[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 9333-9337]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2016

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 2578, which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2578) making appropriations for the 
     Departments of Commerce and Justice, Science, and Related 
     Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and 
     for other purposes.

  Pending:

       McConnell (for Shelby/Mikulski) amendment No. 4685, in the 
     nature of a substitute.
       Shelby amendment No. 4686 (to amendment No. 4685), to make 
     a technical correction.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.


                               ObamaCare

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, most mornings when the Senate is in 
session, the minority leader comes to the floor--Senator Reid--and 
talks for a while, and he sometimes talks about things in the news. So 
I come today to the floor to talk about a headline in the news today--
in the New York Times, of all places--with this headline: ``Obamacare 
Premiums Are Rising, and Not by a Little.'' ``Obamacare Premiums Are 
Rising, and Not By a Little'' is today's New York Times headline.
  It is interesting that when I hear Senator Reid come to the floor, so 
often he is coming to the floor to defend the Obama health care law. A 
couple of weeks ago he came to the floor and he said that ObamaCare is 
``continuing to work.'' Those are his words. So today I find 
interesting the New York Times story with this headline: ``Obamacare 
Premiums Are Rising, and Not By a Little.'' It says:

       Even in urban areas where competition was expected to be 
     brisk and the risk pool young and healthy--

  ``Expected'' is the key word there--

     insurers appear to be struggling. In 14 major cities, 
     insurers are asking for 2017 increases twice as big as 2016.

  Twice as big as last year--yet Senator Reid says ObamaCare is 
continuing to work.
  The next day after he said that, he said that the Affordable Care Act 
is working. Well, I don't know anyone who could be a Member of the 
Senate and could actually be going home to their home States on the 
weekends and listening to people who live in their home States who 
could believe that ObamaCare is working.
  Across the country, people are seeing how much more money they are 
expected to pay for their health insurance premiums next year. I just 
read that story from today's New York Times.
  Yesterday's Washington Post said:

       Premiums for health plans sold through the federal 
     insurance exchange--

the one that Democrats came to the floor and said they loved and was 
going to work--

     could jump substantially next year--

  That was from the Washington Post yesterday--

     perhaps more than at any point since the Affordable Care Act 
     marketplaces began in 2013.

  Does Senator Reid read the newspapers? Does he talk to his 
constituents? Otherwise, how can he be so terribly confused about the 
impact of this health care law and the damage it has done to the 
American people?
  So far, 31 States and the District of Columbia have released 
information on what insurance companies plan to charge next year. The 
average American is facing premiums that are 22 percent higher than 
this year. That is what is bringing about these headlines in the 
Washington Post and the New York Times.
  In Iowa, an insurance company says that it wants its customers in the 
ObamaCare exchange to pay as much as 43 percent more next year. One 
customer wrote in to the State insurance division and said: ``You're 
killing me.''
  Does Senator Reid understand the impact of this law?
  Another wrote in and said: ``Who can afford this? It's disastrous.''
  Does Senator Reid note any of that?
  In North Carolina, the largest insurance company in the State said it 
plans to charge people an average of 19 percent more next year.
  In Pennsylvania, one company says it is going to charge people up to 
48 percent more starting in January.
  In Arizona, people are facing premium increases of 53 percent. That 
is the average increase in Arizona.
  So it is not surprising to see a headline in the New York Times 
today--and I hope Senator Reid read the paper: ``Obamacare Premiums Are 
Rising, and Not By a Little.''
  Well, whose fault is this? Who should people across the country blame 
when they see these outrageous price increases that affect them at 
home? Well, I believe they should blame Senator Reid and every Democrat 
in Congress who voted for ObamaCare and all of the expensive 
requirements, regulations, and restrictions.
  So the question is, Is ObamaCare working? Let's use President Obama's 
standard, the one that he set for himself. Well, he promised that if 
you liked your doctor, you could keep your doctor. Well, insurance 
plans have been trying to cut costs by doing what? By narrowing the 
network of doctors that patients can see. People are finding that they 
can't keep their doctors. They have been losing their doctor because 
the doctor is no longer covered by their insurance.
  Well, you say, this is from a guy who has practiced medicine for a 
long time. No, it is a whole weekend section in the Sunday Review of 
the New York Times: ``Sorry, We Don't Take Obamacare.'' People who have 
ObamaCare, people who actually supported the idea of ObamaCare cannot 
see a doctor, cannot go to a hospital because of this health care law.
  President Obama said if you liked your insurance, you could keep your 
insurance. Well, can you? Ninety-two thousand people in Colorado are 
losing their insurance plan because companies are pulling out of the 
State. Twenty-two thousand people in Ohio are now scrambling to find 
new health insurance because the co-op they were in went broke last 
month.

