[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 33 (Thursday, February 27, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1194-S1210]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




COMPREHENSIVE VETERANS HEALTH AND BENEFITS AND MILITARY RETIREMENT PAY 
               RESTORATION ACT OF 2014--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 1982, which the 
clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:


[[Page S1195]]


       Motion to Proceed to Calendar No. 301 (S. 1982) a bill to 
     improve the provision of medical services and benefits to 
     veterans, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Reid (for Sanders) amendment no. 2747, in the nature of a 
     substitute.
       Reid amendment no. 2766 (to amendment no. 2747), to change 
     the enactment date.
       Reid motion to commit the bill to the Committee on 
     Veterans' Affairs, with instructions, Reid Amendment no. 
     2767, to change the enactment date.
       Reid amendment no. 2768 (to (the instructions of the motion 
     to commit) amendment no. 2767), of a perfecting nature.
       Reid amendment no. 2769 (to amendment no. 2768), of a 
     perfecting nature.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 2 
p.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or 
their designees.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I am thrilled that we are here at this 
moment debating benefits for our veterans. Our veterans have stood up 
for America by fighting for us overseas, and when they come home we 
need to be standing up for them. Over time we have come to recognize 
that there are a number of shortfalls in the way we address our 
benefits for veterans that need to be corrected, and that is what this 
bill is all about.
  Yesterday we had a motion to close debate on whether to debate this 
bill, and that was successful, so here we are at this moment. Let's 
recognize that America has been at war for more than 12 years, that 
more than 6,000 Americans have lost their lives in service to our 
country, that more than 50,000 Americans have been wounded in combat.
  At some point 2\1/2\ million Americans have left their homes and 
their families to serve their country in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many of 
these men and women have served more than 1 deployment, and 400,000 men 
and women have served more than 3 deployments. They have gone back to 
the theater of war repeatedly, with sacrifices on a personal level, 
sacrifices for their family and sacrifices for their health. They have 
gone into perilous situations on behalf of our Nation. Today we need to 
make sure the benefits promised are there, and where the benefits are 
insufficient, that they are improved.
  I am hearing there is a possibility there may be an effort today to 
block this bill--this bill on behalf of our veterans. I certainly hope 
that will not be the case. How can we explain that the ongoing partisan 
politics that have so poisoned and paralyzed our Nation are more 
important than addressing the benefits of our veterans--our service men 
and our service women--who have fought for our country. Today is not a 
day for partisan politics. It is a day for keeping faith with those who 
have served our Nation.
  I will address a particular provision that is in this bill today. The 
bill takes on many issues, one of which is to work very hard to shorten 
and eliminate the big lag in time that occurs when our veterans apply 
for benefits. Benefits delayed are, for a period of time, benefits 
denied. The Department of Veterans Services has made progress with more 
progress to come. This bill will make a difference in eliminating the 
backlog and will address the needs of our veterans in a timely fashion, 
and timeliness is very important.
  There is another provision in this bill that I particularly want to 
emphasize because it comes out of conversations that occurred 6 years 
ago when I was talking to folks about running for the Senate. People in 
Oregon said: We need to take care of our Gold Star families--our 
families who are striving and struggling to be on their feet after they 
have lost a servicemember in combat. This is a challenge, of course, 
for the children and it is a challenge for the spouses.
  A veteran brought up the fact that we needed to provide much better 
educational benefits. I am very pleased to have a bipartisan sponsor, 
Senator Heller of Nevada, because there is nothing about helping our 
veterans that should be a partisan issue. There is nothing about 
addressing the needs of our Gold Star families who have lost a member 
of the family in combat that should be a partisan issue.
  Mr. Robert Thornhill, a veteran, talked to me in 2008, right before I 
came to this Chamber, about this issue of educationed benefits for the 
children and for the spouses. When the primary wage earner for a family 
is struck down in battle, the rest of the family needs a lot of help 
regaining their feet, and that means educational opportunities for the 
children. But let's not forget that the spouse who has to take over 
major financial responsibilities also needs educational benefits.
  Shortly before I came here, the post-9/11 GI bill went into effect 
creating the Machine Gunnery Sergeant Fry Scholarship. That scholarship 
fulfilled the vision that Robert Thornhill and I had talked about, and 
it went even further to include housing and book stipends and support 
for attendance at private universities, but it only did so for the 
children of the fallen.
  Mr. Thornhill followed up with me. He noted that we need to take on 
and extend these benefits to spouses as well. Over the long term 
children need help going to college, but in the short term spouses 
often have to be retrained to adopt their new role as the major 
breadwinner for the family.
  For several years I have been advocating that we fulfill this vision 
of taking care of the educational opportunity issues for our Gold Star 
families. Education is a powerful tool to rebuild a family's financial 
foundation, but it has to be affordable.
  There is a provision in this bill that Mr. Thornhill championed, a 
provision that is fundamental to fairness for our spouses of those who 
have fallen, and it is a provision that is fundamental to the future 
success of our Gold Star families.
  This provision--this Spouses of Heroes Education Act--is one element 
among a number that our Committee on Veterans' Affairs has so ably 
assembled to address shortfalls in the programs that assist those who 
have stood for our country.
  Let us not forget what we are working to do: to keep faith with those 
who have served our country. Let us set aside the petty, partisan, 
poisonous games and let's hold the faith and keep our veterans in mind.
  Let's get this bill done. Let's get it to conference with the House. 
Let's get it to the Oval Office. Let us keep faith with those who have 
stood for our country.
  I thank the Presiding Officer. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I am delighted the Senate is talking 
about our veterans. I am disappointed the bill before us did not go 
through the entire committee process. I am grateful that Senator Burr, 
the ranking member, has brought forward a side-by-side bill which I 
wish to discuss for a moment. I am particularly glad the Burr bill 
brings up the Iran sanctions issue. I know the administration has kind 
of backed away from the sanctions because of some things that have 
happened recently and does not want a sanctions bill to pass the 
Senate.
  I have followed closely what has happened in the Middle East. I 
recall back to 1979 when Georgians were held hostage in the American 
Embassy in Tehran for 444 days. I have a lot of experience with that 
part of the world and I think there are some things of which we should 
be reminded.
  This bill, the Burr bill that includes the veterans' benefits, also 
includes nuclear weapons sanctions on Iran and most of the provisions 
of the Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act. In particular, three things 
included are important to note.
  No. 1, it reimposes existing sanctions suspended under the interim 
agreement if Iran cheats on its commitment, drags its feet in 
negotiations, or threatens the West with long-range missiles or 
terrorism.
  No. 2, it ensures the final agreement must require Iran to dismantle 
its illicit nuclear infrastructure to prevent Iran from being able to 
produce nuclear weapons.
  No. 3, it threatens to impose additional economic sanctions in the 
future should Iran cheat on its commitment or fail to agree to the 
final deal that dismantles its nuclear infrastructure.
  I have watched the television set. I have seen the international 
reports. I have listened to what the Iranians are saying since we have 
had this interim agreement, and here is what it says: Iranian President 
Hassan Rouhani pledged that under no circumstances--and that is a 
direct quote--would Iran agree to dismantle a single centrifuge in a 
final nuclear agreement.

