Employee Health Care Protection Act of 2013

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 717 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 717 provides for consideration of H.R. 3522, the Employer Health Care Protection Act. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate controlled by the Committee on Energy and Commerce, equally divided between the majority and minority. One clarifying amendment has been included to clarify that group health plans for the upcoming year can be covered under 2013 plans. The minority is afforded the customary opportunity to offer one motion to recommit, should they so choose. This is a fair rule to allow us to give some relief to Americans who want to keep their health insurance plan but are being told that, because of the Affordable Care Act, they may not.

Mr. Speaker, it seems that the President has quickly forgotten some of the promises he made to the American people about this law. In a June 2009 speech before the American Medical Association, President Obama, addressing the house of delegates, said:

We will keep this promise to the American people. If you

like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor,

period. If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to

keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away,

no matter what.

In March of 2010, the President said:

Your employer, it's estimated, will see premiums fall by as

much as 3,000 percent, which means they could give you a

raise.

It is obvious that both statements were not only nonoperational, they were completely false. Individuals and businesses have experienced or will face in the future the loss of current health insurance if it does not comply with Affordable Care Act coverage requirements. The Affordable Care Act is, quite simply, a job killer. Employers are reducing hours and limiting pay increases just to keep up with the demands of the law.

Just a few weeks ago, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York reported that over half of employers are changing insurance in response to the Affordable Care Act. These changes aren't being done for the benefit of the employees. All across the country, employees have lost doctors, seen premiums rise, seen hours cut, or had their coverage dropped. This will continue as long as the Affordable Care Act continues with the benefit mandates, burdensome taxes, and unreasonable regulation. In fact, employees are paying more in out-of-pocket costs than ever before. Premiums have skyrocketed under the Affordable Care Act, but access to doctors has narrowed.

Today, H.R. 3522 offers a solution to this problem. This bill would allow employer-sponsored plans that were available at any point in 2013 to continue to be offered. This bill would also help protect both employers offering these plans and their employees enrolled in them from the Affordable Care Act's costly taxes and penalties.

The President recognizes that there are serious flaws in his signature health care law, a law that he championed and, in fact, was written at the White House. Since the law was passed, the President has signed seven bills into law that repealed parts of the Affordable Care Act, bills that passed both the House and the Senate, went to the President for his signature, and he signed them.

In addition to these statutory changes, there have been attempts to fix this broken law through a series of unilateral executive orders and regulations. Can we really expect the same administration that wrote this disastrous law to now fix it?

Last year, the President unilaterally decided to delay the employer mandate. Even the administration doesn't believe that businesses and their employees can handle the burdens imposed by the Affordable Care Act.

H.R. 3522 is offering the American people a legal solution to get out from under the crushing demands of the health care law. The law would grandfather in employer plans that existed before the law went into effect. With the passage of this bill before us today, no employee would have to lose their coverage or have their out-of-pocket costs soar because of the Affordable Care Act.

It is clear that H.R. 3522 offers the only feasible lifeline to millions of employees who want to keep their health care plan. It is Congress' job to protect the American people. I urge men and women on both sides of the dais to pass this law so that Americans will have the opportunity to keep their plans and their doctors and reduce their out- of-pocket costs.

To be clear, this bill before us today, if signed into law, will not fix the Affordable Care Act. No piece of legislation, short of a full- fledged repeal, could ever achieve that. The bill we are voting on today serves to stop the hemorrhaging that is occurring as a consequence of this ill-conceived government takeover of the American health care industry. As a physician, I know that sometimes it is important to just stop the hemorrhage if you are going to save the patient. That is what the House of Representatives will do today. I hope all colleagues from both sides of the dais will support this.

I encourage everyone to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bill and stand with millions of Americans who are losing their employer health care coverage and access to their doctors, despite what has been promised to them repeatedly by this disastrous law.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting recitation.

I wanted to draw my colleagues' attention to Bloomberg View and an article by Megan McArdle from September 9 of 2014, just a couple of paragraphs in the article that prices--talking about reissue rates-- that prices are not being based on claims data. She points out, and I am quoting here: ``Companies began setting these rates just a few months ago after open enrollment closed, and because so many people bought in the last few weeks, they had no meaningful idea of what their expenses would be, that is, the insurance companies.''

And, further quoting: ``The companies that are coming in are looking to gain market share, not make a profit.''

Continuing to quote: ``The other reason we cannot learn much from these data right now is that for the next year, insurers are operating under the expectation of large subsidies from the Obama administration via the various reinsurance provisions in ObamaCare. These provisions expire in 2016.''

Continuing to quote: ``Right now, it is just not very risky to write a policy that loses money because your losses are capped. Starting in 2017, all that changes. Insurers are going to need to price policies with the expectation of making money and the fear of losing it.''

Mr. Speaker, what Megan McArdle is saying is, right now you don't really know much about the renewal rates on insurance policies because there is distortion in the market because of the reinsurance provisions in the Affordable Care Act.

But I will share this with you. I bought insurance in the Texas Federal fallback exchange. I bought a bronze plan on Blue Cross/Blue Shield. It is the most expensive insurance I have ever had in my life. Trying to plan and trying to budget for next year, I can't because here we sit, September 10, and I do not know what the renewal rates are going to be. And in all likelihood I will not know until around election day, with very little time to plan.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

I just want to address the issue of the insurance companies.

They have never enjoyed the type of unprecedented power that they have today until the passage of the Affordable Care Act. The insurance companies--executives from the insurance companies--meet regularly down at the White House with the Secretary of Health and Human Services. We are not privy to those discussions. We have no earthly idea what goes on in those meetings, but we do know that insurance companies are enjoying unprecedented profits right now since the passage of the Affordable Care Act. Their profits have increased. Their stock prices have increased.

Why is that? It is because of the individual mandate that was included in the Affordable Care Act.

No longer do insurance companies need to be interested in the longitudinal relationships with their insureds. You have got to buy what they are selling. Don't even get me started on their own narrow networks, which can restrict patients' abilities to see a doctor or to go to a hospital, to see who they want, to buy the medications that they need or to be reimbursed for the medications that they need. A lot of that has gone out the window. Talk about people with preexisting conditions. Most of us buy on price. Since we buy the lowest-cost price on the Bronze plan, we find ourselves now confined by narrow networks.

Who is really now prejudiced against a person with a preexisting condition under the current arrangement?

This bill today does not undo the Affordable Care Act, but it provides one more little measure of sanity for patients who wanted to keep their insurance policies before this regime took over.

