, but I 
told him I wouldn't hold back. I think it doesn't make any sense.
  We are looking at millions of people nationwide who now have health 
insurance and cannot be told by their insurer they have a preexisting 
condition like high blood pressure or diabetes, forget it. We have so 
many families that now have their 24-year-old, 25-year-old, 26-year-old 
on their insurance.
  I have stories that will make you feel good--stories from people in 
my State. One person had her cancer caught at a very early stage, and 
as a result of that she has lived to tell the tale. Before ObamaCare, 
she couldn't have gotten the tests she needed to discover this deadly 
cancer.
  I just say rhetorically to my friends on the other side--and they are 
my friends. I will tell you, we have really built up some relationships 
over this bill, which I am so happy about. Why don't we work together 
to fix the problems? We know no bill is perfect. The Transportation 
bill is far from perfect, and we had to fix that too.
  Maybe there is a new day dawning. We keep saying that, but it doesn't 
seem to be happening. But maybe something good is going to come from 
the bipartisanship, tough as it has been. The Transportation bill is 
far from perfect. I wanted to do so much more on safety, and I have to 
say that Senator Nelson did such a good job. I must have talked to 
Senator Wyden half a dozen times. He kept putting on pay-fors that were 
good, but they were rejected by the other side. We could have done so 
much more if we had gone that way. We did what we could do, and just as 
in the trade battle where our caucus was very split, our caucus is very 
split here.
  I hope we can find enough courage and interest, and most important, 
keep this in mind: This is, to me, the poster child of why we have come 
together. This America, this doesn't look like America. It is wrong, 
and we can come together and hopefully vote for Ex-Im Bank, against the 
repeal of ObamaCare, and then move forward with a good cloture vote 
tomorrow night on our very much compromised bill on transportation--
because it is a compromise.
  Again, my thanks to people on both sides of the aisle--Democrats, 
Republicans, and everybody--for moving this along.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.


                           Amendment No. 2328

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I have spent much of my time in public 
service working to promote bipartisanship in health care. In fact, the 
distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee is here. I think he may 
speak next. Our colleague from Tennessee Senator Alexander is a 
cosponsor of my comprehensive health care reform bill. So, for me, 
bipartisanship and health care policy is enormously important, and 
there are certainly plenty of ways in which Democrats and Republicans 
could be working together to strengthen the Affordable Care Act. 
Unfortunately, that does not seem to be on the menu either today or in 
this Congress.
  Today, instead of looking forward on health care in America, the 
Senate, on a transportation bill, will have a vote on whether to go 
backward on health care--backward to the days when health care in 
America was for the healthy and the wealthy. I specifically used those 
words because the moment you repeal the Affordable Care Act, millions 
of Americans lose protection against preexisting conditions. The moment 
that happens, if you are healthy and wealthy, no sweat, but for the 
millions who are aren't, they are back in that abyss where they go to 
bed at night worried that they may get wiped out the very next morning 
because they have a preexisting health condition.
  Protection for those individuals will be gone the moment the Senate 
votes. I hope the Senate will not vote for ending the Affordable Care 
Act this afternoon, but the moment it does, gone is that protection for 
preexisting conditions. Gone are the tax credits. These are 
opportunities for Americans to get a little bit of tax relief when 
hard-working families pay for health insurance--gone when we repeal the 
Affordable Care Act. Gone would be the protections that bar insurance 
companies from charging top dollar for rock-bottom coverage. Gone would 
be the protections for young adults. Right now, they can't be locked 
out of their parents' insurance plans. Gone would be the protection for 
individuals to make sure their insurance isn't canceled the moment they 
get sick. Once again, pregnancy could be considered a preexisting 
condition.

