Floor Statements

I begin this morning by extending my sympathy to families of the victims in yesterday's explosion in Harlem. News reports suggest a truly tragic loss of life and a lot of injuries, so it is a very sad day in New York today.

As usual, in a catastrophe such as this, the response from firemen, police, and first responders was both quick and courageous. Many ordinary citizens who just happened to be in the area showed a lot of humanity and a lot of heroism too.

We are grateful for them and we are all hoping and praying for a fully speedy recovery for those who were injured. These kinds of tragic accidents always take a big toll on the communities where they take place.

A few months back there was a horrible house fire in western Kentucky that took the lives of eight children and their mother. It was devastating to the entire community and still is, so we are thinking of them also today.

I wish to take a moment to address anti-free speech legislation the Obama administration has made a priority for this term. It is a regulation that comes in the wake of an unprecedented IRS attack on Americans' civil liberties and it represents a direct assault on the First Amendment.

First, let's be clear. This is not some partisan issue. Right across the political spectrum the American people agree this is a terrible idea. That is probably why it has generated more public backlash than any similar regulation in our entire lifetime.

Americans on the left hate it. Americans on the right hate it. Unions, business groups, environmentalists, conservatives, the ACLU, all of them have expressed concern. It is very rare to see a coalition that broad agree on anything in this town. Yet it is easy to see why Americans would be so united in opposition to this regulation.

The First Amendment exists to protect political speech. That was what the Founders had in mind when they wrote First Amendment political speech. The government should be doing everything it can to protect that right, not hurt it.

That is why we saw a record number of Americans register their complaints with the IRS. In fact, there were more than 140,000, comments--140,000 comments--on this regulation, which I hear is the highest number ever received in the agency's entire history. And let's not forget the IRS has a long way to go to regain public trust these days. Too many Americans look at the agency and see an instrument of political harassment rather than a bureau of tax processors. So if the agency wants to regain trust and return to its true mission, then it simply has to get out of the speech regulation business altogether. The IRS needs to get out of the speech regulation business altogether, and the Obama administration can do that.

Look. The administration ran this idea up the flagpole. In the midst of a historic crisis of public confidence at the IRS, it decided to upend more than half a century of practice and rewrite the rules on how Americans could express themselves, how they could be heard. They asked for comments, and the American people let them know what they thought in over 140,000 comments, almost all of them in opposition.

This regulation needs to go. This regulation needs to go, and it needs to go now. It is in the administration's power to make that happen. All it has to do is to listen to the American people who are speaking out in record

numbers--record numbers--and put an end for good to the idea that the law should be used to harm political enemies.

Let's protect the First Amendment and restore integrity to the IRS at the same time by withdrawing this awful regulation.

Mr. President, I wish to speak about a U.S. airman lost in battle who has left behind a saddened but grateful country. Capt. David I. Lyon of Sandpoint, ID, was killed in action on December 27, 2013, in Kabul, Afghanistan, when his convoy was intentionally and deliberately attacked by the enemy with explosive devices. Captain Lyon's mission was an advisory one for the Afghan National Army Commandos. He was 28 years old.

For his service in uniform, Captain Lyon received several medals, awards, and decorations, including the Bronze Star, the Purple Heart, the Meritorious Service Medal, the Air Force Combat Action Medal, the Meritorious Unit Award, the Air Force Outstanding Unit Award, the Air Force Organizational Excellence Award, the Air Force Good Conduct Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, the Small Arms Expert Marksmanship Ribbon, and the Air Force Training Ribbon.

As a cadet at the U.S. Air Force Academy, David was a star track and field athlete. As a team captain who is still ranked third all-time in academy history for indoor and outdoor shot put, his teammates gave David the nickname ``Leonidas''--after the ancient Greek warrior-king of Sparta--for his courage against fearful odds.

``Oh captain, my captain, Leonidas, we salute you. You will never be forgot,'' says Scott Irving, who was David's assistant coach. David ``knew the risk he was taking and embraced it without hesitation or fear,'' Scott adds. ``That's another Leonidas trait, I would say.''

David's wife, Capt. Dana Lyon, is an officer in the U.S. Air Force and an Air Force Academy graduate, where she herself was a two-time NCAA champion in the javelin throw. Her family hails from Lexington, KY, and I had the honor of speaking with them and hearing firsthand about David's service and tragic sacrifice.

``Dave was known as a tender warrior and a protector,'' says Rick Pounds, Dana's father and David's father-in-law. ``He was lighthearted and a gentle giant. Kind and compassionate to everyone he met, Dave's smile would light up a room. If my daughter would have given me the task of `go find me a husband anywhere,' he is who I would have picked.''

``Dave loved the principles upon which our country was founded, and died in defense of them,'' Rick continued. ``More importantly, he was a faithful follower of our Lord and savior Jesus Christ, in whom our liberty and freedom is derived.''

David attended the Air Force Academy, where he graduated in 2008. While there, he was a 3-year letter winner for the track and field team. He became a Mountain West Conference champion and was named to the National Strength and Conditioning Association All-American Team and received the Laura Piper Ironman Award. This award is named for a 1991 Air Force Academy graduate and former track and field star who was killed in action in Operation Desert Shield in Iraq. David's shot put throw of 57 feet, 11 inches earned him a place in the academy's record books.

``That gives you a sense of his intensity and his drive and his determination,'' said Scott Irving. ``When he was team captain, he would get upset with other[s] . . . if they didn't give everything they could give--it bothered him if they didn't try to take their God-given talents to the highest level. That was David, day in and day out.''

After graduation from the academy, David excelled in his Air Force career. Lt. Col. James Lovewell, his former squadron commander, recalls how much David impressed him. ``The consistency of his character showed across many facets of his life,'' Lieutenant Colonel Lovewell says. ``He was very humble and tireless in serving others. He had a superb work ethic. He was a servant leader--he served people just as much as he led them.''

Assigned to the 21st Logistics Readiness Squadron at Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado, David was picked over more senior officers to become the group commander's right-hand man. He worked above and beyond what was asked of him.

``I joked I was going to start calling him `Boomerang,' because he would come into work and I told him there's nothing more he could do, and invariably he would just come back,'' said Lieutenant Colonel Lovewell. ``He was sticking around to make sure I was taken care of.''

David and Dana were both serving their country in Afghanistan at the same time. David worked in logistics, Dana in acquisitions. ``He would always talk about how proud he was of her over there, taking care of the mission, as he was,'' Lieutenant Colonel Lovewell recalls.

Just before David's tragic death, the couple were able to have Christmas dinner together one final time.

``Every day was always the best day of my life with him, so every day just got better,'' Dana said. ``The last 2 days were the best 2 days we've spent together.''

Because they were based in Colorado Springs, David and Dana maintained their ties to the Air Force Academy. They coached and mentored young athletes, sponsored cadets, and volunteered with the Air Force Wounded Warrior Program. They had members of the academy track and field team over for meals. David also enjoyed camping, hiking, lifting weights, and listening to country music with the windows down with his wife.