[[Page 9334]]

  The health care law actually created 23 different co-ops; 13 of them 
have gone out of business.
  Over the past couple of years, 745,000 Americans who were promised by 
Barack Obama that if they like their insurance they can keep it lost 
their insurance because their co-ops have closed down, just under the 
health care law. President Obama promised--it is his standard--that 
under his health care law, the average family would see their health 
care rates go down by $2,500 per year. Anyone who wants to know if 
ObamaCare is working should ask one simple question: Did your health 
insurance rates go down by $2,500? That is the standard the Democrats 
should be held to.
  Now we know that ObamaCare did take millions of people and put them 
into Medicaid, which is a failed system, a broken system. Many refer to 
it as a second-class citizen. It is hard to see a doctor, hard to get 
care. It took other people and gave them big taxpayer subsidies, paid 
for by the American taxpayers, to help them afford the high premiums--
the subsidies helped them afford the high premiums for this overpriced 
ObamaCare insurance, but those people will tell you that it left them 
with deductibles and copays so high that they can't actually use the 
insurance. For millions of other Americans, there are no subsidies--
just enormous bills.
  The President says: Don't worry, you are going to get a subsidy. But 
let's take a look at how many people will get subsidies and how many 
will get none who happen to be buying insurance through the exchanges. 
According to the Congressional Budget Office--the people who look into 
this--there are 12 million Americans who get some sort of subsidy to 
buy ObamaCare insurance. The premiums go up, the subsidies go up, but 
that is a bill that hits the taxpayers, the hard-working men and women 
in the country who pay their taxes year in and year out.
  So that is 12 million, but there are another 12 million--an equal 
number of people--who have to buy this insurance without any of the 
subsidies at all. So when the President takes a look and talks about 
these 12 million, that is a significant hit to the American taxpayers 
and it turns a blind eye to the 12 million Americans who buy insurance 
without any of the subsidies. They are left to pay the full freight for 
these enormous premium increases we are looking at next year.
  There was an Associated Press story on Monday. I read the story in 
today's paper, the story in yesterday's paper, the Associated Press 
headline on Monday--``Rising premiums rattle consumers paying their own 
way.'' Are Senator Reid and the Democrats rattled by it? They should be 
because the American public is rattled by it. This tells the story of a 
woman from Queens, NY. We have two Democratic Senators in this body who 
voted for this health care law. This is one of their constituents from 
Queens, NY. She got a notice from her insurance company that they plan 
to raise her rates by as much as 25 percent next year. On top of this, 
her plan dropped the hospital network she wants. Well, President Obama 
promised that she could keep her insurance, she could keep her doctor, 
and she could keep her hospital. It doesn't apply to this woman in 
Queens. She says: ``For people like me who are in the middle, there is 
very limited choice, and now that limited choice is going to get more 
expensive.'' How do the Senators from New York respond to that? Why 
aren't they on the floor talking about it?
  For most Americans, the Democrats' health care law has meant higher 
prices, worse health care, and less freedom to choose what is right for 
them and their families. That is why the polls show that, on average, 
only 4 out of 10 Americans have a favorable view of the health care law 
at all, and it is because the premiums keep going up and up without end 
and are hitting them in the pocket. It is because people are also 
paying higher deductibles and higher copayments just to see a doctor.
  The Kaiser Family Foundation did a survey, and they asked about these 