  So what I think this shows is that this debate is no longer about 
numbers on a page, bills we write, lots of charts, lots of graphs, lots 
of small print. But this isn't an abstraction, when we go back, as I 
have described, to the days when health care was for the healthy and 
the wealthy. More than 16 million Americans have gained health 
insurance coverage by virtue of the Affordable Care Act. Their health 
is on the line every single time there is a vote to repeal that law. So 
those are the consequences.
  I will wrap up because I see my good friend from Tennessee is here, 
as well as my Senator and my colleague from Utah. Both of them have 
joined me repeatedly in trying to promote bipartisan approaches on 
health care policy. I don't take a backseat to anybody in this body on 
working on health care policy in a bipartisan fashion. There is nothing 
that I think would be more valuable than to have Democrats and 
Republicans come together, not to talk about repealing this law but to 
find ways to strengthen it. There is not a law that has been passed 
that we can't strengthen. And having spoken with my friend from Utah 
and my friend from Tennessee repeatedly, I think they know I am serious 
about reaching out for common ground with respect to this issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 additional 
seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WYDEN. The pie-in-the-sky insistence that the Affordable Care Act 
will be repealed and somehow we will not have the suffering I have just 
described--that is not reality.
  What we ought to do is reject this amendment to repeal the Affordable 
Care Act and then get back to work in a bipartisan way to strengthen 
the law.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, will the Chair please inform me when 10 
minutes has expired.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will so notify.


                   Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, today there will be at least three 
votes. The first, as we have heard, is to end debate on Senator 
McConnell's amendment to repeal ObamaCare. The second will be to end 
debate on the Export-Import Bank. Then there may be a third vote on an 
appeal by the Senator from Texas, Mr. Cruz, to overturn a ruling of the 
Chair that an amendment of his is not in order. This is how that came 
about. On Friday Senator Cruz offered an amendment regarding Iran.

[[Page S5706]]

The Chair ruled that the amendment was not in order because--and this 
is what the Chair said, in fact--``it is inconsistent with the Senate's 
precedents with respect to the offering of amendments.'' The Senator 
from Texas then appealed the ruling of the Chair. His intention today 
will be to try to obtain a majority vote to overturn the Chair's 
ruling.
  I respect the Senator's strong desire to offer his amendment, but I 
believe he ought to do it within the Senate rules or I believe we 
should change Senate rules in the way our rules prescribe. If, instead, 
a majority of Senators agree with the Senator from Texas, the Senate 
will be saying that a majority can routinely change Senate rules and 
procedures anytime it wants on any subject it wants in order to get the 
result it wants. The problem with that, as former Senator Carl Levin of 
Michigan once said, is that a Senate that changes its rules anytime a 
majority wants is a Senate without any rules.
  Think of it this way. Football season is coming up. Let's say the 
Tennessee Titans are playing football against the Indianapolis Colts in 
Nashville and the home team sets the rules of the game. So when the 
Titans gain 9 yards, they change the rules to say 9 yards is a first 
down or when the Colts gain 100 yards, the Titans say: Sorry, you need 
110 yards to score a touchdown. No one would want to play such a game. 
No one would want to watch such a game. No one would respect such a 
game. That is why every Monday in New York City a team of former 
National Football League officials reviews every referee's call and 
noncall from the previous Sunday's games played in the NFL. The league 
wants to make absolutely sure its rules are followed. And the NFL has a 
rules committee that meets between seasons to consider changes in the 
rules. It has rules about how to change its rules. The NFL, of course, 
wouldn't even consider allowing the Titans to change the rules in the 
middle of a game in Nashville in order to defeat the Colts.
  The U.S. Senate has a rules committee, too, and we have rules on how 
to change our rules. We should follow those rules. The U.S. Senate is 
the chief rulemaking body for the United States of America. If we 
cannot follow our own rules, how can we expect 320 million Americans to 
follow the rules we write for them? If we render ourselves lawless, how 
can we expect our fellow Americans to respect and follow the rule of 
law?
  There is a practical problem with what the Senator from Texas seeks 
to do. If he succeeds, it will destroy a crucial part of what we call 
the rule of regular order in the U.S. Senate. He will create a 
precedent that destroys the orderly consideration of amendments. There 
will be unlimited amendments. There will be chaos. And ironically, 
while destroying regular order, he wouldn't get the vote on the Iran 
amendment he seeks. That is because if he overrules the Chair and 
creates another branch of the amendment tree, the Senate leaders have a 
right to offer an amendment to fill that new branch of the tree before 
he does.
  The U.S. Senate is unique in the world. It has been called the one 
authentic piece of genius of the American political system. Its 
uniqueness is based upon a variety of rules, precedents, procedures, 
and agreements that encourage extended debate. This process encourages 
consensus, and consensus is the way we govern a complex country, 
whether it is a civil rights bill or a trade agreement or an education 
bill. But a body of 100 of us that operates by unanimous consent 
requires restraint and good will on the part of Senators to function. 
We saw a good example of that a couple of weeks ago when the Senate 
passed 81 to 17 in 1 week a complex elementary and secondary education 
bill. Any Senator could have made that process much more difficult, but 
not one did, and the country is impressed with that result.