Dana's brother Eric Pounds is also an Air Force captain and admired his brother-in-law both as a dedicated airman and a beloved member of the family. ``They both loved the Air Force,'' Eric says of his sister and brother-in-law. ``They both wanted to fight, and they both wanted to protect their country. [David] did that at home, and he did that in the Air Force. He was a protector and a provider, and I'm just really proud of him.''

We are thinking of David Lyon's beloved ones today, including his wife Dana; his parents Bob and Jeannie Lyon; his brother Sean Lyon; his parents-in-law Rick and Nancy Pounds; his grandparents Ray and Imogene Davis; his step-grandmother Beth Davis; his brothers-in-law Eric Pounds and Darren Pounds; and many other beloved family members and friends.

It was my honor to speak with the family members of Captain Lyon, just as it is an honor for me to share his story with my colleagues in the Senate today. I know we as a nation send our condolences to this brave military family for the loss of such an incredible husband, son, friend, and dedicated airman. I want them to know the Senate has paused today in memoriam to Capt. David I. Lyon to pay tribute to his life of service and sacrifice half a world away. He will be remembered, and he will be missed by those who knew him and loved him.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, too often in Washington our friends on the left seem to operate under a very dangerous assumption: that good intentions are more important than a good outcome. I say it is dangerous because we see all the time how liberal Washington politics that aim to alleviate problems such as poverty or wage stagnation or other social or economic problems just seem to make things worse. Yet, despite the evidence, the policies never seem to change. More money just gets thrown at the same failed programs year after year with barely any thought as to whether they actually work.

ObamaCare is a case in point. Here is a big-government bill that Washington Democrats thought they could just pass and--poof--health care would magically be made more affordable for everybody. Yet for millions of Americans just the opposite happened. Contrary to the assurances, ObamaCare has upended lives and businesses all across our country. It has forced painful choices for people who could barely get by as it was. It is a mess.

So one would assume Washington Democrats would step back and take a long hard look at the accumulating evidence and start thinking about ways to keep this thing from pummeling even more Americans. But we would be wrong. They just keep doubling down.

When the Web site crashed, they called it a glitch. When people started losing their doctors and their plans, they told them: You can live with it. When Americans started sharing their ObamaCare horror stories, they basically called them all liars. That would tell us something we need to know about how much Washington liberals care about middle-class Americans. They are captive to the most extreme ideologies of the left, and they don't even try to hide it anymore. Forget reason or economics or sound argument; it is all about ideology with these guys.

We saw it all on vivid display a couple nights ago with the Democrats' all-

night talkathon on global warming. The reason for the all-nighter was pretty obvious: It was a command performance for a leftwing activist donor out in California. And the fact that taxpayers were basically subsidizing the whole thing was bad enough, but what about the basic substance of the issue Democrats were talking about the other night. What about that. It is just one more case where good intentions trump the impact their proposals would have on ordinary Americans.

See, the Obama administration seems to think that if it just wishes really hard and issues enough regulations, it can singlehandedly reduce global carbon emissions--without bringing Beijing and New Delhi onboard. It is an alternate universe where ``victory'' means U.S. emissions going down by some negligible amount--and where China and India don't simultaneously eclipse that tiny emissions reduction with expanded energy of their own. It is a universe where the massive economic consequence of acting so recklessly doesn't seem to matter, and it is a universe where middle-class Americans somehow don't take the hit to our economic output right on the chin. In other words, it is the kind of thing that could only make sense to a party blinded by extremist ideology.

Of course, Washington Democrats love to pull out that old straw man and say: Either you support our approach completely--even if it won't actually solve the problem it purports to--or you hate the environment. It is kind of like when they said: Either you vote for ObamaCare or you hate affordable health care. Well, our constituents remember how that worked out, and our constituents are quite capable of seeing the complexity in the world which so often eludes our friends on the left. They are capable of caring deeply about the environment, for instance, while disagreeing with the administration's ideological crusade.

Of course, every ideological crusade needs an enemy. In the administration's war on coal, Washington Democrats appear to have found their foil. It is not some fat cat. It is not some Wall Street titan. No. This time it seems to be middle-class Kentucky families--miners who struggle every day just to put food on the table, the kinds of Americans who work hard so the rest of us can have a better life. Well, it is unfair and it is wrong.

Where Washington Democrats seem to see faceless adversaries, I see human beings, people who are hurting. I wish my Democratic colleagues would join me sometime as I travel around Kentucky listening to their concerns.

At one recent hearing, a miner named Howard Abshire had this message for President Obama:

Come and look at our little children, look at our people,

Mr. President. You're not hurting for a job; you've got one.

I don't have one.

Another miner, Gary Lockhart, said his biggest worry was just trying to keep a roof over his family's head and food on the table. When it comes to his fellow miners, here is what he had to say:

Many of these men, who have never asked the government for

any kind of assistance in their lives . . . [are] having to

go home and tell their families that their pay's going to be

cut to practically nothing, [that] there'll be very little

Christmas this year, no vacations, nothing extra.

Miners aren't the only ones affected by all the pain out there in coal country. I will read a letter I received from Bill Scaggs, a businessman and pastor from Pikeville. Here is what Bill had to say:

We have had to lay off employees due to the closings of

mines and the [effect] they have had. Our business is losing

thousands of dollars due to the negative impact of the EPA.

As a pastor . . . our benevolence to the community has

increased fivefold with help for food, power bills, clothing,

and just the day to day living expenses that families need.

Americans may not always know it, but they owe a lot to coal miners like the ones I represent in Kentucky. Whether it is watching a TV show, drying a pair of jeans, or saving some leftover takeout for tomorrow, we often probably have a miner to thank for the electricity that makes it all possible. That is also true if we try to keep the lights on all night long.

So I hope our friends on the other side will remember to be thankful for the electricity that makes all-night talkathons actually possible. Honestly, I still don't get the point of the stunt. They didn't introduce legislation or schedule votes on the national electricity tax they seem to want so badly. Remember, they control the Senate, so they can bring it up for debate whenever they want to. Where is the climate change debate? Where is the bill? People who were speaking all night control the Senate. Bring up the bill. Here is the point: Republicans care deeply about the environment. We also care deeply about creating jobs and growing the middle class, and we do not think our country should have to sacrifice one priority for the other. The American people do not either. So it is time for Washington Democrats to drop the billionaire-approved ideological crusades, to quit all the talk and get onboard with sensible forward-looking action to create jobs. We have tried the left's wish-upon-a-star approach already and real people have been hurt. So why not try some things that will actually work.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I will withhold.

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

As a survivor of polio as a child, I have always empathized with children battling life-threatening or disabling disorders. I also have a special place in my heart for those who work day in and day out to help kids who are battling childhood diseases. That is especially true when these researchers and physicians are working with children in my home State of Kentucky at places such as the University of Louisville, the University of Kentucky, and Kosair Children's Hospital. That is why I have long been a strong supporter of pediatric medical research.

