[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11290-11293]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




         BIPARTISAN SPORTSMEN'S ACT OF 2014--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 384, S. 
2363.
  The clerk will report the motion.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 384, S. 2363, a bill to 
     protect and enhance opportunities for recreational hunting, 
     fishing, and shooting, and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I rise in support of the Bipartisan 
Sportsmen's Act.
  First, I thank Senators Hagan and Murkowski for their leadership in 
gathering support and getting this bill to the floor.
  Nearly half of the Senate is cosponsoring this legislation from every 
corner of our country. It is truly a national bill, and that is why 
over 30 groups--from the National Shooting Sports Foundation and Ducks 
Unlimited to the Dallas Safari Club and many others--support this bill. 
It is an ambitious proposal that includes dozens of smart ideas from 
both sides of the aisle. It encourages private investment into fish 
habitat as well as land and wildlife management.
  This bill supports public shooting ranges so more folks have a place 
to take their kids to teach them how to responsibly handle a firearm, 
and it protects some of our best places to hunt, fish, and recreate.
  Make no mistake, the Bipartisan Sportsmen's Act is also a jobs bill, 
which is something we constantly talk about needing more of around 
here.
  In my State of Montana, outdoor recreation supports tens of thousands 
of jobs. It is a $6 billion-a-year industry. Nationwide our outdoor 
economy creates and sustains more than 6 million jobs every single 
year.
  Despite the economic power of public lands to sustain the rural 
economy, some folks are talking about closing off the land and 
privatizing it. We cannot let that happen. Instead, we need to pass the 
Bipartisan Sportsmen's Act, which will strengthen our economy as we 
create more opportunities for folks to continue recreating in our great 
outdoors. Responsibly enjoying our outdoors is part of our way of life 
in Montana. In the Big Sky State we are proud hunters, anglers, sports 
men and women, and that is why it is critical that this bill will open 
more of our public lands to every law-abiding American who has a right 
to access them.
  In Montana alone, nearly 2 million acres of public land is not easily 
accessible to folks, and I am proud my colleagues included the making 
lands public provision that I have pushed for, for years. These lands 
were set aside for our parents to enjoy, for all of us to enjoy, and 
ultimately for our children and grandchildren to enjoy. Accessing these 
lands is our birthright, and this bill delivers on a century-old 
promise to preserve our outdoor heritage.
  By passing this bipartisan legislation, we will help ensure future 
generations get to experience the natural wonders that were passed down 
to us.
  In the last Congress, the Senate took up a similar package only to 
see political gamesmanship get in the way. We cannot let that happen 
again. Millions of sports men and women across this country expect 
better. The American people deserve better. There is too much in this 
bill that we agree on to let it fail once again.
  Senators Hagan and Murkowski have worked diligently for months to 
craft a bill that has an incredible amount of support in the Senate, 
but, most importantly, back home in the States we all represent. Let's 
pass this bill once and for all.
  Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              Health Care

  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, Americans might have noticed a trend in 
ObamaCare headlines over the past two days. There was Sunday's Politico 
story and it basically had this title: ``Why liberals are abandoning 
the Obamacare employer mandate.''
  There was an Associated Press story entitled ``Senate Democrats Try 
to Pull Focus From Obamacare.''
  Then on Monday, Politico published a story called ``Obamacare's next

[[Page 11291]]