deductibles and copays. What they said was that for people who have 
deductibles over $1,500--even those people who are getting the 
subsidies for ObamaCare, which the President says is so great--70 
percent of them with deductibles over $1,500 ranked ObamaCare as a poor 
value.
  This is a $1,500 deductible. The average silver plan in the ObamaCare 
exchanges has a deductible of more than $3,000. Insurance plans for 
next year are starting to come with deductibles of $7,000. How can the 
President say this is valuable? The people who are getting it--even 
with his expensive subsidies paid for by taxpayers--are saying this is 
giving them very little value and is a poor value. That is why this law 
is so unpopular. That is why ObamaCare continues to be underwater in 
terms of those who support it and those who oppose it. The average 
deductible for a silver plan this year is $600 higher than it was just 
2 years ago.
  That is why, when we see these headlines in the New York Times today 
and the Washington Post yesterday, we realize that people all across 
the country are being hurt by this Obama health care law. One out of 
four Americans say they have been personally hurt by the health care 
law--not that they know somebody who has been hurt but that they have 
personally been hurt by the health care law.
  Even for people who are getting the subsidies for their premiums, the 
deductibles and the copays have been rising very fast. People never get 
to the point of being able to use their insurance. I mean, that is the 
real problem with the way this was set up. They have coverage; they 
still can't afford care.
  It is interesting to listen to the President's speech. If you listen 
to him carefully, he doesn't actually use the word ``care,'' he uses 
the word ``coverage.'' If you can't get care, coverage is useless, but 
that is what the President's numbers are. He talks about coverage, 
refusing to talk about care. This is about health care. People want 
care, not empty coverage.
  But in the face of all this evidence, the Democratic leader, Harry 
Reid, has stood here on the floor of the Senate and pretended in front 
of the American people that ObamaCare is working. He has repeatedly 
ignored every broken promise that every Democratic Member in Congress 
made about the health care law. He has come to the floor and repeatedly 
ignored every American who has lost their insurance. He repeatedly 
comes to the floor and ignores every American who has had to pay 
outrageous amounts of money for insurance that for many of them is 
unusable but is mandated by President Obama and the Democrats that they 
have to buy under penalty of law. None of that seems to matter to the 
Democratic leader, who personally supervised the writing of the health 
care law in his office behind closed doors. It is a terribly flawed 
law, but behind the closed doors of his office, it was written and 
passed on a party-line vote.
  Well, the American people have spoken, and they have given Senator 
Reid's efforts and the ObamaCare health care law a failing grade. Even 
those with the subsidies say it is a poor value today. Americans all 
across the country are hurting because of ObamaCare, and Senator Reid 
and President Obama bear the responsibility. How much more do the 
American people have to suffer before the Washington Democrats will 
accept the facts? People want the care they need from a doctor they 
choose at a lower cost.
  Republicans have offered ways to give people what they have been 
asking for all along. It is time for Democrats to work with us. It is 
time for Democrats to stop trying to deliberately deceive the American 
people by pretending this broken health care law is working--
pretending. That is what this is all about because it is not working. 
ObamaCare remains very unpopular because people realize that for them 
personally, it is a very bad deal. Republicans have better ideas, 
better solutions. Republicans are offering the American people the 
freedom, the flexibility, and the choice they want when it comes to 
their health care.
  Thank you, Mr. President.