  There are different ways--several different ways--to establish Senate 
rules and procedures, but they all fall under the same umbrella. There 
are standing rules adopted by the first Senate in 1789 with the advice 
of Thomas Jefferson. There are standing orders. Sometimes we set rules 
by passing a law, such as the Budget Act. Sometimes we establish a rule 
by unanimous consent or by agreeing to a new precedent. Taken together, 
all of these represent the full body of the Senate's Rules of 
Procedure. These Rules of Procedure have several things in common, no 
matter how they were established. The authority for establishing and 
changing each of them comes from the same place: article I, section 5 
of the United States Constitution. Every one of them can be changed by 
67 votes, following rule XXII of the Senate, except that a standing 
order may be changed with 60 votes.
  One other thing these different forms of rules and precedents have in 
common is that the latest change supersedes whatever rule or precedent 
was established earlier. So if the Senator from Texas persuades the 
majority of us to overrule the Chair today, that decision governs the 
Senate forever until it is changed or unless it is changed. So there is 
no real difference between changing a rule or changing a precedent. 
What is important is not how the precedent was established or the rule 
was established but what is being overturned.
  It is true that occasionally the Senate majority uses its power to 
overturn the ruling of the Chair to refine the interpretation of rules 
or precedents. This means that in some limited circumstances, the 
Senate changes its rules by majority vote.
  The question today is not whether we can overturn the ruling of the 
Chair but whether we should overturn the ruling of the Chair. I believe 
we should not do so. To do so would destroy regular order in the 
Senate. It would create chaos in the Senate. Most importantly, a Senate 
in which a majority routinely changes the rules by overruling the Chair 
is a Senate without any rules.
  There is a right way and a wrong way to change our rules and 
procedures. This would be the wrong way. I urge my colleagues to not 
agree with the Senator from Texas in his effort to overturn the ruling 
of the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.


             Treating Each Other With Courtesy and Respect

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to address the Senate in my 
capacity as President pro tempore. I hope my colleagues will give 
attention to what I am about to say and will take it to heart because I 
speak from the heart out of respect for my colleagues and out of love 
for this great body in which we are all privileged to serve.
  The Senate has a long and justly celebrated tradition of comity and 
respect among Members. Although there have been occasional exceptions 
throughout history, on the whole, Senators have taken great care to 
treat each other with courtesy and respect, both in private discussions 
and in public deliberations. We do this for several reasons--first, 
because mutual respect is essential for us to be able to work together 
to forge consensus on difficult issues that stir deep and sometimes 
divisive feelings. Passing meaningful legislation in this body 
typically requires the two parties to work together, and that, in turn, 
requires a trust and a certain level of good will. Courtesy and decorum 
foster an atmosphere where we can work in good faith to find common 
ground, where we can appeal to nobler instincts to do what is best for 
all Americans, not just those of a particular partisan persuasion.
  The second reason we treat each other with courtesy and respect is 
because it is the honorable thing to do. We come to this body as 100 
men and women with vastly different backgrounds, life experiences, and 
views on how government should operate. But we share a common humanity 
and a common goal to improve this great Nation and to secure the 
blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity. We divide into 
parties and join caucuses. We fight passionately about matters of 
tremendous consequence. But we do not become enemies. We remain 
colleagues. And colleagues treat each other with respect. We treat each 
other with honor even when we feel another has perhaps not accorded us 
the same esteem. Squabbling and sanctimony may be tolerated in other 
venues or perhaps on the campaign trail, but they have no place among 
colleagues in the U.S. Senate.
  The third and most important reason we treat each other with courtesy 
and respect is because we are the people's representatives. We are not 
here on