I cosponsored and helped shepherd the Childhood Cancer Act of 2008 through the Senate. I also voted for the Combating Autism Act of 2006 and, as Republican leader, helped to secure its reauthorization in 2011. These were not partisan initiatives. They were areas where the two parties had generally worked together to advance the common good. Maybe that is why we don't hear that much about them, but I think we all agree there is more to be done.

Late last year the House passed bipartisan legislation, which I strongly support, to shift funding from lower priority programs to pediatric research, including childhood cancers, autism, Down syndrome, Fragile X, and countless other disorders and diseases that affect our children and don't yet have a cure. These efforts could be paid for by using taxpayer funding of the Republican and Democratic political conventions.

Frankly, it is hard to imagine that there would be any objection to moving these funds to do something we can all agree is a very high priority, and that is pediatric research.

Thanks to the leadership of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, the Gabriella Miller Kids First Research Savings Act, which was named in honor of a young girl from Virginia, passed the House on a wide bipartisan majority with nearly 300 votes. After it arrived in the Senate, I asked my colleagues on the Republican side to pass it and send it to the President for his signature, because I saw the positive impact these funds would have on pediatric research. All Republicans agreed to pass the bill on January 7, and today marks the 63rd day that Senate Democrats have failed to act--although I must say I understand it has now cleared and I think that is excellent. It is about time we passed this bill out of the Senate. I believe we are about to do that. This is the type of bipartisan legislation that should move easily through the Senate. We should be able to pass the measure today and it is my understanding we will be able to do that.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 289, H.R. 2019.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table.

I wish to reiterate what we have done. H.R. 2019, which will now go to the President for signature--the original author is Majority Leader Eric Cantor in the House--will eliminate taxpayer financing of political party conventions and reprogram savings to provide for a 10-year pediatric research initiative through the Common Fund administered by the NIH.

Are we in morning business?

Madam President, I am going to proceed on my leader time.

Madam President, there is a depression in Appalachia-- an absolute depression. Families are losing work because of government attacks on the coal industry and communities are hurting.

Tonight we are going to hear 30 hours of excuses from a group of people who think that it is just OK that we have a depression in Appalachia. Well, it is not OK. It is cruel. It is cruel to tell struggling coal families that they can't have a job because some billionaire in San Francisco disagrees with their line of work.

Let me relay a message from a Kentucky miner named Howard. What you are going to hear over the next 30 seconds is more important than anything these anticoal liberals will say over the next 30 hours.

Here is what Howard had to say:

I say to you, Mister President of the United States . . .

We're hurting. You say you're the president of the people?

Well, we're people too. No one loves the mountains more than

we do. We live here. We crawl between them. We get up every

morning and we go to the top of a mountain in a strip job in

the cold rain and snow to put bread on the table. Come and

look at our little children, look at our people, Mr.

President. You're not hurting for a job; you've got one. I

don't.

That is Howard from eastern Kentucky.

I am not sure how anyone can hear something like that and think that attacking coal families is OK. It is not just coal families who are suffering.

I have two electric bills from a farmer named John in Shelbyville. Shelbyville is not in coal country. It is in another part of our State. But 90 percent of our electricity is from coal-fired generation. We have some of the lowest utility rates in America. At least we used to.

In July of 2008, the year before the President took office, John's electric bill was $64.70. That was John's electric bill before the President took office. In July of 2013, he paid $107.30. This same farm, a new President, and a 66-percent increase in utility bills in my State outside of coal country. That is a cost increase the people of Kentucky and the Nation simply cannot afford.

My colleagues say they will spend the entire night talking about how we need to wake up and take action. They are going to spend all night saying how we need to wake up and take action. I wish to challenge them to think about acting in a way that puts the Americans I represent first and not spend 30 hours pretending as though they don't exist.

As I said, we have a depression in the coalfields of Kentucky created by this administration. Utility bills are soaring all over my State because of the actions of this administration. Tonight our colleagues are going to spend all night talking about just how great that really is. There is another side to the story. We need to care about and think about the people who are being hurt by the policies of this administration.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, the Department of Justice and this administration have too often put politics ahead of the law. The record of the nominee before us to head the Civil Rights Division strongly indicates that if he were confirmed, the politicization of the Justice Department would increase even further. He has a long record of leftwing advocacy marked by ideologically driven positions and very poor judgment.

In the District of Columbia v. Heller he argued in the Supreme Court that it would be ``radical'' to recognize ``an individual right to keep and bear arms.'' In fact, before the Supreme Court he repeatedly described the principle of individual liberty protected by the Second Amendment as a ``radical'' proposition. It was the position advocated by the nominee, however, that the Supreme Court rule was woefully at odds with the Constitution and individual liberty.

He also called the requirement to present identification before voting a ``modern poll tax.'' Americans strongly support this basic safeguard for the integrity of our elections. It has been endorsed by liberal Democrats such as President Carter. Not surprisingly, in Crawford v. Marion County the Supreme Court rejected the nominee's views on that subject as well.

In Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC he took the position in the Supreme Court that a church did not have the First Amendment right to hire or fire individuals who were responsible for conveying the church's message and implementing its mission. The position the nominee advocated would greatly infringe on the free exercise of rights of religious institutions. The Supreme Court rejected his views there too, this time 9 to 0.

But it is his advocacy on behalf of the Nation's most notorious cop killer that most calls into question his fitness for the powerful government position he seeks. Back in December of 1981, 25-year-old officer Daniel Faulkner was conducting a routine traffic stop when Wesley Cook, also known as Mumia Abu-Jamal, shot him in the back. He then stood over Officer Faulkner and shot him several more times in the chest. As Officer Faulkner laid dying in the streets defenseless, Abu- Jamal shot him in the face, killing him. At the hospital Abu-Jamal bragged that he had shot Officer Faulkner and expressed his hope that he would die.

At trial he was remorseless. He turned the trial into political theater, interrupting the proceedings, insulting the judge, and even smirking at Officer Faulkner's widow when the blood-stained shirt was held up in court as evidence. Four eyewitnesses saw Abu-Jamal gun down Officer Faulkner--four eyewitnesses. Three more witnesses at the hospital heard him confess to the crime. Ballistics evidence proved that Officer Faulkner had been shot with a handgun that was registered to Abu-Jamal, which was found at the scene of the murder, along with the shell casings.

Based on this overwhelming evidence, Abu-Jamal was tried, convicted, and sentenced to death. What followed was a 30-year effort by the far left to glorify Abu-Jamal and to exonerate him. This effort was taken up by law professors, leftwing activists, and in 2009 by the organization which the nominee before us led for several years, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.

When the Legal Defense Fund became Abu-Jamal's cocounsel in 2011, its press release called him a ``symbol'' of ``racial injustice.'' It said: ``Abu-Jamal's conviction and death sentence are relics of a time and place that was notorious for police abuse and racial discrimination.'' An LDF lawyer attended rallies for Abu-Jamal. She said it was absolutely an ``honor'' to represent him and that doing so was her ``pleasure.'' She said: ``There is no question in the mind of anyone at the Legal Defense Fund that the justice system has completely and utterly failed Mumia Abu-Jamal.'' This demagoguery of the murder of a defenseless police officer has shocked and offended law enforcement officers from across the country. Current District Attorney of Philadelphia Seth Williams wrote the Judiciary Committee last month to oppose this nominee's confirmation. Here is what he had to say:

Apart from being patently false, moreover, these claims are

personally insulting to me. As an African-American, I know

all too well the grievous consequences of racial

discrimination and prejudice. I also know that Abu-Jamal was

convicted and sentenced because of the evidence, not because

of his race. And I have continued to fight for the jury's

verdict because it was the just result.