I reserve the balance of my time.

No, I have no additional speakers. I am prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

In 2006, the Democrat manifesto, ``A New Direction for America,'' states:

Bills should come to the floor under a procedure that

allows open, full and fair debate, consisting of a full

amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer

its alternatives, including a substitute.

The fact remains that, when the Democrats took control of the House, they did precisely the opposite.

Throughout the 111th Congress, which was the final 2 years of Representative Pelosi's time as Speaker and which was the first 2 years of the Obama administration, the House never considered a single bill under an open rule. That is the definition of a closed process. Under Republican control, the House has returned to the consideration of appropriations bills under an open process with 22 open rules.

This year, the House has considered 404 amendments, 189 of which were offered by the Democrats. When you compare the record of the Republican majority and the most recent Democratic majority, any fair analysis will show that the Republicans are running a more open, transparent House of Representatives.

One word on the previous question: defeat of the previous question would not allow any of these proposals that we have heard about today to be considered because they would not be germane to the rule, so I do urge my colleagues to support the previous question.

Today's rule provides for the consideration of a critical bill to protect millions of Americans who are facing the loss of their employer-sponsored health insurance and that they were promised--a promise is a promise--they were promised they could keep.

I certainly thank my colleague from Louisiana, Dr. Cassidy, for his thoughtful piece of legislation and his work in this effort.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 717, I call up the bill (H.R. 3522) to authorize health insurance issuers to continue to offer for sale current group health insurance coverage in satisfaction of the minimum essential health insurance coverage requirement, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 3522.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3522, the Employee Health Care Protection Act of 2014, sponsored by my good friend and colleague and important member of the Health Subcommittee, Dr. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana.

This bill is a necessary tool for America's workers that will allow for health insurance coverage in the small group market during the 2013 calendar

year to be continued to be offered through calendar year 2018. In other words, if you like your group health insurance plan, you can keep it.

It has been over 4 years since the Affordable Care Act was enacted, and we are still hearing from constituents, small business owners, and employees who are continuing to struggle with the adverse effects of this law.

Here is what Roger from Columbia, Pennsylvania, wrote to me last year:

I am the third generation family owner of a business. We

have 32 employees and have been providing health insurance

for our employees and their families for over 25 years. This

week, we received a renewal notice from our current provider,

which is a 40 to 50 percent higher premium than our current

contract, with less overall benefit coverage. If we choose to

renew early, before the ACA takes effect, our premiums will

increase 11.4 percent. Our President told us that the ACA

would decrease health insurance costs.

My constituents--businesses, as well as individuals--have bitterly conveyed to me the myriad of concerns they face.

Eastern Lancaster County School District announced it would ``outsource'' about 100 of its support staff workers to private companies to avoid possible penalties under ObamaCare.

In Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, the community college decided to cut hours for 400 adjunct faculty and other employees, so it wouldn't have to pay $6 million in ObamaCare-related fees.

From Auntie Anne's franchises, I have been told they have put their growth plans on hold, hiring has been pushed off, and they may no longer be able to afford to provide employee insurance coverage. In 2012, they experienced a 19 percent increase in insurance premiums and a 30 percent increase in 2013.

Here is what Tom and Rosemarie had to say from Lititz, Pennsylvania:

I have been crunching numbers to prepare for ObamaCare, and this is what I face: close my doors December 31, 2014 . . . or . . . pay $40,000 a year to insure my employees or ``pay'' a fine of $2,000 per employee per year over the first 30, at the price of $166 per month per employee over the first 30. So now, the 10 that have insurance, as well as my husband and I, will no longer be insured because the penalty is more affordable than to cover . . . this is ridiculous. I am outraged.

Mr. Speaker, we can do better than this. We can enact patient- centered free market reforms, where private insurers engage in robust competition and create the same kind of market-based inducements to reduce prices and improve services that occurs in most other parts of the American economy.

We can start by enacting H.R. 3522. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. American workers who like their health care plan should be able to keep it, just like President Obama and the supporters of the Affordable Care Act promised.

I reserve the balance of my time.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Ways and Means,

Washington, DC, September 10, 2014.

Hon. Fred Upton, Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Upton: I am writing concerning H.R. 3522, the

``Employee Health Care Protection Act,'' which is scheduled

for floor consideration today.

As you know, the Committee on Ways and Means has

jurisdiction over the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. Section

5000A of the Internal Revenue Code requires individuals to

maintain minimum essential coverage or pay a penalty. Section

2(b) of H.R. 3522, both as reported out of your Committee and

Rules Committee Print 113-56, modifies which health care

plans would meet the requirement of minimum essential

coverage. However, in order to expedite this legislation for

floor consideration, the Committee will forgo action on this

bill. This is being done with the understanding that it does

not in any way prejudice the Committee with respect to the

appointment of conferees or its jurisdictional prerogatives

on this or similar legislation.

I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming

this understanding with respect to H.R. 3522, and would ask

that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be

included in the Congressional Record during floor

consideration.

Sincerely,

Dave Camp,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the vice chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Bill Cassidy, a valued member of the Health Subcommittee and prime sponsor of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, another valued member of the Health Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) another member of the Health Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Ellmers), another member of the Health Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire on the time remaining for both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, congressional Democrats constantly say that the ACA is not a perfect bill, and that they want to make changes. If they are sincere about that statement, they should join us in supporting H.R. 3522, a bill that received bipartisan support at Energy and Commerce to protect American workers who will lose their plan under the Affordable Care Act.

Thirty-nine Democrats joined us last year and voted for a similar bill to let Americans keep their plan in the individual market. We should work together to provide that very same protection to the tens of millions of American workers who depend on employer-sponsored health coverage.

Last fall, millions of Americans all across the country had their health plans canceled, despite repeated promises from the President and his allies in Congress that if you liked your health care plan, you would be able to keep it. And so, in the fall of 2013, health plan cancelations were concentrated in the individual market.

Sadly, millions of Americans with employer-sponsored coverage, group plans, will also face plan cancelations because of the Affordable Care Act. And some experts have testified before the Energy and Commerce Committee that approximately 50 million young American workers with fully insured coverage face plan cancelations or disruptions because of ACA requirements and regulations.

Forbes warned last year, and I will quote: ``Starting in October 2014, many employees of small businesses will start getting the same notices that are now being mailed to individuals, informing that their existing health plans are also being canceled.''

Well, Mr. Speaker, Americans rightly feel misled by the President, by congressional Democrats. Their false assurance that Americans could keep their health care plan was recognized as the 2013 ``Lie of the Year.''