[[Page 9335]]

  I yield the floor.
  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. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


              Working Together to Protect our Communities

  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, as my colleagues know, I come to the floor 
each week to deliver a ``waste of the week'' speech. My concern over 
excessive government spending and spending on nonessential programs in 
wasteful ways needs to be shared with the American people, and my 
colleagues need to know that a lot of hard-earned tax dollars are 
wasted through waste, fraud, and abuse.
  Some of these have been very serious, resulting in literally billions 
of dollars of waste. Some have been smaller expenditures but ludicrous 
expenditures, the kinds of expenditures where people say why in the 
world does the Federal Government have to do that? Or why--where's the 
common sense here? The American people work very hard to earn the 
dollars they send to Washington.
  A lot of them are scraping by to pay the mortgage that's due at the 
end of the month, to pay the rent that is due at the end of the week, 
to get the groceries in the house or the savings to put in the savings 
account for an education; any number of ways the American people today, 
as the statistics are showing us today, have less spending money. The 
average American worker today has up to $3,000-plus less per year in 
earnings than they did at the beginning of this administration.
  I don't know how the President keeps going on the airwaves saying 
things are just great and look how much better we are doing when people 
are earning on an average $3,000 less than they earned 8 years after 
the President first took office.
  However, walking over to the floor to deliver this--and this one is 
one of those speeches--you can't make this up. It's so ridiculous. Can 
you believe that really an agency that is held in high regard, the 
National Science Foundation, actually is issuing grants of taxpayer 
money for these kinds of projects? Normally it would bring a lot of 
laughs and a lot of outrage over this waste of money.
  I couldn't help but think of what is plaguing most Americans this 
week, after the tragic shooting in Orlando, Sandy Hook, San Bernardino, 
and all of the other breaking news and tragedies we have been hit with 
as Americans. I am having trouble with it, as all Americans are having 
trouble with it. We are trying to fight toward a solution. I am not 
sure what that solution is. It is not a simplistic solution. Clearly, 
in a democracy as free and as open as America, whether it is ISIL-
inspired or terrorist-inspired or whether it is just someone mentally 
ill, someone whose hatred drives their life, or someone sitting in 
their basement at 2 a.m. Being inspired by ISIS web sites or just 
simply some of the stuff that comes across the internet, we are facing 
a tough situation here. But this week seems to be importantly 
difficult, and we are searching for ways--and the last thing we need to 
do is to politicize this issue.
  We have to address issues to make sure we have done everything we 
possibly can to prevent the wrong people, to prevent terrorists, from 
purchasing and owning weapons of mass destruction or that can cause the 
kind of issues we are dealing with in Orlando and other places. There 
is not a Member of this body, Republican or Democratic, who has not 
been impacted by what is happening not just in Orlando but by a series 
of events similar to this. There is not a Senator here--Republican or 
Democratic, liberal or conservative--who doesn't want to find a way to 
address the situation in a way that would reduce the incidence or 
hopefully eliminate the incidence of these issues.
  We are working through that now, and working through that is 
difficult because we do want Americans to have the ability and the 
rights that are promised to them under the Constitution and the Second 
Amendment, which is to protect themselves. We want to make sure their 
constitutional rights aren't breached for their own self-defense.
  What do we say to a woman living alone in a neighborhood where there 
is a lot of drug dealing going on and a lot of random shootings and a 
lot of home invasions that she can't protect herself? We don't want to 
do that. We don't want to say to someone who owns a business and wants 
to ensure that the business is not broken into and they lose everything 
they have invested and who hires a security guard or someone to provide 
protection, that we are going to take away that right. By the same 
token, we don't want these kinds of weapons used in these mass killings 
to be in the hands of the wrong people. So we are trying to find that 
balance.
  The best way to do that is for all of us to work together to find 
that balance, instead of blaming one side or the other side for not 
doing enough or for doing too little. This is not an easy issue to 
resolve.
  It just doesn't seem appropriate for me to come to the floor and talk 
about the waste of the week because that involves something people 
normally would laugh at. This is not a week to laugh. This is a week to 
mourn. This is a week to work together to find a sensible way of trying 
to prevent these kinds of things from happening, and we are working 
through that. So next week I will come down and do two waste-of-the-
week issues because this waste keeps going on, and it is an issue we 
all need to be aware of because the people we represent are forced, 
through the tax system, to send money to Washington, and they want it 
reasonably spent and reasonably used for necessary purposes.
  With that, let's keep our focus and our eyes on the task at hand in 
respect and in mourning for what has happened in Orlando and what has 
been happening across our country far, far, far too often. Let's work 
together to find a reasonable solution that can take us in the right 
direction toward preventing these things from happening. Not one of 
us--not one of us--wants to have a process which puts these weapons in 
the hands of terrorists or those who mean to do us harm.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, it appears there is an absence of Members here, so I 
suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tillis). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                               SHIELD Act

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the past few days, we have been 
contemplating the horrific shooting in Orlando and asking ourselves how 
this could happen and, of course, grieving and praying and thinking 
about the people who lost their lives and their families and those who 
were injured.
  As the Presiding Officer knows, yesterday we had the opportunity to 
get briefed by the FBI Director and the Secretary of Homeland Security. 
What we learned is that there is still a lot left to learn and that the 
investigation is ongoing. But clearly this was not a random act of 
violence. This is not about somebody going to purchase a gun at a store 
and then going out and deciding indiscriminately to kill the first 
person they meet, but then again, neither was the shooting in San 
Bernardino a random act of violence or the attempted shooting in 
Garland, TX, which was thwarted by a security guard. These were 
calculated acts of terror and a reminder--a reminder of the threats to 
our homeland from ISIS, not just in the Middle East but right here at 
home by people who have never traveled to the Middle East but who 
communicate through social media and online and become radicalized by 
this ideology of hate, one that results in terrible tragedies such as 
the one we saw in Orlando.