District Attorney Williams notes that, given all the cases in which the Legal Defense Fund could be involved, it was ``telling'' that the nominee would go out of his way to inject himself and his organization into this one. ``His decision to champion the cause of an extremist cop-killer . . . sends a message of contempt to police officers.''

The national Fraternal Order of Police wrote President Obama to express its ``vehement opposition to the nomination.'' The FOP wrote that ``as word of this nomination spreads through the law enforcement community, reactions range from anger to incredulity,'' and that it ``can be interpreted in only one way: It is a thumb in the eye of our nation's law enforcement officers.''

The Kentucky Narcotics Officers' Association wrote me a powerful letter in opposition to the nomination as well. In it they note: ``The thought that [the nominee] would be rewarded, in part, for the work he did for Officer Faulkner's killer is revolting.''

The nominee has acknowledged that as the director of litigation for the Legal Defense Fund, he ``supervised [its' entire legal staff.'' According to LDF's own Web site, the director is responsible for coordinating ``the selection of cases'' the LDF chooses to get involved in. He manages ``all aspects of the legal docket.'' He oversees ``all aspects of discovery, motion practice, briefs, trials, appellate work and amicus briefing.''

As director of litigation he is responsible for advocacy both in the courts of law and in the court of public opinion.

Let me repeat. He is responsible for advocacy both in the courts of law and in the court of public opinion. As the head of the Civil Rights Division, the nominee now would be responsible for fulfilling the Division's mission of upholding the civil and constitutional rights of all individuals. He would have powerful resources at his disposal as well as the discretion to determine how and on whose behalf to use them.

As the junior Senator from Pennsylvania has noted, the head of the Civil Rights Division must have an absolute commitment to truth and justice. My friend from Pennsylvania goes on to observe that, while there are many highly qualified Americans who could carry out this critical mission, the nominee's record creates serious doubts that he is one of them.

I might point out that the senior Senator from Pennsylvania also opposes this nominee. So I could not say it any better. Everyone deserves a fair trial and a zealous legal defense. Lawyers are not personally responsible for the actions of their clients. But lawyers are responsible for their own actions. In this case the nominee inserted his office in an effort to turn reality on its head, impugn honorable and selfless law enforcement officers, and glorify an unrepentant cop killer.

This is not required by our legal system. On the contrary, it is noxious to it. I therefore will oppose the nomination and strongly urge my colleagues to do so as well.

Finally, I would like to note the manner in which this nomination may come to an up-or-down vote. Last fall the majority chose to break the rules of the Senate in order to change the rules of the Senate. In so doing, they violated the right of the minority under the rules to require extended debate on controversial nominees to powerful Federal positions. This serious breach of the rules is an ongoing violation. It is highlighted again today by the majority's effort to muscle through the current nominee under a procedure they came up with in the majority leader's conference room, not through the rules committee and regular order as was promised.

Members of the majority who voted for this heavyhanded procedure last fall will be responsible for the nominee's confirmation today--if that occurs--regardless of how they vote on the nomination itself. And they should not be heard to complain that the nomination process is not as productive as it was only a few months ago--before they threw caution to the wind and violated our rights under the Standing Rules of the Senate.

Ukraine

Mr. President, last week's military intervention by Russian forces into Crimea makes it clear that President Putin is determined to maintain the Russian sphere of influence there--and at a cost to his country. That is why Washington and its allies will now be of such critical importance in Ukraine.

According to the Budapest agreement, Russia has an obligation to respect the sovereignty of its neighbor, and the West should stand united in holding President Putin to that agreement.

The United States, NATO, and the EU should also work together to support the interim government in Kiev by supporting free and fair elections. And Members of Congress are already discussing loan guarantees and additional sanctions against Russia.

But if there is one thing Russia's military intervention into Crimea also makes absolutely clear, despite the best hopes of some, it is this: The foundation of the international system is governed by force, capability, and interest. Let me say that again. The foundation of the international system is governed by force, capability, and interest. That is the reality by which we should be guided in approaching this conflict, and it is a reality by which we should be guided when it comes to American power more generally.

As I have argued before, this President has eroded American credibility in the world:

[It starts] with the arbitrary deadlines for military

withdrawal . . . and the triumph and declaration that

Guantanamo would be closed within a year, without any plan

for what to do with its detainees. . . . there were the

executive orders that ended the Central Intelligence Agency's

detention and interrogation programs . . .

We all saw the so-called reset with Russia, and how the

President's stated commitment to a world without nuclear

weapons led him to hastily sign an arms treaty with Russia

that did nothing to substantially reduce its stockpile, or

its tactical nuclear weapons.

We saw the President announce a strategic pivot to the

Asia-Pacific, without any real plan to fund it, and an effort

to end the capture, interrogation, and detention of

terrorists, as well as the return of the old idea that

terrorism should be treated as a law enforcement matter.

After a decade-long counterinsurgency in Afghanistan, we've

seen the President's failure to invest in the kind of

strategic modernization that's needed to make his pivot into

Asia meaningful.

Specifically, his failure to make the kind of investments

that are needed to maintain our dominance in the Asia Pacific

theater, in the kind of naval, air, and Marine Corps

forces that we'll need there in the years ahead, could have

tragic consequences down the road.

Let's be clear. Whether it is recent reports suggesting the Obama administration knew for years about potential Russian violations of the treaty that regulates medium-range missiles or whether it is Russia's refusal to negotiate a reduction in tactical nuclear weapons, its shipment of arms to the Syrian Government, or its invasion of Crimea, we can now put to rest for good any notion that the relationship with Russia has been reset.

President Putin sees himself as the authoritarian ruler of a great power--and one who is determined to preserve his regime. That is how we should understand him.

In invading Crimea he clearly concluded that protecting Russia's sphere of influence there was worth the risk of Russian lives and of any response on the part of the United States and Europe. We and our allies pay a price when our capabilities diminish. That is why I have continually advocated for investments in the modernization of our forces, for marrying our commitments to our capabilities, and for a recognition that receding from the world comes with consequences-- mainly bad ones.

We remain a member of NATO and have treaty commitments to our fellow members. We also know that in Asia, China has pursued a policy of coercing its neighbors and exploiting territorial disputes. American military might is the backbone of the international order, but when we diminish our capabilities, we must understand that regional powers will fill the void.

Our President is still the leader of the free world. We will support him however we can to ensure a satisfactory outcome for the Ukrainian people and to prevent this conflict from escalating into a wider war. Ukrainians deserve our support. But this is a moment when President Obama is going to have to lead.