[[Page S5707]]

some frolic or to pursue personal ambitions; we are here because the 
people of the United States have entrusted us with the solemn 
responsibility to act on their behalf in shaping our Nation's laws. 
This is a high and holy calling. It is not something to take lightly. 
It is a sacred trust in which pettiness or grandstanding should have no 
part. We are here to do serious work. In doing this work, egos will 
inevitably be bruised. Feelings from time to time may be hurt. This is 
inherent in the nature of politics. But we are here to carry out the 
people's business. We serve the people, not our own egos. When we are 
on the losing side of a particular debate, when we are disappointed, we 
pick ourselves up and move ahead to the next challenge.
  Our Nation's Founders designed the Senate to play a special role in 
our constitutional system. In contrast to the more raucous, populist 
House, the Senate was to be a body of deliberation and reasoned 
judgment. Senators were to seek the common good and consider national, 
not just parochial, interests in crafting legislation and considering 
nominees.
  Decorum is essential to executing this constitutionally ordained 
role. Deliberation and reasoned judgment require an atmosphere of 
restraint, an atmosphere of thoughtful disagreement. Deliberation 
without decorum is not deliberation at all; it is bickering. And 
bickering is beneath this body.

  Regrettably, in recent times, the Senate floor has too often become a 
forum for partisan messaging and ideological grandstanding rather than 
a setting for serious debate. It has been misused as a tool to advance 
personal ambitions, a venue to promote political campaigns, and even a 
vehicle to enhance fundraising efforts--all at the expense of the 
proper functioning of this body. Most egregiously, the Senate floor has 
even become a place where Senators have singled out colleagues by name 
to attack them in personal terms and to impugn their character--in 
blatant disregard of Senate rules which plainly prohibit such conduct.
  The Senate floor has hosted many passionate debates on crucial issues 
over the years. Tempers from time to time have flared. Voices have on 
occasion been raised. But we have almost universally confined our 
criticisms to policies and to ideas, to what we think is wrongheaded 
about particular bills or proposals. We have not, at least in my 
memory, called our opponents dishonest or sought to disparage their 
motives.
  To bring personal attacks to the Senate floor would be to import the 
most toxic elements of our current political discourse into the well of 
the Senate, into the very heart of this institution. This would serve 
only to pollute our deliberations, to break the bonds of trust that are 
essential for achieving some measure of consensus, and to invite the 
dysfunction that so saturates our media and popular culture into this 
storied Chamber.
  For those of us who care about the Senate as an institution and who 
want it once again to help solve the vexing challenges that face our 
Nation, such misuse of the Senate floor must not be tolerated. Each of 
us--Republicans and Democrats alike--must stand together in support of 
the Senate's time-honored traditions of collegiality and respect. We 
must stand resolute in requiring that the Senate's formal rules 
requiring dignity and decorum be observed. And we must ensure that the 
pernicious trend of turning the Senate floor into a forum for advancing 
personal ambitions, for promoting political campaigns, or for enhancing 
fundraising activities comes to a stop. There are enough other 
platforms for those seeking to accomplish those objectives; the Senate 
floor need not be one.
  Mr. President, I recognize that many of my colleagues are quite new 
to the Senate and may not yet have had many opportunities to experience 
its proper institutional role as a forum for reasoned deliberation and 
constructive debate. Some are less familiar with its traditions of 
comity and respect. Others may know little of the Senate's history in 
rising above parochialism and narrow self-interest. And a few, I regret 
to say, seem unconcerned for its historic pivotal role in promoting 
consensus and helping to overcome our Nation's challenges.
  As one who has had the privilege of serving here for the past four 
decades, I can attest from firsthand experience that the Senate can be 
and has been in times not too far past a distinguished and constructive 
body that does much good. I recall vividly times when this body was 
marked by good will rather than rancor and disrepute. In some respects, 
the Senate today is but a mere shadow of its former self, another 
casualty of the permanent political campaign. This is deeply 
disheartening to those like myself who were here to experience this 
body's better days, and it has severely damaged the proper governance 
of our Nation.
  Mr. President, I have been frank in my remarks today. This candor 
stems from my genuine concern for this body and its future. I have been 
frank because I have seen so much of what I love about this body 
frittered away in recent years for small-minded, shortsighted, partisan 
gain. By virtue of my long service here in the Senate and my role as 
President pro tempore, I am a dedicated institutionalist. I care deeply 
about this institution and want it to work.
  Our current majority leader has made important strides in putting the 
Senate back on a path toward meaningful deliberation and constructive 
lawmaking aimed at the common good, but his efforts and those of other 
Senators on both sides of the aisle who take the long view in seeking 
to build up this institution will not suffice unless each one of us is 
committed to instilling comity and respect as a core feature of 
everything we do.
  Let's each move forward with a renewed sense of honor and respect, a 
resolve not to tolerate misuse of the Senate floor, a commitment to do 
our part to restore civility and constructive debate as defining 
characteristics of this body, and a renewed willingness to work 
together for the good of all Americans.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.


