[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 188 (Thursday, December 8, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8462-S8464]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Mr. Coons):
S. 1976. A bill to authorize educational assistance under the Armed
Forces Health Professions Scholarship program for pursuit of advanced
degrees in physical therapy and occupational therapy; to the Committee
on Armed Services.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to allow
physical and occupational therapists to enroll in the Armed Forces
Health Professionals Scholarship Program. I am pleased to be joined in
this effort by my colleague, Senator Coons of Delaware. Our legislation
provides tuition assistance to critical health care professionals in
exchange for service as a commissioned medical officer.
Unfortunately, while the need for physical therapists has grown
during the last ten years of combat, neither the Department of Defense
nor the military services have conducted a separate analysis of the
current or future DoD workforce requirements for occupational and
physical therapists, even though such an analysis was required by last
year's Defense authorization bill.
This legislation would allow the military services to extend the same
kind of educational benefits to physical and occupational therapists
that are already afforded to physicians, dentists, physician
assistants, and even veterinarians.
Physical and occupational therapists at the military's major medical
centers serve approximately 600 wounded warriors every day on their
road to recovery. More than 32,000 service members have been wounded in
Iraq and Afghanistan, including many who have suffered very serious
injuries and amputations. Physical and occupational therapists play a
critical role in the prevention of injury, rehabilitation, and recovery
of wounded warriors. They not only serve in medical facilities, but are
also embedded with combat brigade teams on the battlefield. They use
their medical training and skill to overcome impairments, regardless of
the cause to enable service members to overcome disability and succeed
in all aspects of life.
The idea for this bill came directly from a visit I had with a
wounded Marine from Maine at the National Military Medical Center in
Bethesda, Maryland in November. He was severely wounded by an IED in
Afghanistan. He lost part of one leg and his other leg contains
shrapnel wounds. Both of his arms were wounded, and he has a traumatic
brain injury as well. In short, he has very serious wounds that are
going to require a very lengthy recovery period. But, his spirits are
amazingly strong and upbeat.
However, when I asked him if he had any concerns, while he praised
the care he was receiving, he said there was a severe shortage of
physical therapists and other trained clinical personnel to help him in
what is going to be a very long recovery. He is expected to be at
Bethesda for another nine months. It troubles me that he believes there
are not a sufficient number of physical therapists to help him and the
other wounded warriors who are hospitalized at Bethesda.
While the Department of Defense reports that it does not face a
shortage in these professions overall, both the Air Force and the Navy
report shortages in physical therapists, physical therapy technicians,
and occupational therapists. One out of every four physical therapist
positions in the active duty Navy is currently unfilled. So including
these medical professions in this existing educational program would
help meet this need.
This bill is also endorsed by both the American Physical Therapy
Association and the American Occupational Therapy Association, who
agree this effort will help curtail a possible shortage of these
valuable professionals in the future.
I wish to point out, we are not authorizing additional or new funding
in
[[Page S8463]]
this bill, it is simply an important insurance policy against a
shortfall of these medical professions that will help the Navy and the
Air Force fill vacancies. After all, it is these talented and committed
professionals who are helping our wounded warriors return to living
full and independent lives.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record as follows:
American Physical
Therapy Association.
Senator Susan Collins,
Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Collins: On behalf of the more than 77,000
members of the American Physical Therapy Association, I write
to thank you for your amendment to the National Defense
Authorization Act and your introduction of legislation to
include physical therapists in the Health Professions
Scholarship Program (HPSP).
APTA commends your efforts to add physical therapists to
the HPSP. This legislation will enable more of these highly
qualified professionals to help treat our nation's wounded
warriors and ensure that there will be no shortage in the
future. There should never be any disruption in care for the
reason of inadequate personnel.
As you know, physical therapists play a critical role in
the prevention of injury, rehabilitation, and recovery of
wounded warriors around the world. They not only serve at
medical facilities like the Walter Reed National Military
Medical Center (WRNMMC), but they are also found on the
battlefield with the Army Medical Specialist Corps and are
embedded with combat brigade teams. They aid in shortening
the recovery time of soldiers so they can return to service,
and are a necessary and integral part of the health care
structure of the armed forces.
Thank you for your commitment to improving the
rehabilitation and well being of our wounded warriors. Please
contact Michael Hurlbut, Associate Director of Congressional
Affairs, at [email protected] or 703-706-3160, if you
have any questions or would like any additional information.
Sincerely,
R. Scott Ward, PT, PhD,
President.
____
The American Occupational
Therapy Association, Inc.,
Bethesda, MD, December 7, 2011.