Honoring our Armed Forces

Chief Petty Officer Collin T. Thomas

Mr. President, I rise to speak in tribute to a brave Kentuckian who has given his life in service to his country. CPO Collin T. Thomas, a highly distinguished and decorated Navy SEAL, was killed in his final mission on August 18, 2010, in eastern Afghanistan in direct combat with the enemy. In his final act, he killed a Taliban fighter who had shot him and other members of his team, thus saving his teammates. For these acts of valor, he received the Silver Star Medal. He was 33 years old.

Chief Petty Officer Thomas held a rating of chief special warfare operator, was a Navy SEAL for 10 years, and served in the Navy for 13. In that time he received many awards, medals, and decorations, including the Silver Star Medal for the actions I have described, three Bronze Star Medals with combat ``V'' distinguishing device, a Purple Heart, the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, two Joint Service Commendation Medals with combat ``V'' distinguishing device, a Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal, six Marine Corps and Navy Achievement Medals, two Combat Action Ribbons, four Good Conduct Medals, the National Defense Service Medal, Afghanistan Campaign Medals with two campaign stars, the Iraq Campaign Medal, Marksmanship Medals with ``expert'' service device for both rifle and pistol, and a multitude of personal, unit and campaign awards.

On September 11, 2001, Collin Thomas's cousin, Navy weatherman AG1 Edward Earhart, was the first identified military casualty of the terrorist attack that struck the Pentagon. Sadly, this was not the first time terrorism had directly struck Collin's family. His uncle, Maj. John Macroglou, was the senior marine killed in the Beirut barracks bombing in 1983.

Then a Navy SEAL for a little over 1 year, Collin vowed to his family to make amends for the death of his uncle and his cousin. Collin's father Clayton says:

When asked by his grandfather why he continued to be a

SEAL, Collin would say that he was going to be the one to

capture or kill bin Laden.

Collin was born in San Diego, and by high school he had lived in seven States and two countries. But he always considered himself a Kentuckian.

After his father's retirement from the U.S. Marine Corps, the Thomas family settled in Morehead, where Collin attended Rowan County Senior High School. He ran track and played varsity football. Collin enjoyed camping and hunting. He liked to shoot and was good at it. His grandmother would prepare squirrel gravy from the spoils of Collin's hunting expeditions reluctantly because as much as she wanted to celebrate her grandson's marksmanship, squirrel was not a favored delicacy in her household.

A story from Collin's high school years demonstrates that the motivation to help others that was the driving force behind his Navy SEAL career was present at a young age. At age 14 Collin stood up for some younger children to bullies on the schoolbus. ``He didn't even know these children, but he knew they were being bullied and denied a bus seat by bigger and older children,'' Clayton remembers. He ``gave them his seat and told the bullies they would have to answer to him if he ever saw them bullying these or any other children again. . . . The character and sense of fairness he demonstrated taking on bullies he did not know to protect others would be repeated throughout his life.''

Collin was very driven and focused from a young age on his life's goal--becoming a Navy SEAL. He began his unofficial training at age 15 after talking with a Navy master chief at the Naval Academy, who gave him an idea of the physical, academic, and psychological training Collin would need to undergo to follow his dream. By the time he received his driver's license, Collin had also completed his SCUBA open water dive certification.

Collin graduated from high school in 1995, and at Morehead State University he took every ROTC class available. The summer after his first year of college, Collin was selected for basic airborne training by his ROTC commander. He met many Active-Duty Navy SEALs there and came away convinced he was ready.

Collin enlisted in the Navy on February 20, 1997, and his oath was administered by his father Clayton, a retired marine lieutenant colonel.

Collin completed basic training, was an honor graduate at the hospital corpsman school, and trained in basic underwater demolition. He was then assigned to a SEAL team to develop his skills as a special warfare operator. He became a SEAL on June 9, 2000, and was sent on his first deployment to South America.

Chief Petty Officer Thomas was a highly skilled and capable SEAL, and his constant training took him around the world. He became certified as a paramedic and a lead climber, able to scale near-vertical cliffs. He was a master parachutist specializing in nighttime high-altitude operations. He mastered underwater diving and was able to stay underwater for over 4 hours. He won inter-unit shooting competitions with both longbarrelled and shortbarrelled weapons. He excelled in snow skiing and skied the most difficult airdrop courses in South America, Europe, and America.

In April 2010 Collin achieved a lifetime goal when he and two of his SEAL teammates climbed Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania, the highest freestanding mountain in the world at 19,341 feet above sea level. They made most of the climb in speedy time. Near the summit, however, Collin encountered two women from California who were ill from altitude sickness. Against his guide's advice, Collin stopped to give them medical attention, delaying his final ascent. Collin's father recalled, ``Somehow, one of the women found out that Collin had been killed, and she sent a letter telling the family how kind he was to them, and she felt he had saved their lives.'' Once again, the same young man who had stood up to bullies on a schoolbus had set his own interests aside to save others.

Collin was buried with full military honors at Forest Lawn Memorial Gardens in Rowan County, KY.

We are thinking of his loved ones today, including his parents Clayton and Paul; his sister Meghan; his fiancee Sarah Saunders, and many other beloved family members and friends.

To his father Clayton I say ``Semper fidelis''--your son was always faithful.

One of Collin's senior officers, engaged in many highly sensitive and consequential missions, was unable to give his name for attribution on the Senate floor. However, he was able to

say these words about Collin, which I will share with all of you. This unnamed officer said:

Collin Thomas was a brave American patriot and an

incredibly gifted Navy SEAL. His tireless professionalism,

inspiring passion for life, and humble demeanor made him a

role model for all who knew him. We are deeply saddened by

this tremendous loss of a brother in arms.

I know my colleagues share these sentiments, and we mourn the loss of CPO Collin T. Thomas. We extend our deepest condolences to his family. No words spoken in this Chamber can take away the sadness and loss Collin's family must feel, but I do want them to know this Nation and this Senate are deeply grateful for CPO Collin T. Thomas's service and sacrifice. We are humbled to pay tribute to his life and legacy.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor one of the oldest educational institutions in my home State of Kentucky. Recently, the Simmons College of Kentucky announced its accreditation from the Association of Biblical Higher Learning. It is the college's first national accreditation.

The story of Simmons College is one of success. After the Civil War came to an end in 1865, there was no place in my home State where African Americans could obtain a college degree. That changed in 1879 when the Kentucky Normal Theological Institute opened its doors on the corner of 8th and Kentucky Street in Louisville. The school's second president, Dr. W.J. Simmons, transformed the nascent school into a full-fledged university that offered a wide array of liberal arts and theological programs. Simmons increased the school's enrollment from 13 to over 200 during his 10-year tenure. In 1918, Charles Parrish assumed the role of president of the university and aptly renamed the school Simmons University.

Simmons flourished into the 1920s, when enrollment peaked at over 500 students, but this success could not

shield the school from the devastation that sprang out of the Great Depression. The school was forced to sell its property in 1930 and drastically scale back its academic offerings. Simmons was down, but in no way, shape, or form was it out. In 1935 its leaders obtained a new location at 1811 Dumesnil Street. At this location, Simmons continued to provide Christian education, and in 1982 the school was renamed Simmons Bible College in order to reflect this focused mission.