[[Page 9336]]

  Sadly, our friends on the other side of the aisle have seen this as 
an opportunity to make this a political debate about gun control, and 
they simply are refusing to acknowledge the threat we face from radical 
Islam. Rather than trying to solve the problem, they are trying to 
drive a wedge between the American people and come up with something 
that basically does nothing.
  I think one thing that makes people crazy about Washington, DC, is 
when people stand up and claim to understand the problem and yet offer 
solutions that don't solve the problem but, rather, fit some sort of 
talking points or ideological agenda. It is clear that what we heard 
yesterday from our friends across the aisle has nothing to do with 
defeating ISIS or the threat of international terrorism or the 
radicalization of Americans in their homes.
  So today I am filing an amendment that I believe will offer a 
solution. I believe that if it had been enacted beforehand, it may have 
provided the law enforcement agencies, such as the FBI, the tools they 
need in order to identify somebody like the Orlando shooter beforehand 
and to take them off the streets. This amendment is called the SHIELD 
Act. It would not only stop terrorists from getting guns, but it would 
take them off the streets, and it would do so in a way that is 
consistent with our Constitution.
  I want to make this clear so there is no doubt at all. Every single 
Senator wants to deny terrorists access to the guns they use to harm 
innocent civilians. But there is a right way to do things and a wrong 
way.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle have put forward a measure 
that was voted on last December, sponsored by Mrs. Feinstein, the 
Senator from California. The bottom line is that proposal doesn't 
protect our constitutional rights, and it doesn't go far enough to make 
our country safer. Under Senator Feinstein's proposal, after being 
denied a gun for being on some classified list created by the 
government--lists that are often riddled with errors and include law-
abiding citizens--the individual can go home, search the Internet for 
how to build a homemade bomb or go to the hardware store to buy 
everything they need to carry out some other sort of terrorist attack, 
and they are free to walk the streets and to plot that attack.
  As I mentioned, my legislation actually does what we need to do to 
give law enforcement, first, the notice that this individual is trying 
to buy a weapon but then an opportunity to take them off the streets 
and deny them access to a firearm. Their legislation does nothing to 
protect the due process rights of American citizens under the Bill of 
Rights and under our Constitution.
  Many of us remember that a few years ago, the late Teddy Kennedy 
cited his own frustration with showing up on a list that was created by 
the government in secret, only to find out that he, a United States 
Senator, was on a no-fly list. Back in 2004, he was put on the list and 
he was denied an airplane ticket. If Teddy Kennedy from the Kennedy 
family--one of the most powerful political families in America in our 
whole history--was denied an opportunity to get on an airplane because 
he was erroneously put on a no-fly list, you can imagine the problems 
the rest of us would have.
  Senator Kennedy said at the time:

       Now, if they had that kind of difficulty for a member of 
     Congress . . . how in the world are average Americans who are 
     going to get caught up in this kind of thing, how are they 
     going to be able to get treated fairly and not have their 
     rights abused?