threat: A September surprise'' about the White House efforts to prepare 
Democrats to meet September rate hike announcements.
  All of these stories amount to one thing. Democrats are running 
scared from ObamaCare.
  These three articles are just a few of the many pieces to be 
published about Democrats' efforts to distance themselves from 
ObamaCare in preparation for the November election.
  It is not surprising they are worried. ObamaCare is Democrats' and 
the White House's main legislative achievement, and Americans don't 
like it. They didn't like it in 2010 when the law was passed, they 
didn't like it when the law was being implemented, and they don't like 
it now. A Quinnipiac poll from last week reported that 55 percent of 
Americans oppose ObamaCare. Similar numbers of Americans opposed it 3 
months earlier, and almost 3 months before that. In fact, when we 
average polling on the health care law from late 2009 until today, we 
find the health care law has consistently been opposed by the majority 
of Americans. Opposition to the health care law currently averages 
nearly 14 percentage points higher than support. That is not a good 
sign for Democrats.
  Many Democrats who firmly supported the health care law in 2009 and 
2010 believed the law would grow more popular when the American people 
found out what was in the bill and how it would benefit them. But the 
health care law has not gotten more popular. Americans found out what 
was in the bill and they didn't like it. Democrats are realizing that 
their support for the bill may cost them their seats in November. So 
now they are running in the opposite direction.
  According to Monday's Politico article, the White House knows very 
well that Democrats are finding ObamaCare to be a big problem in their 
campaigns. So it has redirected the efforts of its ObamaCare war room 
to prepare for the release of rate hikes that are coming in September. 
``The White House and its allies know''--this is a quote from the 
story--``they've been beaten in every previous round of ObamaCare 
messaging, never more devastatingly than in 2010.'' The story goes on 
to say:

       And they know the results this November could hinge in 
     large part on whether that happens again. So they are trying 
     to avoid--or at least get ahead of--any September surprise.

  That is from the Politico story.
  Let me just say to the White House: Good luck with that.
  There is a reason why the White House and its allies have been, as 
Politico notes, ``beaten in every previous round of ObamaCare 
messaging.'' It is because the White House's messaging didn't match up 
with the reality it promised Americans.
  The White House can talk all it wants about ObamaCare's supposed 
benefits, but if Americans aren't experiencing those benefits, no 
amount of talking is going to work. Most Americans aren't experiencing 
ObamaCare benefits. They are experiencing ObamaCare pain: higher 
premiums, higher deductibles, the loss of doctors and hospitals, less 
control and less freedom.
  As have most Members of Congress, I have gotten countless letters 
from constituents telling me about the pain ObamaCare is causing them. 
Tom from Hurley, SD, wrote to me to tell me his premiums have more than 
doubled and his deductible has quadrupled since the President's health 
care law was enacted.
  Harvey from Mitchell, SD, wrote to tell me that his insurance went up 
16 percent effective April 1 of this year. ``Biggest increase ever,'' 
he said.
  Jill from Sturgis, SD, wrote to tell me that she went on line to get 
a health insurance estimate at healthcare.gov and found that the 
cheapest plan would cost her $366 a month with a $5,000 deductible. 
``Are you kidding me?'', she wrote. ``That's $9,392 a year I have to 
pay in, every year, before it pays anything . . . which is roughly 16 
percent of our combined income. I can't afford that and try to save 
money for retirement at the same time'' she says.
  Jill is not alone in not being able to afford that. Too many 
Americans are in similar situations, facing the prospect of huge health 
care bills and wondering how on Earth they are going to pay them.
  All the talk in the world from the White House isn't going to make 
people enthusiastic about ObamaCare if they can't afford their 
ObamaCare premiums or have lost access to the doctor or the hospital 
they like.
  Politico reports that 21 States--21 States--have posted preliminary 
health insurance premiums for 2015, and that average preliminary 
premiums went up in all 21 States. Those proposed increases--several in 
the double digits--are coming on top of the State premium hikes many 
Americans faced this year.
  The White House can attempt to defend these increases as much as it 
wants, but there really isn't any way to spin huge premium hikes when 
they promised people their premiums not only wouldn't increase but 
would actually go down.
  ObamaCare is fundamentally broken. This bill was supposed to reduce 
health care premiums and lower the cost of care while allowing 
Americans to keep the doctors they like. Instead, it has done the exact 
opposite. ObamaCare isn't just driving up health care premiums; it is 
also devastating our already damaged economy.
  The ObamaCare 30-hour workweek rule is forcing businesses, large and 
small, to reduce employees' hours at a time when many Americans are 
struggling to find full-time work. USA Today reported yesterday that 
Friday's unemployment report found a sharp rise in the number of part-
time workers who prefer full-time jobs. So what we have is people who 
want to work full-time but full-time jobs are unavailable, so they are 
taking part-time work. Why? Well, one of the reasons they attribute it 
to is the ObamaCare requirement that the work week be a 30-hour week as 
opposed to a 40-hour week. So what is happening is employers are hiring 
employees for less than 30 hours a week so they won't be stuck with all 
of the requirements and the mandates that come with ObamaCare. So it is 
leading to more part-time jobs when people are actually looking for 
full-time work in our economy.
  The law's burdensome mandates and regulations are placing a heavy 
burden on small businesses and making it impossible for many of them to 
expand and to hire employees. As Politico reported, when it comes to 
the employer mandate, even liberals are admitting that the rule is 
unnecessary and burdensome. Politico notes:

       The shift among liberal policy experts and advocates has 
     been rapid. A stream of studies and statements have deemed 
     the mandate only moderately useful for getting more people 
     covered in ObamaCare. And they too have come to see it as 
     clumsy, a regulatory and financial burden that creates as 
     many problems as it solves.

  That is from the Politico story talking about many of the liberal 
policy experts who are now turning their backs on the employer mandate.
  Then there is the potential for fraud, with the Health and Human 
Services inspector general's office reporting that the administration 
is not properly verifying that those receiving subsidies actually 
qualify for them. And the disastrous Web sites have cost taxpayers 
hundreds of millions of dollars.
  The list goes on and on and on. Whether they admit it or not, 
everyone knows that ObamaCare is not working. It is time to start over 
and replace this law with real reforms--reforms that will actually 
lower costs and improve access to care.
  Republicans have offered solution after solution to solve the many 
problems created by ObamaCare--from Senator Collins' bill to repeal 
ObamaCare's 30-hour workweek, which I just mentioned earlier, to a 
provision I came up with that would exempt schools, colleges, and 
universities from ObamaCare's crippling employer mandate--something 
that our colleges and universities across the country are feeling and 
it is impacting their ability to hire employees.
  Instead of fleeing from ObamaCare or attempting to put a positive 
spin on its many failures, Democrats should join Republicans to repeal 
this broken law and replace it with real reforms. Then

[[Page 11292]]

Democrats would have a real accomplishment to take home to their 
constituents, and they would not have to worry about having the White 
House send a team of people in the war room assigned to Democrats here 
on Capitol Hill who are trying to figure out ways to message the bad 
news that keeps coming out about higher premiums, higher copays, higher 
deductibles, fewer doctors, and fewer hospitals. That is the message 
that Democrats here in Congress are having to deal with when they 
respond to the constituents they hear from in their districts or their 
States. And that is why the White House is so focused on changing the 
subject to anything from ObamaCare.
  That is the reality, and it is an economic reality that is affecting 
and impacting way to many American families. Middle-income families in 
this country are squeezed. Household income has gone down by $3,300 
since the President took office. Everything middle-income Americans 
have to pay for has gone up--from health care to college education to 
fuel, electricity, food--you name it.
  So those middle-income families in this country are increasingly 
feeling squeezed and pinched by this economy, made much, much worse by 
the passage of a health care law that has driven up the cost of health 
care--higher premiums, fewer doctors, fewer hospitals, fewer full-time 
jobs or part-time jobs. Why? Because employers are trying to avoid the 
heavyhanded mandates and requirements to provide government-approved 
insurance, and so they are finding more and more part-time employees 
when the employees--people out there in the workforce--are looking for 
full-time jobs so they can provide for their families. Good-paying jobs 
with opportunities for advancement--that is what we ought to be focused 
on. Unfortunately, everything coming out of Washington, DC, and 
particularly the policies coming out of this administration--namely, 
first and foremost, ObamaCare is making it more expensive and more 
difficult for employers to hire. It is costing middle-income families 
more to cover their families with health coverage, and it is making 
everything else in our economy more expensive.
  That is the reality that most Americans are dealing with. We can do 
so much better. We should do so much better. If Democrats will 
acknowledge the error of their ways in the passage of this bad law to 
start with, we can go back to the drawing board and do this in a way 
that actually does reduce cost and provide better access to health care 
for American families.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Heitkamp). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MORAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MORAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak to the 
Senate as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Excess Federal Property