In 2007 the school, now bearing its current name of ``Simmons College of Kentucky,'' returned to its old location at the corner of 8th and Kentucky. The property was purchased in 2005 by the Reverend Dr. Kevin W. Cosby--himself the grandson of a Simmons College alumnus. Dr. Cosby's immense respect for the history and mission of the school led him to launch a campaign to return Simmons to its original location. Dr. Cosby also took on the role of president of the university and worked to once again expand Simmons's educational offerings.

Dr. Cosby was helped in this endeavor by University of Louisville president James Ramsey. The two developed a friendship, and in 2010 they signed an agreement that made it easier to transfer credits between the schools. President Ramsey called the deal ``historic'' as well as a ``testament to Reverend Cosby's persistence in seeking partnerships and opportunities for the less fortunate.''

Simmons's recent accreditation by the Association for Biblical Higher Education is another enormous step forward for this venerable institution. The school continues to fulfill its mission of producing ``productive citizens and agents of change in society.''

Accreditation inherently brings increased credibility and prestige to the university, but it also provides more tangible benefits. With this formal recognition, Simmons is now eligible to receive government subsidies designated for historical Black colleges and universities. This money, coupled with a $2-million private donation from the Gheens Foundation, will undoubtedly lead to even brighter days ahead for Simmons College. Cole states that the university has plans to increase their enrollment from 130 to 350 students, as well as expand the range of programs offered.

Through thick and thin, Simmons has weathered the storms of history to arrive at this moment stronger than ever. President Cosby believes that the school's past trials mustn't be forgotten but, rather, harnessed as source of strength to spur on future successes. I extend my gratitude and congratulations to the president of Simmons College, the Reverend Dr. Kevin W. Cosby, for his extraordinary success in leading the renaissance of this historic school.

Simmons College is a truly remarkable institution, and their recent accreditation serves as testament to its perseverance and the good it continues to accomplish today. I ask that my Senate colleagues join me in honoring President Cosby and this admirable school.

Mr. President, this April 25, PFC William T. Carneal will be laid to rest in his hometown of Paducah, KY. Private First Class Carneal made the ultimate sacrifice in giving his life in service of his country. I rise today to honor him and to share the remarkable story that culminates in his forthcoming burial--70 years after he was killed on the island of Saipan during the Second World War.

William T. Carneal, known to his family as ``Teetum,'' was the youngest of Plummer and Johnnie Ella Hite Carneal's 10 children. Raised in McCracken County, KY, William's childhood was marked by tragedy and loss. His mother passed away when he was 18 months old and his father when he was 7, leaving the responsibility to raise William to his older sister, Ruth Anderson, and her husband, L.O.

William graduated from Heath High School in 1939 and, like so many members of the ``greatest generation,'' answered his country's call of duty and joined the U.S. Army in 1941. In January of the following year he was sent to Hawaii in preparation for deployment into the Pacific theater.

On July 7, 1944, his company in the 105th infantry regiment, 27th infantry division was engaged in hostilities with Japanese forces on the island of Saipan. When the enemy counterattacked, his company was forced to withdrawal--but William was never seen again. That day he was reported as missing in action, and a year later he was reported dead at the age of 24. Soon the war ended. Yet William's remains were never found--still buried somewhere in the Saipan soil.

His remains stayed lost for nearly 70 years--the chances of ever finding them no better than finding a needle in a haystack. In March of 2013, however, an unlikely source happened upon that needle. Keuntai, a Japanese nonprofit dedicated to finding the remains of Japanese soldiers killed during the war, was conducting an excavation on Saipan when they discovered the remains of five American soldiers--one of whom bore a 1939 Heath High School class ring. Carneal's dog tags were found, too, along with some loose change and a pocket-watch.

To confirm the identity of the remains, Keuntai passed them along to the Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command for DNA testing. On December 4 of last year, the tests confirmed what Carneal's surviving family members already knew--the class ring and the remains belonged to William T. Carneal.

William's family--nephews J.T. and Carlton, niece Mary Carneal Christian, great-nephew Jimmy Fields, and great nieces Carol Ann Fields Lindley and Beverly Fields Swift--were given the option of a burial at Arlington Cemetery. But after 70 years they thought it was time for William to come home to Kentucky, where he will be buried next to his sister Ruth.

The military believes that a grenade blast, possibly part of a suicide attack, killed William and the four other soldiers he was found buried with under 3 feet of clay. On April 25 of this year, William's birthday, he will be laid to his final resting place. He will receive the full honors of a military burial, including a 21-gun salute and a flag ceremony. Military personnel from Fort Campbell will preside over the funeral, and local World War II veteran Edward ``Earl'' Gidcumb will play taps.

As of December 19, 2013, there remain 73,640 U.S. personnel whose bodies have not been recovered from the Second World War. Most never will. But in this story, Sandy Hart, curator of the Kentucky Veteran and Patriot Museum in Wickliffe, KY, finds solace for the families of all the missing. ``When Teetum is brought home,'' she said, ``a part of them are all going to be brought home.''

I ask that my U.S. Senate colleagues join me in honoring PFC William T. Carneal's service to this country and all those who played a role in the incredible story of returning his remains, at last, to his old Kentucky home.

Mr. President, the Paducah Sun recently published an article regarding the incredible discovery and return of William's remains. I ask unanimous consent that the full article be printed in the Record.

I noted with interest that the majority leader was hammering the Koch brothers again today, and I wondered why he left out billionaire Tom Steyer, who plans to spend as much as $100 million pushing the issue of climate change in the 2014 election and ``appears primed to rival the deep-pocketed and conservative Koch brothers,'' according to the New York Times. The truth is that these American citizens have a constitutional right to participate in the political process.

It strikes me as curious that if we are going to demonize people for exercising their constitutional rights to go

out, speak, and participate in the political process, we would just pick out the people who are opposed to us and leave out the people who are in favor of us. The truth is that there are many wealthy Americans who feel deeply about the country, who are committed to one side or the other, and who are trying to have an impact on the country--as many on the left as on the right.

So we ought not to leave out Tom Steyer. I believe he also has a brother, who is also a billionaire, who has similar views and will probably try to impact the fall's election in one way or another beneficial to the things he advocates.

The Budget

The release of a President's budget is usually a pretty big deal, but President Obama's latest budget, released only this morning, hasn't even ginned up much excitement. Folks just aren't taking it very seriously because it is not a very serious document.

First, it could probably never even pass the Democratic-led Senate, and in some sense that is the point. Rather than put together a constructive blueprint that the two parties could use as a jumping-off point to get our economy moving and our fiscal house in order, the President has once again opted for the political stunt--for a budget that is more about firing up the base in an election year than about solving the Nation's biggest and most persistent long-term challenges.