Hon. Susan Collins,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Collins: On behalf of the American
Occupational Therapy Association (AOTA), the national
professional association representing the interests of more
than over 140,000 occupational therapists, occupational
therapy assistants and students of occupational therapy, I am
writing to thank you for sponsoring legislation to promote
occupational therapy within the United States military. This
legislation seeks to authorize educational assistance under
the Armed Forces Health Professions Scholarship program for
the pursuit of advanced degrees in occupational therapy and
physical therapy.
Occupational therapy is a skilled health, wellness and
rehabilitation service with the goal of improving function,
independence and quality of life so that individuals can lead
more productive and rewarding lives. Occupational therapists
work within the military from the frontlines in Combat Stress
Control teams throughout the continuum of care to long-term
rehabilitation and stateside community reintegration. While
occupational therapists are present in every branch of the
service the Army has the largest and most prominent role for
occupational therapy; using the professions unique focus on
overcoming impairments regardless of the cause to enable
soldiers to overcome disability and succeed in all aspects of
life.
The current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have dramatically
increased the demand for occupational therapy practitioners
within the military. The signature injuries of these
conflicts include traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic
stress disorder, traumatic amputation and poly-trauma. Within
both the military and the Veterans Administration
occupational therapists work as critical members of the
treatment teams to address each of these conditions.
AOTA and our members in the civilian world and the military
appreciate your leadership and vision in promoting
occupational therapy education and training for service
members so that they can go on to meet the needs of fellow
soldiers and society as a whole. Both within the military and
the private sector, demand for occupational therapy is
expected to increase dramatically and your legislation can
help meet those needs.
We look forward to working with you and your staff to enact
this legislation during this session of Congress so that more
occupational therapists are trained to meet the health care,
rehabilitation and reintegration needs of our service
members.
Sincerely,
Tim Nanof, MSW,
Director of Federal Affairs.
______
By Mr. SANDERS (for himself and Mr. Begich):
S.J. Res. 33. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the United States to expressly exclude for-profit
corporations from the rights given to natural persons by the
Constitution of the United States, prohibit corporate spending in all
elections, and affirm the authority of Congress and the States to
regulate corporations and to regulate and set limits on all election
contributions and expenditures; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I am submitting a resolution to amend the
U.S. Constitution. I do not do this lightly, nor have I ever done
something such as this before. The U.S. Constitution is an
extraordinary document which has served our country well for over 200
years and, in my view, it should not be amended often.
But in light of the disastrous Supreme Court's 5-to-4 decision in the
Citizens United case, I see no alternative but a constitutional
amendment. I should add that a similar resolution has been offered in
the House by Congressman Ted Deutch of Florida. This constitutional
amendment is supported by such grassroots organizations as Public
Citizen, People for the American Way, and the Center for Media and
Democracy.
Let me go on record as strongly as I can, and as clearly as I can, in
stating that I strongly disagree with the Supreme Court's Citizens
United decision. In my view, a corporation is not a person. In my view,
a corporation does not have first amendment rights to spend as much
money as it wants, without disclosure, on a political campaign. In my
view, corporations should not be able to go into their treasuries and
spend millions and millions of dollars on a campaign in order to buy
elections.
I do not believe that is what American democracy is supposed to be
about. I do not believe that is what the bravest of the brave from our
country, fighting for democracy, fought and died to preserve. Almost 2
years ago, in its now infamous Citizens United decision, the United
States Supreme Court upended over a century of precedent, taking a
somewhat narrow legal question and using it as an opportunity to
radically change our political landscape, unleashing a tsunami of
corporate spending on campaign ads that has just begun. Make no
mistake, the Citizens United ruling has radically changed the nature of
our democracy, further tilting the balance of power toward the rich and
the powerful at a time when already the wealthiest people in this
country have never had it so good.
In my view, history will record that the Supreme Court's Citizens
United decision is one of the worst decisions ever made by a Supreme
Court in the history of our country. While there is no way of knowing
for sure, since there are no disclosure requirements in place to track
what was spent, it is no secret that already in the 2010 midterm
elections, corporations and some very wealthy individuals spent a huge
and unprecedented amount of money to further their political goals.
There is no question this is just the beginning of their efforts. At a
time when corporations have over $2 trillion in cash in their bank
accounts and are making recordbreaking profits, the American people
should be concerned when the Supreme Court says these corporations have
a constitutionally protected right to spend, spend, spend shareholders'
money to dominate an election as if they were real live persons. There
will be no end to the impact corporate interests can have on our
campaigns and our democracy if we do not end this Citizens United
decision and its impact on our Nation.