So, we have this legislation before us this year to apply to the group plans. As long as they were in existence in 2013, they could be available today. And I urge Members to support the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The President not only made a promise that, if you liked your doctor you could keep your doctor, he said, if you liked your health care plan, you could keep your health care plan no matter what--period. He also promised reductions in premiums of $2,500 per family.

Americans are not seeing the $2,500 reduction in premiums that the President promised under the ACA. Instead, Americans are seeing higher premiums and deductibles under the President's health care law. Some of the premium increases are outrageous, and the deductibles--I don't know how a family could save the $10,000 to $15,000 for their deductibles that some of them are telling us they are going to have. In fact, the administration's own actuaries have confirmed that premiums are going up under the ACA. Earlier this year, actuaries from CMS estimated that 65 percent of small businesses will see premium increases under the Affordable Care Act. Middle class Americans working for these 11 million small businesses will see higher premiums, meaning less take- home pay for working Americans.

The American people want real health care reform, but the ACA is making things worse. The President's health care law has led to canceled health care plans, fewer choices, higher premiums, and higher deductibles for middle class families. Ultimately, the law needs to be replaced with better solutions that lower costs and provide better health care choices.

However, let's be clear about what H.R. 3522 actually does. The bill does not repeal the ACA. We have heard the mantra of how many 50-some votes there have been to repeal. Instead, this bill simply lets American workers keep their health care plans, and it expands coverage options.

Congressional Democrats constantly say that they want to change the parts of the ACA that don't work. If they are sincere about that pledge, they should join us in supporting H.R. 3522. This is a bipartisan bill to protect American workers who will lose their plans under the health care law. As I said last year when we had a similar bill for the individual market cancelations, 39 Democrats joined us and voted for that bill to let Americans keep their plans in the individual market.

Congress should work together to provide the same protection to the millions of American workers with group coverage, and that is what the Employee Health Care Protection Act does. Families, not Washington, should decide if they want to keep their health care plans.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, so I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support H.R. 3522.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. President, I wish to begin by thanking the Senator from Oregon. He has been a true leader in the Senate for many years and I know the Senator from New Mexico joins me in thanking him for his leadership and for his partnership.

I rise--as Senator Wyden has to celebrate the public lands of his State of Oregon--to celebrate the public lands of Colorado. I make the point right out of the gate that our public lands support thousands of jobs across Colorado and they strengthen our special way of life.

This month marks the 50th anniversary of the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the Wilderness Act. Both of these incredibly successful laws have been instrumental in protecting our public lands for future generations, growing our outdoor recreation economy, and ensuring access to public lands in Colorado and all across the country.

In sum, what I am saying is these landmark laws have touched every corner of Colorado over the past 50 years.

I am very pleased in that spirit to join Senator Wyden and Senator Sessions in submitting a resolution honoring the 50th anniversary of the Wilderness Act.

From the snowcapped peaks of the Eagles Nest Wilderness and the desert arches of the Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness, to James Peak-- which I worked hard to establish--the Wilderness Act has protected more than 3.6 million acres in Colorado alone. These places have inspired generations of Coloradans and remind us that we don't inherit the Earth from our parents, we borrow it from our children.

Let me turn to the Land and Water Conservation Fund. In 1964, some 50 years ago, President Lyndon Johnson worked with the Congress to establish LWCF--the acronym for the Land and Water Conservation Fund-- to fulfill a basic promise to the American people.

That promise is, as we develop our oil and gas resources, we will also conserve other special places throughout our country for the next generations.

As we mark 50 years of the program, we can tangibly see, feel, and breathe its success in the 3 million acres LWCF has helped us to preserve as part of 40,000 local park and recreation development projects across all 50 States, as

well as over 4 million acres of public lands managed by the Federal Government.

In Colorado we have seen firsthand how LWCF dollars have helped protect access to the public lands that help define us as a State.

From my position as chairman of the national parks subcommittee, I have seen how these funds have been particularly useful to our parks.

After all, there is no better example than the creation of Great Sand Dunes National Park in Colorado. This magnificent place was protected by LWCF appropriations that were obtained with very strong local support. Great Sand Dunes National Park protects one of our Nation's great landmarks and is also a critical source of tourist dollars for the surrounding rural communities, and this economic boost is something we have seen all across our State and our Nation.

It is noteworthy that for every dollar coming out of the LWCF fund, we see four times that much created in economic value--$1 equals $4 in economic value--and this investment through the LWCF program is part of the reason we have seen strong growth in America's outdoor recreation industry. When I say the outdoor recreation industry, that is activities such as hunting, fishing, camping, skiing, biking--you name it--and those activities have generated over $13 billion. That supports over 124,000 jobs in Colorado alone.

In another vein, LWCF resources have helped States such as ours become more resilient when it comes to national disasters. Last weekend I was in Lyons, CO, one of the towns hardest hit by Colorado's historic 2013 floods. This photograph is one of numerous examples of what we faced for about 3 days last fall a year ago.

Trout Unlimited has shared a story of how LWCF funds were used to help recover from a similar flood in the neighboring Big Thompson Canyon 30 years ago. Back in 1976 local officials had the foresight to make an LWCF purchase of 80 flooded properties and to replace the damaged homes with new parkland which then provided fishing access to the community and critical floodplain protection. That $1 million investment in 1976 helped families who had lost their homes then and avoided an estimated $16 million in property damages in 2013 that would have happened without those preservation efforts.

The Big Thompson Canyon flooded in a similar fashion last year as it did in 1976, but because of the LWCF moneys and the fact that 80 flooded properties were purchased, there weren't buildings and there wasn't human activity in those areas, and we saw the result. It was a way to rebuild smarter and better in 1976, and we are going to do that going forward from 2013's flood.

As a part of that, I was really excited and pleased to hear that the town of Lyons recently received $350,000 of LWCF funding to repair and rebuild the spectacular St. Vrain River corridor trail. Before that trail was destroyed last fall in the flood, it had been used as a regional connector for anglers, cyclists, kayakers, mountain bikers, and many others. This project will now help restore a vital economic asset for the community, and it will ensure access to the river and the river corridor for many generations to come. That is a success story, pure and simple.

LWCF has helped in many other less obvious ways. As we fight to get our kids--and ourselves--to spend less time in front of the television, outdoor recreation is still the best way to stay physically fit and active and emotionally healthy.