  That is a pretty good question. It highlights my greater point that 
we have to be very careful. We need a robust response to protect 
American citizens but one that doesn't infringe on constitutional 
rights.
  If Senator Kennedy was placed on a watch list and had trouble getting 
his name removed, do we have any confidence that average Americans like 
the rest of us will not have their constitutional rights stripped, with 
no legal process to remedy it?
  In the United States of America, where I was born and grew up, we 
simply cannot deny somebody a constitutional right without due process 
of law and making the government come forward and presenting evidence 
to a judge so that a determination can be made not by the government 
but by an impartial third party.
  The proposal I am filing today will help fight terrorism at home and 
ensure that due process is protected. It is called the SHIELD Act. It 
would create a process for our law enforcement officials to actually 
investigate and look at the evidence. But it wouldn't just stop 
terrorists from buying guns; it would go further--certainly further 
than the Democrats' amendment--by helping law enforcement take them off 
the streets. Under my proposal, if someone who is known or suspected of 
being a terrorist tries to buy a gun, they will be blocked from doing 
so while the authorities carry out an investigation, followed by an 
expedited hearing where a judge can block the sale permanently if 
adequate evidence is produced. And importantly, if the judge determines 
there is probable cause to block the sale, they can do more than just 
block the sale; they can take the terrorist into custody. If we believe 
someone is dangerous enough to not be able to buy a gun, shouldn't we 
do our best to take them off the streets so they don't pose a danger to 
our communities?
  We also learned from Director Comey yesterday that there are 
additional tools the FBI does not currently have that we ought to make 
sure it has, things to make sure that they can use, for example, 
national security letters to collect not only financial information in 
counterterrorism cases, which they currently can, but also to make sure 
that Internet providers can provide IP addresses and email addresses--
not content. Not the content. That would require a court order and a 
showing of probable cause. But the fact is, if we are going to have the 
FBI and our law enforcement officials connect the dots, we are going to 
have to make sure they have the tools to collect the dots. That is what 
we need to be focusing on, not pursuing some opportunistic political 
agenda that will not solve any problems at all.
  I believe my amendment could have had an impact on the Orlando 
shooting because, as we all have learned, while the shooter in Orlando 
was not on a watch list at the time he bought the weapons he used in 
the shooting, he had been on a watch list and he had been investigated 
by the FBI. Unfortunately, they didn't come up with sufficient evidence 
with which to detain him at the time.
  Under my amendment, when somebody who was previously under 
investigation for suspicion of terrorism within the last 5 years--like 
the Orlando attacker--goes to buy the gun, the FBI and the State and 
local law enforcement authorities will be immediately notified, and 
they can then escalate their investigation. They can go to a judge and 
say: Judge, we need a wiretap so we can listen to--based on a showing 
of probable cause under the Fourth Amendment--we can listen to the 
conversations to see if they are calling people and engaging in another 
plot with coconspirators.
  In this way, I believe the SHIELD Act could have prevented the 
tragedy that occurred over the weekend in Orlando because this shooter 
was on a watch list within the previous 5 years, and if the FBI had 
been notified, which they would have been if he were on a watch list, 
then they could have escalated the investigation further and perhaps 
have discovered enough evidence to take him off the streets.
  This is a similar proposal to the one I offered back in December that 
garnered bipartisan support and received more votes than my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle. As a matter of fact, we had 55 votes 
with a bipartisan majority on my amendment last December. This new 
amendment is a small tweak in modification, but it is a straightforward 
plan that reflects input from all sides, and it will stop terrorists 
from buying guns and will provide a means to get them off the streets 
but doing so in a way that ensures American citizens' constitutional 
rights will be respected.
  I think this just makes sense. I think it is pretty reasonable, and 
it is a good

[[Page 9337]]

starting point if we are trying to address the real threat of Islamic 
extremism rearing its ugly head here at home, but as I mentioned, we 
must do more than equip our law enforcement officials with the tools 
they need in order to collect evidence and hopefully prevent these 
attacks from occurring in the future.
  So going forward, I hope we will come up with an agreement that any 
response to domestic terrorism must include providing the FBI and other 
law enforcement the resources and authorities to track down terrorists 
and take them off the streets.


                           Fort Hood Tragedy

  Mr. President, 2 weeks ago, about a dozen soldiers were in an Army 
tactical vehicle in Fort Hood, TX, as part of a larger training 
exercise when they were swept off the road. Nine of them lost their 
lives by drowning. This was in the aftermath of heavy rain and flooding 
throughout Texas, and their vehicle overturned as they tried to cross a 
flooded creek.
  As I said, out of the 12 people swept out of the tactical vehicle, 9 
of them drowned, but thankfully 3 survived. The nine who died came from 
all over America--California, New York, New Jersey, Florida, Indiana, 
and Texas. They were also at various stages of their honorable careers 
of serving our country and the U.S. Army.
  Today, at the Spirit of Fort Hood Chapel, the Fort Hood community is 
gathering to remember each of them, their families, to offer prayers 
for their friends and family left behind, and to consider how we can 
honor their legacy going forward.
  I, of course, send my prayers and deepest condolences to those who 
have lost loved ones. I can't imagine their pain, but I share in their 
grief. Fort Hood is a resilient place. Over the years, it has 
experienced a number of tragedies, including the shooting by MAJ Nidal 
Hasan, just to name another one. They have experienced tragedy before, 
and I hate that they have to do so again, but I know, without a doubt, 
that the community there that is nicknamed ``the great place'' is 
strong, and I hope and pray the service today is a time of hopeful 
remembrance for those who committed their lives to protect and defend 
our freedoms.
  I thank them for their service, and I stand ready to support the Fort 
Hood community in any way I can while they continue to grieve the loss 
of these nine heroes.

                          ____________________