It would increase taxes by well over $1 trillion in the worst economic slowdown nearly anyone can remember. It would explode spending by $790 billion, forcing us to borrow more money from places such as China. As I indicated, it would do almost nothing to address the most serious threats facing our children's future, and it doesn't even come close to balancing this year. No wonder the President thought the left would love it.

But this is my question for the President: What about the middle class? What is in it for them? It seems as though the President has just about given up on helping folks who are in the middle, folks who feel as if Washington doesn't take their concerns and anxieties into consideration anymore. What hope is he giving them that their medical bills won't be as high, that their wages will start going up instead of down? What is in this budget for them except for this nagging feeling that they will just keep getting squeezed?

The President is well into his sixth year of trying to fix this economy, his sixth year of trying to tax, spend, and regulate our way to prosperity--just as his ideology demands. But this much has to be clear by now: This doesn't work. Since 2009 the government has spent almost $18 trillion. Yet millions of middle-class Americans continue to suffer, whether in the unemployment line or in jobs that barely allow them to get by.

It is time the President realized that doubling down on the same failed policies is simply not going to work. Yet that is just what this budget proposes to do. We do not need any more election-year gimmicks. What is needed is a new approach, a positive strategy that focuses on helping the middle class instead of appeasing the far left.

President Obama still has 2 years in his Presidency. It is not too late for him to try to make a positive difference for folks struggling to pay their bills, but he has to let go of the left and reach to the middle. He has to decide that bipartisan solutions are worth fighting for. If he does he is going to find significant support on this side of the aisle. We want to work with him to get important legislation done for our country. We always have. We are eager to expand opportunity for the middle class and to build more ladders of opportunity for those who aspire to it. We are eager to enact policies that can create American jobs--approving things such as the Keystone Pipeline, medical device tax repeal, and important new trade legislation, just to name a few we could do together. We are eager to find ways to control spending and put the debt on a path to elimination. We are eager to reform the regulatory state so that the rules coming out of Washington actually work for people other than the bureaucratic class who writes them.

There are bipartisan solutions to be had on these types of issues if only the President could put the politics aside for a few minutes and actually work with us, really work with us, because the kind of unserious budget he put out today is just the type of silly politicking we need to get past. After all, why would we want a budget that grows the Federal Government while the middle class continues to shrink? Washington is doing just fine in the ObamaCare economy, but real Americans deserve a lot better. We can give it to them if we work together.

What I am saying is this: Mr. President, you have 2 years remaining in office. Work with us to make them count.

I yield the floor.

Reservation of Leader Time

Mr. President, today is an important day. It is the last day of the so-called comment period when Americans can officially register their opinions on the IRS's latest effort to suppress free speech. So far, nearly 100,000 comments have come through--100,000. Nearly every one I have seen is opposed.

Just to put things in perspective, that is basically the largest number of comments ever--ever--for a rule like this. Even the head of the IRS said he saw more comments on this proposal than ever before ``on any regulation,'' and that was 70,000 comments ago; 70,000 comments ago the Commissioner of the IRS said this was the most comments he had seen on any regulation.

So people are certainly making their voices heard--and loudly--and the message they are broadcasting is pretty clear: Leave the First Amendment alone. Leave it alone. Get out of the censorship and harassment business. Stick to the job you are actually supposed to be doing.

Let's be clear. The folks who are logging opinions like these run straight across the political spectrum.

Labor unions are upset. Business organizations are upset. Civil liberties activists are upset. Taxpayer groups are upset. Grassroots groups right across the political map are upset at what they view as an assault on their First Amendment rights. All you have to do is read their own words.

One group of primarily left-leaning First Amendment advocates said the new regulation would ``impose serious burdens on free speech and hinder the democratic processes it serves.''

An official with the ACLU described the IRS's proposed regulation as creating ``the worst of all worlds.'' The proposal, he wrote, could ``seriously chill legitimate issue advocacy from nonprofits on [both] the right and left,'' and would ``disproportionately affect small, poor nonprofits that cannot afford the legal counsel to guarantee compliance. . . . ''

Here is what one labor union had to say:

Given the history of misuse and abuse of the IRS' immense

powers in the not-so-distant past, it is disappointing and

disturbing that this fundamental principle has been forgotten

and that this . . . [regulation] is the IRS' proposed

response to its recent missteps.

So left, right, center--folks understand what a threat this rule poses to the most cherished of civil liberties.

They also realize that a group the administration favors today could easily become a group the IRS targets tomorrow. That is why this fight is so important, why it is so inappropriate to hand this kind of power to any administration. I do not care what party the President is in. That is why I, along with several of my colleagues, recently sent a letter to the new Commissioner of the IRS explaining in some detail why the agency's proposal was such a bad idea, a terrible idea.

In that letter we also reminded the Commissioner of something else: The ball is in his court on this one. The ball is in his court. He could stop this rule tomorrow. And given the comments he made about restoring integrity to the IRS when the Senate voted to confirm him, that is exactly what we expect of him. In fact, that was essentially the mandate on which he was confirmed.

So here is the choice before him. This is the choice the Commissioner of the IRS has. He can either fulfill that mandate to the American people by restoring integrity to an agency they no longer trust, he can be a hero and say no to those who are pressuring him to crack down on the First Amendment rights of ordinary citizens--that is what the IRS Commissioner told Richard Nixon. He said: I am not going to cooperate with your efforts to target your enemies--or he can serve political masters over in the White House, and he can implement regulations that would erode our most fundamental civil liberties, regulations that would almost certainly lead to the harassment of conservative groups today and, quite possibly, the harassment of left-leaning groups in the future. In fact, a recent letter Representative Camp received from the Treasury Department appears to suggest that unions in particular have a lot to fear from this proposal.

So, look. Now is the time to act. America's free speech advocates are standing with one voice. Thousands upon thousands made their voices heard in the opinion process. I suspect millions more are right there with them in spirit. Some who oppose this rule picked the President in the last election. Some voted for his opponent. Some may have even cast a ballot for another person entirely. But what unites us is our love of the liberties that have allowed Americans to disagree civilly for centuries.

Commissioner Koskinen, do the right thing. Stop this regulation.

Iran

Later today the Senate will vote on the motions related to S. 1982, a bill

that was not considered in committee, that greatly expands spending without any realistic offset and would vastly overwhelm the Veterans' Administration health care system. It is shameful that Senate Democrats would seek to score political points by rushing to the floor a bill which the committee did not consider and which could otherwise have been handled in a bipartisan manner through the regular order.

Unfortunately, it has become standard practice around here for the majority to pursue partisan legislation in a sort of ``take it or leave it'' manner, so it is unsurprising that nobody other than the majority leader and the committee chairman have been allowed the opportunity to amend the bill. Senators on both sides have been shut out of the legislative process. For example, we cannot even vote on the ranking member's veterans amendment--legislation I support--which will not add to the deficit. I am a cosponsor of this legislation, which provides full COLA restoration for servicemembers entering the military in 2014, provides advanced appropriations for VA mandatory accounts, improves services and benefits for victims of military sexual trauma, enhances benefits for survivors and dependents of disabled veterans, encourages the hiring of veterans, and, unlike the Sanders bill, is fully paid for.