                   Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair.

  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from Utah for an 
excellent speech. I entirely agree with his call for civility and 
decorum and respect. No Member of this body should engage in ad hominem 
attacks directed at any other Member of this body, be they a Republican 
or be they a Democrat. At the same time, I would note that it is 
entirely consistent with decorum and with the nature of this body 
traditionally as the world's greatest deliberative body to speak the 
truth. Speaking the truth about action is entirely consistent with 
civility. Indeed, in a quote often falsely attributed to George Orwell, 
the sentiment has been expressed thusly: ``In a time of universal 
deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.''
  I would make four brief points.
  First of all, on Friday I gave an unusual speech--a speech unlike any 
I have given in this Chamber. It was not a speech I was happy to give. 
It was a speech to which the senior Senator from Utah has responded. I 
would note that in the course of that speech I described an explicit 
promise the majority leader had made to me and to all 53 Republican 
Senators. Neither the majority leader, nor the Senator from Utah, nor 
the Senator from Tennessee has disputed that the majority leader, in 
front of every Republican Senator, made that promise, looking me in the 
eyes--namely, that there was no deal on the Export-Import Bank, that 
its proponents could offer it in the regular order and there would be 
no special preferences whatsoever. We saw on Friday that promise was 
false.
  In particular, on the amendment on the Export-Import Bank, first of 
all, it was not offered by its proponents, it was called up by the 
majority leader. Very few of us get our amendments called up by the 
majority leader because he has priority of recognition, he can edge out 
any other amendment in this Chamber.
  Secondly, the majority leader followed that by filling the tree--a 
procedural mechanism that he had often decried when the former majority 
leader employed it to block other amendments.
  Third, the majority leader filed cloture on the Export-Import Bank 
amendment--a tool he has used only once in his entire tenure as 
majority leader.
  Those were extraordinary steps designed to force a vote to 
reauthorize the Export-Import Bank, and they were

[[Page S5708]]