This past July I rafted the Browns Canyon Wilderness Study Area of the Arkansas River. You can see here what a spectacular and unique place Browns Canyon is--an area I have proposed to preserve permanently as the Browns Canyon National Monument and Wilderness. Along on that rafting trip we had a group of veterans, and several of them are suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD, as we know it. They told me how they use their time outdoors as a part of their healing--again, a success story.

How do we keep LWCF strong? Even though LWCF has been successful by any measure, while enjoying strong bipartisan support, the program has only been fully funded two times since its enacting law in 1964 promised $900 million in annual funding. That is right--only two times out of the last 50 years. LWCF is a victim of the uncertainty of the annual appropriations cycle, which leaves a huge unmet need in Colorado and across our country. That is why I have been fighting--joined by many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--for full, permanent funding of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I am very pleased to be working with Senator Wyden, Senator Heinrich, and others on a fix that would fulfill the LWCF promise. This is a promise to our kids, our grandkids, and all generations down the line, and we have an obligation to keep it.

The good news is that this potential fix would also reauthorize and fund two other programs that are critical to our rural communities: the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program, which is also known as PILT, and Secure Rural Schools. I will talk briefly about both of those programs.

For decades the PILT Program has provided critical funding to nearly 1,900 rural counties to make up for diminished tax revenues stemming from Federal land ownership within those county boundaries. PILT helps ensure rural communities have access to basic services such as law enforcement, education, and health services.

Let me share an example. Ouray County in southwestern Colorado is still recovering from the recent economic downturn and the corresponding 36 percent drop in property tax collection. The county has already cut staff time significantly by reducing county operations to only 4 days a week. Without PILT, that would drop to just 3 days a week. PILT also ensures that the county can hire a sheriff and that students can get to school.

Unfortunately, permanent funding for this program expired, and PILT now experiences the uncertainty of short-term fixes, creating significant planning challenges for Colorado and rural Americans. I was proud to lead the effort last year to extend PILT funding through the farm bill, which delivered $34.5 million to Colorado communities. But here in the Congress we have to do more. We have to confront this annual uncertainty over the future of the PILT Program. That is why I have championed a separate bill to permanently fund PILT. This is also a bipartisan effort, and it is why I have worked with Senator Wyden to include such certainty in this comprehensive bill today.

I mentioned the Secure Rural Schools Program, and the same could be said of it. Rural Colorado communities rely on the Secure Rural Schools Program to hire teachers and strengthen our education system. In 2013 alone Colorado communities--where one teacher can make or break a school--received $9.5 million through this vital program. So this important bill for our Secure Rural Schools Program would ensure that the Federal Government keeps its commitment to our rural counties to help offset the costs of public education, roads, and other essential services.

We have a dynamic trio of very important programs: LWCF, PILT, and Secure Rural Schools. They help support Colorado's rural communities and our special way of life.

I will conclude with this theme. We are a nation of risk-takers and explorers, always searching for the next challenge to overcome or the next mountain to climb. Our public lands are a reminder of that heritage, and finding the right balance for how to use our public lands is the next challenge to overcome. As we tackle problems such as growing our economy, disaster response, and taking care of our wounded warriors, let's not forget the important role of our public lands and the opportunities they provide for outdoor recreation, our economy, and our health. This year, let's reflect on what President Kennedy called ``intelligent use of natural resources.'' Let's celebrate 50 years of the Land and Water Conservation Fund with bipartisan action for full and permanent funding for LWCF, PILT, and Secure Rural Schools.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, this month America celebrates the 50th anniversary of both the Wilderness Act and the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I am going to spend a few minutes today--and I believe I am going to be joined at various times by a number of colleagues--to talk about the important role these two storied pieces of legislation have played in creating a legacy of protection and access to America's treasures.

First, people may not remember, perhaps given the way some in Congress talk about wilderness these days, but the Wilderness Act had an extraordinary bipartisan push behind it. It passed 73 to 12 in the Senate and 373 to 1 in the other body. Then congressional champions included leading Democrats and Republicans of that time. To celebrate the success of this landmark piece of legislation today--and it is the middle of Wilderness Week--I introduced a Senate Resolution, along with our colleague on the other side of the aisle, Senator Sessions, commemorating the 50th anniversary of the passage of the Wilderness Act.

Just like the original bill, our bipartisan resolution has numerous cosponsors and the support of our colleagues from both sides of the aisle. Part of the beauty of the Wilderness Act lies in the balance that was forged between immediately designating some places as wilderness in 1964 as part of the enactment, while providing a pathway for future designation.

It is that balance that has helped to make the Wilderness Act one of our country's most democratic pieces of legislation in our rich history. By requiring future legislation, it compelled citizen activists to go out at the grass roots level to involve their friends and neighbors to seek permanent protection for the special places that were important to them.

While passing wilderness designations through Congress has been far from easy, the reward has been extraordinary.

Since the act was signed, Congress has designated more than 110 million acres of Federal lands as wilderness and each acre a gift to our future from our past selves.

Next to me a few of those acres are in a photo of Mirror Lake and Mount Hood, part of the Mount Hood Wilderness within the Mount Hood National Forest in my home State of Oregon.

Mount Hood is an Oregon icon. Ava and William Wyden, our twins, 6 years old--pictures available on my iPhone after this discussion--ski there. They have already recognized, at a very young age, that Mount Hood is an icon.

Wilderness, there and across America, has been called the gold standard of conservation, keeping areas under the strongest level of protection the law provides and ensuring that they remain wild for future generations to appreciate and enjoy. By identifying what places deserve wilderness protection in an open, inclusive fashion, the country ensures full public debate, opportunities to bring people together to build a consensus, sensitivity to rural traditions and local economic needs, with an end product being wilderness areas that all Americans can be proud of.

Creating wilderness is not only important for preservationists, it is also crucial for conservationists, outdoor enthusiasts everywhere, and for all those who make a recreation economy hum--the outfitters, the guides, the lodges, and the mom-and-pop diners. The fact is that the recreation economy supports hundreds of thousands of jobs in rural America and generates billions of dollars of economic activity across our country.

That is also where the Land and Water Conservation Fund comes in because it helps to secure and maintain public access to the country's public lands and wilderness areas for recreation and enjoyment.

Also celebrating its 50th anniversary this month is the Land and Water Conservation Fund. This exceptionally important program is responsible for protecting areas in all 50 States and our territories. This includes such special places, iconic places, as the Grand Canyon National Park, many of our storied

Civil War battlefields, and numerous national wildlife refuges.