As for the Iran sanctions language in the Burr amendment, as I noted yesterday, there is significant disagreement between the President and many Members from both parties in both the House and the Senate concerning the best way to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

The Iranian regime has carried out its best attempt at a charm offensive to forestall not only the implementation but the legislative consideration of even tougher sanctions should the regime fail to fulfill its commitments according to November's interim agreement.

The interim agreement included a Joint Plan of Action, agreed to by Iran. According to that Joint Plan of Action, the U.S. administration, acting consistent with the respective roles of the President and the Congress, will refrain from imposing new nuclear-related sanctions. The agreement is spelled out clearly to the Iranians: Acting consistent with our respective roles. The Iranians can read the plain language and understand that this Congress did not agree to renounce additional sanctions. We did not agree to do that. Yet the majority leader is determined not to allow a single vote on the Kirk-Menendez bill, which could be fully debated by this body prior to a vote. We will not have that debate, apparently, nor will we vote on any amendments related to the bill before us.

I yield the floor.

Reservation of Leader Time

I am here in support of what our colleague from Arizona is going to be talking about shortly. It is basically this. We have a White House that is busily at work trying to quiet the voices of those who oppose them by doing the following: They are proposing a new regulation directed at 501(c)(4) organizations that have been active for over 50 years in expressing themselves about the issues of the day in our country. This regulation actually predates the IRS abuses we saw during the 2012 election.

I have spoken a number of times--including a couple of major speeches at one of the think tanks here in town--about what a threat it is to citizens when the heavy hand of the IRS comes down on them because they speak up against policies of the government.

This regulation that Senator Flake is going to speak about here in a few minutes that we would like to see delayed for a year has generated 120,000 comments. I would say to my friend from Arizona that I am told there has been no regulation in the history of the IRS that has even approached 120,000 comments. Is that the understanding of the Senator from Arizona?

I think it is reasonable to assume that the reason for that is there are groups out there all across America, on the right, on the left, and in the center who have taken a look at this new regulation and understand that it is the Federal Government using the heavy hand of the IRS to try to shut them up, to make it impossible for them to criticize the government or people like the Senator from Arizona and myself. It is none of the business of the government to be quieting the voices of the American people.

I know our Democratic friends are upset because some conservative groups have been very active. I do not recall the same sense of outrage over the last 50 years when groups on the left were actively involved.

I would say to my friend from Arizona, since these comments are coming from all over, it appears, does it not, that there is a lot of collateral damage here, that the administration may have wanted to target their enemies, but they are hitting some of their friends as well?

The final thing I would say to my friend from Arizona is that we have a new Commissioner of the IRS. He has an opportunity, does he not, to clean up an agency that is already in a lot of trouble because of the IRS scandals, because of the new responsibilities they have been given to enforce ObamaCare? This is an agency in trouble already before it wades into a political thicket such as this, particularly when it appears as if this whole regulation really originated at the White House, not at the IRS.

I am reminded that the Commissioner of the IRS during the Nixon administration was asked by the White House to help target President Nixon's enemies, and the Commissioner of the IRS said: No. No.

I wonder if my friend from Arizona agrees with me that the appropriate response from the new Commissioner of the IRS--responsible for cleaning up this troubled agency--to the White House ought to be, no, I am not going to participate in your effort to quiet the voices of your political foes.

I commend the Senator from Arizona for his leadership on this very important issue. I do not think there is anything more important to our democracy than First Amendment freedom of speech. The last thing an agency whose principal responsibility is to collect revenue for the Federal Government--the last thing an agency like that needs to be involved in is quieting the voices of the critics of this administration--or any other administration, for that matter.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, there is a broad bipartisan majority in the Senate that would like to vote on Iran sanctions. The dilemma we have here is that the majority leader does not want this vote to occur. So I would like to start this morning with a few words about an issue that should be of grave concern to all of us; that is, the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran.

It is no exaggeration to say that this is one of the significant foreign policy challenges of our time and one we simply have to get right. That is why a strong bipartisan majority has sought to pass legislation in the Senate that puts teeth into the negotiations that have followed November's interim agreement. The challenge we have had is the majority leader does not want us to vote on it. It could be that he is afraid it will actually pass. Republican Senators--and hopefully some Democratic Senators as well--are going to continue to press the majority leader to allow a vote on this legislation before these negotiations end.

The Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act is a perfectly reasonable bill. This is a Menendez-Kirk bill. It does not disrupt ongoing negotiations. It simply provides an incentive for Iran to keep its commitment under the interim agreement. It says that if Iran does not keep its word, then it will face even tougher sanctions at the end of this 6-month period. In other words, it does not disrupt the negotiations at all, even though the big--sort of the high leader, the Supreme Leader in Iran says he is not paying any attention to these talks. Nevertheless, it does not disrupt these talks, which seem to be going nowhere.

But it does say at the end of the 6-month period: You are going to get tougher sanctions if nothing comes of the discussions. It puts teeth into the talks that are already taking place. It is a recognition of the success we have already had as a result of prior sanctions. After all, there is a good reason

to believe sanctions are what brought the Iranians to the table in the first place. They were hurting. So it stands to reason that if the Iranians break the interim deal, they should get tougher sanctions. If nothing happens, we should send a message: You cannot keep talking forever. Something will happen at the end of the interim period.

That is especially true given the fact that we are actually running out of tools here short of the use of force. This bill is the best mechanism we have to keep the Iranians at the table until we get the right outcome and to ensure they are sticking to their end of the agreement. We should not fall victim to Iran's efforts at public diplomacy.

Let me repeat that a strong bipartisan majority in both Houses of Congress agrees with this approach, so there is simply no good reason for the majority leader to prevent a vote on this crucial legislation. He is gridlocking the Senate, preventing the Senate from working its will on a bill that enjoys broad bipartisan support, makes elementary good sense, and is the best hope we have to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran. There is no excuse for muzzling the Congress on an issue of this importance to our national security, to the security of Israel, our closest ally in the Middle East, and to international stability more broadly.

I know many active members of AIPAC--the majority leader mentioned AIPAC. They want to have this vote. They will be coming to Washington next week from all over the country. I will bet this is a vote they want to have.

This is a rare issue that should unite both parties in common purpose. There is no question that it would if the majority leader would simply drop his reflexive deference to a President whose foreign policy is focused on withdrawing from our overseas commitments, a foreign policy that at worst poses a serious threat to our own security and that of our allies.

So once again I call on the majority leader to allow the Congress, allow the Senate to serve its purpose and express itself in our Nation's policy toward Iran. Let our constituents speak on this all- important issue on which so many of us in both parties actually agree.

In the Joint Plan of Action, the President made clear that he opposes additional sanctions. Why don't we let Congress speak? Let Congress have a voice. Let's stand together for a forward-deployed, ready, and lethal force that makes our commitments real in the eyes of friend and foe alike. Let's hold Iran accountable--actually hold them accountable. Let's do the right thing--approve this legislation and send it to the President's desk. The clock is ticking. The time to act is now.