directly contrary to the promises the majority leader made to all 53 
Republicans and to the press. My saying so may be uncomfortable, but it 
is a simple fact entirely consistent with decorum, and no Member of 
this body has disputed that promise was made and that promise was 
broken.
  The senior Senator from Tennessee gave a learned speech on changing 
the rules of this body through appealing the ruling of the Chair, and I 
very much agree. When the former majority leader used the nuclear 
option, it was wrong to violate the rules. But the amendment tree does 
not come from the rules, the amendment tree comes from the precedents, 
and precedents are set precisely through appealing the rulings of the 
Chair by a majority vote.
  Indeed, I would note that previously many Members of this body have 
voted in favor of overruling the ruling of the Chair, including my 
friend, the senior Senator from Tennessee, who has voted 4 times in his 
career to overrule the ruling of the Chair; my friend the majority 
whip, who has voted 5 times in his career to overrule the ruling of the 
Chair; and, indeed, the distinguished majority leader, who has voted 14 
times in his career to overrule the ruling of the Chair. I would note 
beyond that, that as recently as April 2, 2014, there was a third-
degree appeal precisely like the one I have filed that was filed by 
Senator Vitter. The ruling of the Chair was appealed, and a significant 
number of Republicans voted in favor of that appeal, including the 
majority leader and including the majority whip.
  Many Republicans railed against the filling of the tree when the 
Democratic leader was the majority leader. If it was an abuse of power 
then, it remains so today. Indeed, I would note what the current 
majority leader said at the time: ``The practical effect of [filling 
the tree] is to disenfranchise the people I and my members represent, 
and, more significantly, a significant number of the people his members 
represent whose voices are simply not heard in the Senate.''
  Beyond that, let me say on the substance that if you oppose filling 
the tree to silence the amendments of Members, be they in the majority 
party or the minority party, you should vote in favor of allowing my 
amendment to go forward.
  I would note that the Senator from Tennessee was incorrect that it 
would allow unlimited amendments. It would simply add a third branch to 
the tree and not unlimited amendments.
  At the same time, if you are resolved to stand with our friend and 
ally the Nation of Israel, if you are resolved to stand with American 
hostages in Iran, and if you are convinced to not lift sanctions on 
Iran unless and until Iran recognizes Israel's right to exist as a 
Jewish State and that they release four American hostages, then you 
should vote to allow that amendment to be voted on.
  Needless to say, if you oppose the Export-Import Bank, you should 
vote to allow that amendment to be voted on.
  Finally, if you want other amendments on pressing issues, be they 
defunding Planned Parenthood, be they stopping sanctuary cities, be 
they passing Kate's Law, or be they ending the congressional exemption 
from Obamacare, you should vote in favor of allowing this amendment to 
be voted on.
  A great many Members of this body have given long, eloquent speeches 
on how this body operates when each Member has a right to offer 
amendments--and even difficult amendments. We debate and resolve them. 
That is the heart of this vote, and I would encourage each Member here 
to vote his conscience or her conscience on both substance and the 
ability of the Senate to remain the world's greatest deliberative body.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 
5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have listened to the comments of my 
colleague, the junior Senator of Texas, both last week and this week, 
and I would have to say he is mistaken.
  First of all, if, in fact, the majority leader had somehow 
misrepresented to the 54 Senators what the facts are with regard to the 
Ex-Im Bank, I suspect we would find other voices joining that of the 
junior Senator, but I hear no one else making such a similar 
accusation.
  Secondly, I would just say to my colleague that there is an 
alternative explanation. There is an alternative explanation. As the 
majority leader has said time and time again, anytime 65 Senators want 
to do something here in the Senate, sooner or later they are going to 
get their way. Indeed, that represents the vote in support of the Ex-Im 
Bank--something I will end up voting against but where I realize that 
majorities will carry the day eventually.
  But if the rule the junior Senator from Texas is arguing for is 
embraced, we will lose all control of the Senate schedule; there will 
be chaos; and, indeed, we won't be able to meet simple deadlines, such 
as the one that exists on the 31st of this month with regard to the 
expiration of the transportation fund, because even after we close off 
debate, any Senator who wants to get a vote on an amendment will be 
entitled to do so. And that cannot be the rule. It is not the rule. It 
has never been the rule. And that is why what the junior Senator is 
attempting to do is so extraordinary.
  I will be opposing that, and I hope all of our colleagues will join 
us in opposing that because ultimately what that would mean is that a 
determined 51 Senators who want to raise taxes, who want to pass 
Obamacare 2.0, who want to pass a cap-and-trade bill or a carbon tax, 
who want to pass Dodd-Frank 2.0, or any additional government 
spending--they will be able to do it. They will be guaranteed an 
opportunity to get an amendment and be able to vote on that amendment, 
and it will pass in the Senate. I don't think that is in the best 
interests of the Senate. I don't think it is in the best interests of 
the 27 million people whom the junior Senator and I represent together. 
I certainly don't believe that is in the best interests of this 
institution which we all revere.