In my home State of Oregon the fund has helped protect many of our most precious outdoor treasures, such as the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, Crater Lake National Park, the Pacific Crest Trail, and the Oregon Dunes. Equally important, the Land and Water Conservation Fund feeds States critical funds that help create and maintain the local parks, the trails, and the recreational facilities.

Every year the Treasury collects billions of dollars of revenue, from offshore oil drilling and other sources of energy production. Out of that total, the Land and Water Conservation Fund is authorized to receive up to $900 million a year.

It is in my view a balanced approach, it is a simple approach, and it is a constructive approach to managing public lands with some of the money the country makes from extracting resources, taking that money and turning it around, and reinvesting it in the country's unique, open spaces.

There are tremendous economic benefits to the investment the fund makes. Nationwide, 98 percent of our counties contain land protected by the fund, and in these places America's outdoor recreation economy generates $646 billion in consumer spending and supports more than 6 million jobs.

Few States enjoy the outdoors more than Oregonians. It is almost as if the outdoors is a part of our gene pool.

We see ourselves as outdoors people, and outdoor recreation accounts for nearly $13 billion in consumer spending in our State, and it supports 141,000 Oregon jobs.

As I mentioned before, in addition to its Federal role, the Land and Water Conservation Fund helps the States. It provides matching grants so that State and local governments can use those funds to build new parks that are going to help struggling cities or towns develop. Or, they can maintain natural spaces that are critical to the quality of life in those local communities.

But the bottom line is, those investments--Federal, State, and local investments--lead to job creation. We know that recreation opportunities drive tourism, especially in our counties where there is a significant amount of protected lands.

Those who are recreating go to the local restaurants, go to the local shops, and they stay in the hotels. Often they look for outfitters and guides.

Economists note that job growth in rural western counties, where there is a significant amount of federally protected land, is four times faster than in areas where we do not have that measure of Federal protection.

These are just some of the many reasons why failing to give the Land and Water Conservation Fund the resources it needs, in my view, would be nothing short of legislative malpractice.

Unfortunately, despite the fact that 80 percent of Americans approve of the program's mission, it has been consistently underutilized, underappreciated and, yes, underfunded. As a result, jobs, growth, and protection--needed protection for these treasures--are left behind.

I plan to introduce two bills that would help to secure the future of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The first bill would provide a 1- year extension of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and the second bill--that I hope to be able to introduce very shortly--would make it permanent because I believe that dedicated, stable funding will ensure our public lands continue to be preserved and accessible to support those recreationists of the future, the conservationists of the future, and the local economic leaders of the future who will prosper as a result of those investments.

In closing I will simply note that we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Wilderness Act and the Land and Water Conservation Fund as millions of families across the country return from summer vacations to the parks and wilderness areas that these great laws have helped to preserve and enrich.

Children everywhere are sharing stories in their schools about how they went fishing, hiking, and camping in their Nation's backyards.

If realized to their greatest potential, the Wilderness Act and the Land and Water Conservation Fund are sure-fire ways to help guarantee that the next generation of Americans will continue to have access to beautiful recreation areas, captivating historic sites, and pristine wilderness. Strong, robust funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund will help grow economies and create jobs in every State nationwide.

Finally, let me note that until recently I had the honor of chairing the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. As chair, I had the opportunity to work particularly with two colleagues who are on the floor now, the distinguished Senator from Colorado, Mr. Udall, and the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Heinrich. It makes me feel very good that they are here because, as Westerners, they see day in and day out what we are talking about with respect to the importance of this program and this extraordinary contribution it has made to the country.

These two great Western leaders, with respect to natural resources, understand it is not only about the past. It is not just about the wonderful half century that I have taken the time to note. These are two leaders--Senator Udall of Colorado and Senator Heinrich of New Mexico--who I think are going to be part of the leadership, the leadership that works to protect these two great programs for years to come.

I am very grateful to have the opportunity to be on the floor with them.

I had a chance particularly to see some of the treasures in Colorado recently. I can see why Senator Udall feels so strongly.

New Mexico is one of the few States I have not visited, so I hope I will be able to wrangle an invitation to join Senator Heinrich.

But I want to leave the floor knowing that as we make this commitment to do all we can to make the protection part of our extraordinary outdoor spaces part of the legacy we leave for our children and grandchildren, the case for these two programs--and advocating for them--is in very good hands with Senator Udall and Senator Heinrich.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it has been more than a decade since I first came to this Chamber of the United States Senate. It has become unrecognizable--what has traditionally been a forum for thoughtful debate, amendments, and discussion based frequently on different perspectives that we come to based on our experience or the parts of the country we represent. Unfortunately this Chamber has devolved into one where not much gets done, and when there are votes, they are frequently show votes with the election clearly in mind.

Look no farther than our September agenda. Amid high unemployment, stagnant wages, widespread frustration over the consequences of ObamaCare, and genuine humanitarian and security crises abroad and here at home, our colleagues who control the agenda in the Chamber decided the most urgent order of business was to amend the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution and gut the First Amendment.

As I said at the time, when I went home during the August recess to talk to my constituents, not one of them said: I want you to go back to Congress and I want you to gut the First Amendment guarantee to freedom of speech. This clearly is not at the top of the American people's agenda.

Despite all the challenges facing our country, the majority leader, who controls the agenda on the Senate floor, continues to prioritize election year votes--show votes--over serious legislation.

Back in March, when our Democratic friends decided to promote their so-called ``fair shot'' agenda, the New York Times noted that the exercise was completely political in nature. The New York Times--hardly hostile to our Democratic friends and their policy agenda--put it:

Democrats can see that making new laws is really not the

point. Rather they are trying to force Republicans to vote

against them.

Meanwhile, the majority leader has prevented millions and millions of Americans from having a real voice in this Chamber. Since he became the majority leader, he has blocked legislation more than twice as often as the majority leaders Bill Frist, Tom Daschle, Trent Lott, Bob Dole, George Mitchell, and I should add Robert Byrd, combined. But he hasn't just blocked Republican amendments, not just those in the minority; he has blocked amendments from the majority party--his own party.

Since July of last year we have had rollcall votes on only 14 Republican amendments and only 8 Democratic amendments. I have to tell you that if my party was in the majority and we ended up getting less votes than the party in the minority, I would be pretty hot about it, and I would have some explaining to do to my constituents. Indeed, the majority leader has allowed so few amendments that one of his fellow Senate Democrats, the junior Senator from Connecticut, recently told Politico: I got more substance on the floor of the House of Representatives in the minority than I have as a Member of the Senate majority.