All of us in the Senate share one common characteristic. We all run
for elections. We all live in the real political world. Let me speak
for a moment what I think many of my colleagues in their heart of
hearts know to be true; that is, that while the campaign finance system
we had before Citizens United was, in my view, a disaster--there is no
question it is a disastrous situation where candidates, Members of the
Senate, spend huge amounts of time having to raise money, and I know
that is distasteful not just for Democrats, it is distasteful to
Republicans, it is distasteful for an Independent; that is what we do--
now, as a result of Citizens United, that bad situation has become much
worse because
[[Page S8464]]
infinitely more money is going to come into the political process
through nondisclosed donations suddenly appearing on TV screens in our
States.
According to an October 10, 2011, article in Politico:
The billionaire industrialist brothers David and Charles
Koch plan to steer more than $200 million--potentially much
more--to conservative groups ahead of Election Day [2012].
What do we think? Do we think American democracy is about a couple of
wealthy billionaires putting hundreds of millions of dollars into
campaigns without disclosure? Is that the democracy Americans fought
and died for in war after war? I think not.
It clearly is not just Republican operatives. There will be Democrats
doing the same. So more and more money comes into the system. We do not
know where it comes from, and in order to defend ourselves candidates
are going to have to raise more money and become more and more
dependent on big money interests. Does anybody believe that is what
American democracy is supposed to be about?
Let's talk about the practical impacts. What happens on the floor of
the Senate? The six largest banks on Wall Street have assets equal to
over 65 percent of our GDP, over $9 trillion--six banks. When an issue
comes up that impacts Wall Street--some of us, for example, think it
might be a good idea to break up these huge banks. Members walk to the
desk up there and they have to decide am I going to vote for this, am I
going to vote against it--with full knowledge that if they vote against
the interests of Wall Street, 2 weeks later, there may be ads coming
down into their State attacking them. Every Member of the Senate, every
Member of the House, in the back of their minds, will be thinking: Gee,
if I cast a vote this way, if I take on some big money interests, am I
going to be punished for that? Will a huge amount of money be unleashed
in my State?
Everybody here understands that is true. It is not just taking on
Wall Street, maybe it is taking on the drug companies, maybe it is
taking on the private insurance companies, maybe it is taking on the
military-industrial complex. But whatever powerful and wealthy special
interest we are prepared to take on, on behalf of the interest of the
middle-class and working families of this country, when we walk to that
desk and we cast that vote, we know in the back of our mind we may be
unleashing a tsunami of money coming into our State, and we are going
to think twice about how we cast that vote.
I am a proud sponsor of a number of bills that would respond to
Citizens United and begin to get a handle on the problem. I would like
to acknowledge them very briefly. One is the Disclose Act, sponsored by
Senator Schumer, which would force corporations spending money on
campaign ads to disclose their identity, as candidates have to do. That
is a good thing. I support it.
Another is the Fair Elections Now Act, sponsored by Senator Durbin,
which would move us to publicly financed elections. I think that is a
very good idea. I support that.
The third piece of legislation is a recent resolution for a campaign
finance constitutional amendment, introduced by Senator Tom Udall of
New Mexico, that would make it clear that Congress and the States have
the authority to write laws to regulate campaign spending across the
country and make sure our State and Federal elections are about what is
right for our democracy, and I support Senator Udall's resolution. But
even these excellent pieces of legislation are not enough.
The Constitution of this country has served us well for more than 200
years. But when the Supreme Court says--for purposes of the first
amendment--corporations are people, that writing checks from the
company's bank account is constitutionally protected speech, and that
even attempts by the Federal Government and States to impose reasonable
restrictions on campaign ads are unconstitutional, when that occurs,
our democracy is in grave danger. Something more needs to be done.
There needs to be something more fundamental and indisputable,
something that cannot be turned on its head by a 5-to-4 Supreme Court
decision.
We have to send a constitutional amendment to the States that says
simply and straightforwardly what everyone--except five members of the
U.S. Supreme Court--seems to understand; that is, corporations are not
people. Bank of America is not a person. ExxonMobil is not a person.
The resolution I am offering calls for an amendment to be sent to the
States that would do that. It would make perfectly clear, No. 1,
corporations are not persons with equal constitutional rights as real-
life, flesh-and-blood human beings; No. 2, corporations are subject to
regulation by the people; No. 3, corporations may not make campaign
contributions, which has been the law of the land for the last century;
No. 4, Congress and States have the power to regulate campaign finance
as Senator Udall's amendment would also say.
This amendment is cosponsored by Senator Begich of Alaska, and I
would urge all my colleagues to cosponsor this amendment which, in
fact, does what its title suggests, saves American democracy.
____________________