  If all 100 Senators have the opportunity to offer an amendment 
without restraint, then there will never be any deadline. There will 
never be any conclusion, and we would not be able to do the simple work 
that we have been asked to do on behalf of the American people.
  The final point is this. I know the junior Senator feels passionately 
about this amendment. But the fact of the matter is that we have a 
process that has been set up to review the Iran deal that President 
Obama and Secretary Kerry negotiated. We are going to have a chance to 
examine it, debate it, and review it over the next 2 months, and then 
we will have a chance to vote on it. There is a time and place for this 
vote. I will no doubt support the same position that the junior Senator 
is supporting. It is not on this bill. It is not now. It is not at the 
expense of breaking the orderly procedures that make sure that everyone 
gets a chance to participate. I would just say in conclusion that there 
was no misrepresentation made by the majority leader on the Ex-Im Bank.
  The only thing the majority leader promised was an opportunity to 
offer an amendment on a bill, recognizing that if he denied that 
opportunity, when 65 Senators wanted it--not just one Senator who we 
know can stop things around here, slow them down--the 65 Senators would 
be bound and determined to use any available leverage until they got 
that vote. So I agree with what the majority leader has decided to do 
and how he has decided to handle it. I know there are passionate views 
around here, but that does not justify changing the rules of the Senate 
through such extraordinary means. So I hope our colleagues join me to 
ratify the ruling of the Chair when that time comes rather than to 
overrule it.
  To overrule the Chair on something this important to the orderly 
consideration of the Senate's business would be a terrible mistake.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). The Senator from Tennessee.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
mandatory quorum be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S5709]]

  Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending 
cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the McConnell 
     amendment No. 2328, to repeal Obamacare.
         Mitch McConnell, Marco Rubio, John Cornyn, John Barrasso, 
           Dan Sullivan, Michael B. Enzi, John McCain, Joni Ernst, 
           Deb Fischer, Tim Scott, Mike Rounds, James E. Risch, 
           Daniel Coats, James Lankford, David Perdue, Richard 
           Burr.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on 
amendment No. 2328, offered by the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. 
McConnell, to amendment No. 2327, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Corker), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. 
Flake), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from 
Alabama (Mr. Sessions), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Alaska (Ms. 
Murkowski) would have voted ``yea'' and the Senator from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Toomey) would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), 
the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), and the Senator from 
Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 49, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 253 Leg.]

                                YEAS--49

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kirk
     Lankford
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--43

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Reed
     Reid
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Coons
     Corker
     Flake
     Markey
     Murkowski
     Sanders
     Sessions
     Toomey
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 49, the nays are 
43.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The majority leader.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
mandatory quorum be waived on the next vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending 
cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the Kirk 
     amendment No. 2327 to amendment No. 2266, as modified, to 
     H.R. 22, an act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
     exempt employees with health coverage under TRICARE or the 
     Veterans Administration from being taken into account for 
     purposes of determining the employers to which the employer 
     mandate applies under the Patient Protection and Affordable 
     Care Act.
         Lindsey Graham, Mark Kirk, Kelly Ayotte, Susan M. 
           Collins, John McCain, Richard Burr, Roy Blunt, Jeanne 
           Shaheen, Thomas R. Carper, Heidi Heitkamp, Maria 
           Cantwell, Patty Murray, Sherrod Brown, Christopher A. 
           Coons, Richard J. Durbin, Amy Klobuchar, Harry Reid.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on 
amendment No. 2327, offered by the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. 
McConnell, for the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Kirk, to amendment No. 
2266, as modified, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Corker), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. 
Flake), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions), and the Senator from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Toomey) would have voted ``nay.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), 
the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), and the Senator from 
Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 67, nays 26, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 254 Leg.]

                                YEAS--67

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--26

     Barrasso
     Boozman
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Lankford
     Lee
     McConnell
     Paul
     Perdue
     Risch
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Vitter

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Coons
     Corker
     Flake
     Markey
     Sanders
     Sessions
     Toomey
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 67, the nays are 
26.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.