Our colleagues in the House have sent over scores and scores of bills relating to job creation, taxes, health care, immigration, and other issues only to have Senator Reid declare them dead on arrival. No wonder Congress has a 14-percent approval rating. When people see the dysfunction here--primarily in the Senate, since the House is passing legislation and then it dies here because the majority leader refuses to take it up--it is understandable why they are frustrated, just as we are frustrated.

I know it is not just those of us in the minority. Many Democratic colleagues privately expressed their own frustrations about the Senate becoming so dysfunctional. If the majority leader was serious about solving the problems that confront our country, they would not need to look far beyond positive progrowth ideas to address our Nation's most pressing challenges. They would see that Senate Republicans have joined our House colleagues in offering a bevy of thoughtful proposals.

First and foremost we have long stressed the need to pass a progrowth fiscally responsible budget. The Senate--under Democratic control--has not passed a budget since 2009. That is malpractice. We should leave the next generation with more economic opportunity, not more debt. Somebody is going to have to pay that money back. Maybe the young folks who are sitting in the front row--the young pages and their children will have to pay the money back. Americans and small businesses across the country budget responsibly every month and so should their government.

In addition, we pushed sensible progrowth energy policies that enjoy bipartisan support, such as approving the Keystone XL Pipeline and boosting the U.S. exports of liquefied natural gas. We need energy policies that enhance our energy security, reduce prices, encourage investment, and create jobs at home. We also need a regulatory system that fosters economic growth and prosperity, not one that furthers Washington's overreach. Republicans believe we must continue aggressive oversight of the Obama administration's out-of-control regulatory agenda, which is hitting hard-working Americans and their wages while empowering Federal bureaucrats.

Senate Republicans also believe the President's health care law was absolutely the wrong way to expand affordable, accessible, quality health care to more Americans. We believe families and patients should be free to purchase whatever kind of insurance they prefer without having to worry about the government meddling.

We believe future reform should guarantee that health care decisions will be made by patients and their doctors, not by Washington. We believe those reforms should make quality health insurance and quality care more accessible for more people. Here is the greatest irony of ObamaCare--instead of making health care more affordable, it made it more expensive, thus limiting access to care.

On tax reform, we believe our overriding goal should be to lower tax rates for all taxpayers, broaden the base, and simplify the entire system in order to restore America's global competitiveness. We also favor ending ``too big to fail,'' thereby, ending the implicit government backstop and subsidy currently enjoyed by America's largest banks. There are a number of ways to achieve that goal, but we all agree Dodd-Frank did not solve that problem.

Immigration continues to be among the most pressing issues we face, especially given this year's record surge of unaccompanied children coming from Central America and pouring across our southwest border. We understand

that one of America's top priorities is to make sure our laws are being enforced and our border is secure. We share that priority and we will keep advocating the necessary reforms, along with other reforms, to fix our broken immigration system.

We believe there are a lot of good ideas, and they are not the purview of either political party. In fact, we have been sent by our constituents to work in a bipartisan way to try and solve some of America's most pressing challenges, and we view our intellectual diversity as a sign of strength, but we remain united on the core principles and ideas that define our party.

We have had an experiment in big government over the last 6 years and, you know what, it hasn't worked very well. Unemployment rates remain high, the labor participation rate is at a 30-year low, and people have simply given up. The economy should be bounding back rather than knocking along the bottom. We remain committed to tackling our Nation's biggest challenges of promoting greater prosperity for all Americans, and we do that by growing the economy and creating jobs and letting people work hard, as they always have in America, and pursuing their dreams.

Proposals such as the ones I mentioned, many of which enjoy bipartisan support--they certainly have in the House of Representatives--will never see the light of day here as long as the majority leader continues to operate this Chamber like an incumbent protection program.

The American people sent us to take tough votes and solve problems. Indeed, I don't know anyone who would want to be a Senator if we are not allowed to vote and solve problems. The American people certainly deserve a Senate that operates that way.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, let me start out by righting a wrong. I hadn't realized Chairman Wyden, our chairman from Oregon, had not had a chance to visit the great State of New Mexico. I will fix that right now and

make sure he is not only invited, but we might seek to show him some of the incredible places the two programs we are talking about today have helped preserve, protect, and make as assets to our local economy in the State of New Mexico.

As we heard from our colleague Senator Udall and our colleague Chairman Wyden of Oregon as well, this month we celebrate two incredible milestones in our country's conservation history. We celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Wilderness Act and the 50th anniversary of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Both of these programs have been etched into the history of my home State by New Mexico conservationists with names such as Aldo Leopold, Senator Clinton P. Anderson, and Secretary of Interior Stewart Udall.

When Senator Anderson steered the passage of the Wilderness Act here on the floor of the Senate, he said on August 20, 1964:

In no area has this Congress more decisively served the

future well-being of the Nation than in passing legislation

to conserve natural resources and to provide the means by

which our people could enjoy them. . . . While we stretch out

the highways to carry ever-expanding traffic, while we build

whole new communities to house a growing population, and

while we consume more acreage for a burgeoning industry, we

have set aside part of our land as it was when human eye

first saw it--unscarred by man, primeval, a memorial to the

Creator who molded it.

Senator Anderson was also unquestionably one of the principal architects of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and the 88th Congress, where so much of this work was done, was coined as the ``Conservation Congress.''

LWCF is the primary tool our Nation uses to fund the protection of our natural and cultural heritage, and I have worked diligently with my colleagues--including Senator Udall, his cousin Senator Udall of New Mexico, Senator Wyden of Oregon, and others--to secure full and permanent funding for this program.

But even 40 years before the enactment of the Wilderness Act or LWCF, conservationist Aldo Leopold had the vision and influence to help protect 500,000 acres of mountains, rivers, and mesas in New Mexico-- which eventually became the Gila Wilderness--in order to ensure a roadless and backcountry experience free of what Aldo Leopold called ``Ford dust'' for those hearty enough to saddle up or hike into the heart of this wild country. With the passage of the Wilderness Act, it became the National Forest System's very first designated wilderness area. New Mexico is also where the idea of tribally administered wilderness became a reality when Blue Lake was returned to Taos Pueblo.

Former Senator Jeff Bingaman's leadership was absolutely invaluable in conserving important public lands in New Mexico, such as the Rio Grande del Norte and Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks regions, both of which were designated national monuments within the last 2 years.