  Mr. MORAN. Madam President, while I was home over the recess, I had 
the opportunity to visit with lots of Kansans. One of the conversations 
I had was with a county emergency preparedness director in advance of a 
Fourth of July parade. He brought to my attention something we had 
heard just in the last few days about a development at the Department 
of Defense.
  I want to mention to my colleagues and ask them, but ask the agencies 
involved--which would be the Department of Defense, the Department of 
Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency--to see if we cannot 
find a solution to a problem that should not be a problem.
  In the Presiding Officer's State and mine we have lots of volunteer 
fire departments. One of the developments over time has been their 
equipment is excess military equipment that is either loaned or given 
to those small town fire departments. They are volunteers. In my 
hometown, the fire whistle blows and men and women from across the 
community gather at the fire station, get in the truck, and go to the 
fire and fight the fire.
  Their equipment is expensive and the budget they have to fulfill 
their mission is small. One way they have been able to overcome that 
small budget and expensive equipment is through the Department of 
Defense, which has, over a long period of time, donated excess military 
equipment to the local fire departments. They do this through the State 
forester. In fact, 95 percent of the communities in Kansas are 
protected by a volunteer fire department and 50 million acres of land 
is protected by volunteer fire departments.
  Well, 3 weeks ago, the Department of Defense halted the transfer of 
excess trucks, generators, pumps, and engine parts, based upon 
emissions regulations and an agreement that apparently exists between 
the Department of Defense and the Environmental Protection Agency.
  The EPA, apparently, has to approve the transfer of those vehicles 
because they may not satisfy the clean air standards. So what seems to 
me to be a commonsense solution to the need for fire equipment--
including trucks--is now being halted because of concerns of whether 
those vehicles--those old vehicles no longer used by the Department of 
Defense--meet the emissions standards.
  Well, I would certainly first remind folks that these trucks are very 
important when there is a fire, but there is not a fire every day. It 
is not as if these vehicles are on the road in a constant fashion day 
in and day out. I would also indicate that the fires they put out 
increase emissions, so the marginal increase in the amount of emissions 
because you may be using a fire truck that does not meet the emissions 
standards is well overcome by the fire that burns the grass, the 
forest, the trees or a home by what that fire puts into the atmosphere.
  Since January 1 of this year, there have been nearly 92,000 acres 
burned in more than 5,000 wild land fires--grass fires--across Kansas.
  For most of those rural fire departments, the Federal excess 
equipment is the only equipment they can afford to handle those natural 
or manmade disasters.
  The Kansas Forest Service, as I said, administers this program 
through the U.S. Department of Agriculture. They provided 40 to 50 
trucks per year, and they were able to set aside again that number for 
Kansas--40 to 50 trucks--for Kansas fire departments for this year.
  We currently have 445 trucks issued in Kansas, valued at about $21 
million, and there are 52 fire departments in Kansas waiting for a 
replacement truck.
  The Department of Defense decision to implement this policy will cost 
fire departments in Kansas and across the country the opportunity to 
utilize excess equipment, save lives, and protect property.
  My request is that my colleagues who have an interest in this issue 
work with me and others and help us bring to the attention of the 
Secretary of Defense, Secretary Hagel, and the EPA Administrator, Gina 
McCarthy, as well as USDA, which administers the program for the fire 
departments, that we work together to find a commonsense solution.
  Apparently the alternative is if these trucks are not available to be 
transferred to Kansas and elsewhere, to local fire departments, then 
the trucks are destroyed, smashed, and somehow disposed of in a 
landfill. Again, I would suggest that the conservation, the 
environmental opportunity to see the life of these vehicles extended, 
as compared to being destroyed, smashed, and disposed of, would work in 
the favor of the environment as well as in the opportunity to provide 
safety and security for hundreds of thousands of Kansans, hundreds of 
thousands of Americans, who depend upon rural fire departments, 
hometown fire departments, to meet the needs of their safety and 
security.
  It seems to me we are asking for something simple. We need a little 
common sense and cooperation among an agency and two departments. I 
would ask my colleagues that you help me find a solution to this 
problem by

[[Page 11293]]

getting those agencies, the Department of Defense in particular, to 
explain why this is a good policy with such detriment to the American 
people.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.

                          ____________________