               Vote on Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question before the Senate is the appeal 
of the junior Senator from Texas, Mr. Cruz, in relation to the offering 
of his amendment No. 2301, which has been ruled out of order.
  No debate is in order pursuant to rule XXII.
  The question is, Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the 
judgment of the Senate?
  Mr. CRUZ. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is not a sufficient second.
  The Senate sustains the decision of the Chair.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. CARPER. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. CARPER. I withdraw my objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S5710]]

  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, amendment 
No. 2282, withdrawing Federal funding for Planned Parenthood, and I ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  Mrs. BOXER. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is not in order.


                   Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair

  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I appeal the ruling of the Chair and ask for 
the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is not a sufficient second.
  The question is on the appeal.
  The question is, Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the 
judgment of the Senate?
  The Senate sustains the decision of the Chair.


                           Amendment No. 2328

  Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, on Friday, July 24, 2015, as a result of a 
clerical error, I was inadvertently listed as a cosponsor on McConnell 
amendment No. 2328.
  Today, a unanimous consent request was filed by the majority leader's 
office to remove my name as a cosponsor of this amendment. I did not 
cosponsor this amendment, do not support it, and voted against invoking 
cloture on it today.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


               Honoring Marine Lance Corporal Skip Wells

  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, while we have a pause in our business for 
a moment, I rise to offer a brief but sincere eulogy. At this very 
moment in Woodstock, GA, Skip Wells, U.S. Marine Corps lance corporal, 
is being buried and worshipped. Thousands of Georgians are at the First 
Baptist Church of Woodstock, GA to attend his funeral.
  Skip Wells was murdered in Chattanooga, TN, on the 16th day of July 
while he was doing his duties as a marine, recruiting people to come 
into the U.S. military.
  Skip graduated from Sprayberry High School just a few years ago. He 
played the clarinet and musical instruments in his church orchestra. He 
was a great student with thousands of friends. He was a young man we 
would all be proud of. His life was taken away from us in a snap by an 
enraged person on a religious tear.
  When a young man of 21 years old dies in the prime of life, we ask 
why. In particular, when he wears the uniform of the U.S. Marine Corps, 
we ask why. It is inexplicable. We all know the Book of Ecclesiastes 
tells us, ``There is a time for everything''--a time to be born and a 
time to die. There is never a time when a young marine's life should be 
taken. It causes us to truly think about something. As we act in this 
U.S. Senate and guide our country, hundreds of thousands of young men 
and women volunteer to wear the uniform of the United States of 
America, and when they put it on, they never know when that day to die 
might come, but they have all made the commitment that they are ready, 
willing, and able to die for the country they love, the United States 
of America.
  To Skip's mother Cathy, his extended family, and all those who knew 
Skip, we send our condolences and our best wishes for them to recover 
over time and heal.
  In Woodstock, GA, an inscription is being read right now, which I 
will read on the floor of the Senate so we will read it at the same 
time. These words are comforting, they mean something, and in a time of 
grief for all of us, I think they are important. Skip's mother wanted 
this as a part of the ceremony. It is entitled ``To Those I Love.''

       When I am gone, release me, let me go.
       You musn't tie yourself to me with tears.
       Just be happy that we had so many good years.
       I gave you my love, you can only guess,
       How much you gave to me in happiness.
       I thank you for the love you each have shown,
       But now it's time I traveled alone.
       So grieve a while for me, if grieve you must,
       Then let your grief be comforted by trust.
       It's only for a while that we must part,
       So bless the memories within your heart.
       I won't be far away, for life goes on,
       So if you need me, call, and I will come.
       Though you can't see or touch me, I'll be near.
       And if you listen with your heart, you'll hear,
       All of my love around you, soft and clear.
       And then, when you must come this way alone, I'll greet you 
     with a smile, and say ``Welcome Home.''

  That is the Book of John, Chapter 15, the 13th verse. ``Greater love 
has no one than this: to lay down one's life for one's friends.''
  Skip Wells laid down his life for all of the people of the United 
States of America, for his family, and for his friends. We ask God to 
bless him and bring mercy to his family. We ask God to bless the great 
country that Skip wore the uniform to die for--the United States of 
America.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________