But the 50th anniversary of the Wilderness Act and the Land and Water Conservation Fund is not just about the past, as we have heard from my colleagues. The future of public lands conservation will depend on the continued collaborative efforts of our elected officials, our business owners, tribal leaders, sportsmen, conservation organizations, outdoor retailers, and others to work together to protect America's most treasured natural landscapes.

Our efforts should continue our proud bipartisan history. After all, it was Representative John Saylor, a Republican from Pennsylvania, who was the lead sponsor and champion in the House of Representatives for the Wilderness Act. And it was former Republican Senator Pete Domenici of my home State who championed legislation to designate the Sandia Wilderness, a place I look upon every time I go home to Albuquerque, and who said at the time that the area ``forms a beautiful natural backdrop for the city which all the residents can enjoy.''

In New Mexico, hunters and anglers, campers and acequia parciantes, chili farmers and urban dwellers, all have a deep connection to the outdoors and benefit from the recreation, wildlife, and the water that wilderness provides. Many of my own most formative moments, decisions, memories, and turning points have occurred in these public wildlands.

I remember a trip with my wife Julie to the Irish Wilderness in Missouri, a trip that we made as we were leaving our college days behind in the Midwest and heading back west to New Mexico to start our new life together. In 2001, shortly after 9/11, I backpacked through 53 miles of the Gilo Wilderness and decided on that trip to run for a seat on the Albuquerque City Council.

I have many cherished memories from the trips my wife and I have made over the years along the spines of the American Rockies, the Sangre de Cristos, the Tetons, in places with names like the Pecos Wilderness, the South San Juan, Jedediah Smith, and canyons with names like Dark Canyon, Desolation Canyon, Gray, Grand Gulch, the Goosenecks, the San Juan, and of course the Chama River Canyon near my home.

Wilderness is in my blood, and I make no apologies for believing that some places are so very special that we will never improve upon them. These are the places worth fighting for.

I am committed to carry on my State's rich conservation history. Senator Tom Udall and I have introduced legislation to designate special places such as the Columbine-Hondo in Taos County, the San Antonio River and Ute Mountain in the new Rio Grande del Norte National Monument as new wilderness areas. It is clear that conservation and growing our economy are inextricably linked. Protected wild places contribute to the New Mexico economy in a robust and sustainable outdoor recreation community which generates $6.1 billion in consumer spending every year in the State, gives us 68,000 New Mexico jobs, and $1.7 billion in wages and salaries, according to the Outdoor Industry Association.

The new Rio Grande del Norte National Monument in northern New Mexico has already yielded economic benefits since its designation. After less than 1 year since it was designated a national monument, the local community saw a 40-percent increase in visitors.

As we look back on the last 50 years since the Wilderness Act and the Land and Water Conservation Fund both became law, let us also look to the future. My children love wild places as much as I do. My son Carter will be backpack hunting for elk with me later this fall. My son Michael will join me on BLM land to chase mule deer. They have hiked the Columbine Hondo Wilderness Study Area and fished in Cruces Basin Wilderness.

It is up to all of us to ensure that their children have the same opportunities we had and that we have shared with their generation.

I close with a quote from Aldo Leopold's book, ``A Sand County Almanac'':

When we see land as a community to which we belong, we may

begin to use it with love and respect.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for up to 7 minutes, followed by Senator Cornyn for up to 10 minutes, and Senator Blumenthal for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. President, I take this time to talk about the President's strategies on combating the threat of ISIL, or ISIS. I applaud the President's recognition that ISIL is a barbaric terrorist group that beheaded Americans. It murders, kidnaps, and tortures civilian populations. It sells women into slavery. It has the stated purpose of attacking America and its allies. It poses a threat, and the President is right that it calls for appropriate action by the international community.

I support and congratulate the President on the selective military strikes that have been done at the request of the Iraqi Government against ISIL's advances, which have held them back, and being able to regain territory that was held by ISIL, protecting civilian populations. I strongly support the President's commitment that there will be no combat ground troops interjected into this combat, and I think the President has done a good job in engaging the international community to work with us so that this is truly an international effort.

Let me comment for a moment, if I might, about military action and that it needs to be restricted. I oppose authorizing military use of force that is open-ended, that could result in the use of ground troops or where we could be asked to carry through or have our military do what the countries where these terrorist groups are located should be doing with their own military. In Iraq, it should be the Iraqi security forces that take on the ground responsibilities.

Let me remind my colleagues, when we went into Iraq--and it was done without my support. I voted against the authorization to go into Iraq. We were told that was going to be a short campaign, that the might of the military of the United States would make that a very quick operation. As we see years later, it took a long time and we are still in Iraq. It must be done with the help of the international community, particularly the countries that are in the region.

I think we have a strong responsibility as Members of the Senate and Members of Congress to revisit the 2001 authorization that was passed by Congress shortly after the attack on our country on September 11, and the 2002 authorization that was used for Americans going into Iraq. I don't think either one of those resolutions is relevant for additional military action today in either Syria or Iraq.

Let me read into the Record the appropriate language that was included in the 2001 authorization:

The President is authorized to use all necessary and

appropriate force against those nations, organizations or

persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided

the terrorist attack that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or

harbored such organizations or persons . . .

It is a real stretch to say that authority applies to actions against ISIL today. Therefore, I think it is incumbent. I think we have a constitutional responsibility to act, and I think we must act and make it very clear that there will be no ground combat troops authorized in any action taken by Congress.

In regard to Iraq, the Iraq resolution was passed at a time when the information supplied to Congress was not accurate. It is certainly not relevant to the fact that now there is an independent Iraqi Government. That authorization also needs to be revisited.

Let me remind you, if this administration can use the authority of 2001 and 2002 for using aircraft and military operations by air, what is to say that the next administration--because we know this is going to take a long time--couldn't use that authorization for introducing ground troops in these countries?

So I think it is important that we revisit these authorizations, eliminate the previous authorizations, and make it relevant to the current need. It has to be limited to strategic air missions requested by the Iraqi Government, targeted at protecting civilian populations.

In regard to Syria, I have serious doubt about authorizing military operations. I think we need to have clarification from the administration as to the clear objectives they are seeking to accomplish in Syria. We have to be very careful about the authorization of the use of our military in a country where we are not invited.

Now let me talk 1 minute about timing. The President has article II powers. I don't deny that. So if something were to happen, he has the right to defend our country and use our military to defend our country. He can do that for a period of 60 days. Sixty days from now we will soon be returning for a lameduck session of Congress, so I don't think there is any immediate rush for us to try to get an authorization bill done. But I think we should be working on an authorization bill so we can take it up when Congress reconvenes, and if something happens in the interim, we are certainly available and we can come back in and be ready to act.

America is always stronger when Congress and the administration work together on these issues, and I would

hope we could come together with the appropriate authorization, making clear we will not allow authorization for combat ground troops and that we are very restricted on the use of our air power.

Let me lastly comment about the continuing resolution we will be voting on tomorrow, as I understand it, that gives title 10 power for the arming and equipping of the Syrian opposition. Clearly in that authorization there is no authorization for use of U.S. military force. It is consistent with the action taken by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on which I serve and the resolution I supported that talked about arming and training the vetted Syrian opposition. We did that over a year ago. It was for a different mission; it was for dealing with Assad. This in a way is comparable to dealing with ISIL but also deals with the capacities against Assad. It is limited, to expire on December 11, and I think it is consistent with our mission to deal with our policies in Syria.

As I said earlier, I voted against the Iraq authorization in 2002. I see that we have to be very careful that we do not allow authorization to exist that could be used for a long and costly involvement of the United States.

It is also clear to me that we cannot win the campaign against ISIL by military action alone. We have to have diplomatic support. We have to deal with cutting off the financial aid. We have to deal with cutting off the political support in Iraq. In Iraq we have a representative government. The seeds have been planted. That is what we need to do. That cuts off the support ISIL will need for long-term survival. The international community needs to stay resolved and the United States needs to stay in leadership.

With that, I yield the floor.

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

I rise today in recognition of Suicide Prevention Month to once again bring attention to an issue that weighs heavy on many of our hearts and minds.

Last month the world paused to mourn the loss of a man who brought laughter and joy to countless lives, a man whose internal suffering didn't stop him from improving the lives of so many he touched, including our heroic men and women serving overseas. Robin Williams said the best audience he ever had was with the troops he entertained on USO tours. His death showed us that we may not always know who among us is living the life of unbearable pain and suffering. Even the strongest among us sometimes needs a helping hand, including the brave men and women in uniform who protect our country each and every day.

Today I wish to once again shine the light on the scourge of military suicide. Earlier this month the Department of Defense released a report which detailed the number of suicides among servicemembers during the first quarter of 2014. The Department of Defense reported that a total of 120 servicemembers committed suicide from January through March, including 74 active component servicemembers, 24 Reserve members, and 22 National Guard members. In 2013, 475 servicemembers took their own lives. In 2012, we lost 522 to suicide. We have seen 2 straight years of more deaths as a result of suicide than of combat in Afghanistan.

These men and women are giving their all to support our way of life and they risk making the ultimate sacrifice to protect our freedoms. At a minimum we should honor this service and sacrifice by doing all we can to support them.

We all understand this is not a simple issue. There is no one solution to the problem, no cure-all that ends it tomorrow. I do believe, though, there are commonsense steps we can take now to make meaningful progress.

In May I introduced the bipartisan Jacob Sexton Military Suicide Prevention Act of 2014. This legislation is named after Jacob Sexton, an Indiana National Guardsman from Farmland, IN, who took his own life while home on a 15-day leave from Afghanistan. Building upon legislation I introduced last year, the Sexton act ensures that mental health is evaluated regularly and is a central element of a servicemember's overall readiness in four key ways.

First, it requires annual mental health assessments for all servicemembers, including active duty, the Guard, and the Reserves. Right now the military provides the most effective mental health care only for those who are preparing for or returning from deployment, despite research that shows the majority of military suicides occur among servicemembers who have never been deployed.

Second, it establishes a working group between the Department of Defense and the Department of Health and Human Services to find innovative ways to improve access to mental health care for members of the Guard and Reserve. Where servicemembers often rely on civilian health insurance and providers, as the Guard and Reserve do, we want to team up to be able to provide care right in their own communities. Suicide among Guard members hit a record high in 2013, and we are committed to bringing that number down to zero.

Third, the bill requires an interagency report to evaluate existing military mental health practices and to provide recommendations for improvement, including peer-to-peer programs I have proposed in the past.

Finally, the bill ensures that seeking help remains a sign of strength. It protects the privacy of the servicemember coming forward, because no one should be punished for seeking help. No one should be kept from their next promotion for seeking help.

I introduced the bipartisan Sexton act with my Republican colleague Roger Wicker of Mississippi. Since then it has received the endorsement of numerous national organizations, including the National Guard Association of the United States, the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, and the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. This bill is a step in the right direction in the fight against military suicide.

I was encouraged when the Senate Armed Services Committee passed this legislation as part of the fiscal year 2015 National Defense Authorization Act this past May. This is important progress, but we need to get this legislation signed into law. As the Senate prepares to recess, I call on the Senate to take up the NDAA as soon as we return to Washington. There is no reason why this bipartisan legislation should not be passed, and passed quickly, just as we have for the last 52 years.

Our country, as we all know, is faced with many serious issues, some of which we don't have good answers to yet; but the Sexton act is a good start to address the pressing issue of military suicide. This legislation helps save lives--helps save soldiers' lives. So let's pass the NDAA and with it the Jacob Sexton Act to show our service men and women that we are all in on supporting them the same way they support us.

This legislation is just the beginning. Combating suicide both in our military and elsewhere is an issue that continues to demand Congress's attention. We must continually evaluate what we

are doing, take a second and third look at the resources we are offering, and ask ourselves every day: Can we do better? Is there more we can do before it is too late? The answer more often than not is yes.

That is why we must be vigilant in the effort to let people know they are not alone. There is somewhere they can go, someone to talk to, and someone to help carry the load. We need to continue the conversation about what we can do to help our brothers and sisters, our sons and daughters, our husbands and wives, who may feel like they are struggling with seemingly insurmountable challenges all by themselves. These challenges can be overcome.

Suicide Prevention Month is a reminder of that fact. There are many resources available to those who struggle with suicidal thoughts. For our servicemembers, trained mental health specialists are available 24 hours a day through the military and Veterans Crisis Line. All you have to do is call 1-800-273-8255, and press 1. You will get immediate, confidential assistance 24 hours a day. For additional help, militarymentalhealth.org offers a free, 100-percent anonymous mental health assessment. This is a valuable tool for servicemembers unsure of where they stand.

I hope all of our servicemembers struggling with mental health concerns and with challenges know that we are here for them and that we are working nonstop to ensure they receive the care and support they deserve. Let's continue to spread that message throughout the rest of Suicide Prevention Month, and every month thereafter.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.