[[Page S1196]]

  This is what he is saying now and we are talking about getting to a 
final agreement months from now.
  Second, during Iran's national day celebrations in which American 
flags were burned, Rouhani declared: ``We will permanently continue to 
progress our nuclear technology.''
  Third, former Iranian top nuclear negotiator Hossein Mousavian told 
Iranian media in a recent interview that the Islamic Republic will 
never--I underscore never--agree to dismantle portions of its nuclear 
infrastructure.
  Iran nuclear negotiator Majid Takhte Ravanchi reiterated Iran would 
not accept the closure of ``any of its nuclear sites.''
  Next, an Iran official on February 12 set aside the idea of 
potentially altering a nuclear reactor so that other nations would fear 
the production of atomic bomb fuel.
  Finally, Iran will determine its needs regarding uranium enrichment 
on its own, the country's chief nuclear scientist said on February 25, 
and will not--and I underscore not--accept foreign powers dictating its 
enrichment policy.
  Iran is advancing its nuclear ballistics testing system and it has 
fired nuclear missiles to test its capability. Iran has deployed two 
ships in the Atlantic as a show of force on the United States of 
America. They continue in every way possible to be a surrogate fighter 
in Syria, empowering the Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, and 
they continue to cause the disturbances throughout the Middle East.
  Why should we not as a Congress of the United States, in talking 
about our veterans, include within that talk a clear shot across the 
bow to the Iranians that America will not stand for them laughing at us 
or poking their finger in our face when we talk about a nuclear-free 
Iran?
  We do not need a nuclear armed Iran in the Middle East for a plethora 
of reasons. Most importantly, if they get one, there will be a nuclear 
arms race in a very unstable part of the world. It is the home of 
terrorism. It is the home of the biggest fear the United States of 
America has, and our best ally, Israel, lies in the path of Iranian 
resistance. So it is important the sanctions be reinstated and that we 
have conditions on the Iranians so that if they violate their promises 
or they look the other way on their commitments or they do what they 
are saying on their own national television networks today, they 
understand there will be a consequence to their actions.
  I remember 1979. I remember when ``Nightline'' became a television 
show because for 444 days Americans were held hostage in Tehran. I 
remember that just the day before President Reagan was sworn in as 
President of the United States, President Carter finally negotiated a 
release of the hostages in Iran, for one simple reason: Iran knew that 
once President Carter was out of office and President Reagan came into 
office, he would follow through on what he said, and that is he would 
do whatever it took to free the hostages.
  There is only one thing the Iranians understand. They understand 
someone who will fight and stand up to them, someone who will take them 
on, and somebody who will not settle for their looking the other way on 
the agreement they made. It is critical and important the Senate of the 
United States send a clear message to the Iranians that we will not be 
lied to, we will not be misled, and we expect them to live up to the 
commitments they have promised to live up to. If they don't, there will 
be consequences for their actions.
  The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund are already 
pointing out that the economy of Iran is now improving, with the 
interim agreement we currently have. We have no certainty on a final 
agreement that is coming in the next few months. We have no certainty 
the Iranians are going to do what they say they are going to do anyway. 
If we sit here passively saying it will be all right, if we don't let 
them know there will be conditions if they violate the sanctions, if we 
don't let them know we mean business, then America will have turned its 
back on the most dangerous enemy we have, and that is the enemy of 
terrorism and the Islamic Republic of Iran.
  I appreciate our veterans and the sacrifice they have made to try and 
free us from terrorism. I appreciate the volunteers who have sacrificed 
their sacred treasure and their families and their own personal blood 
and their own personal life trying to defend America and liberate the 
people of Iraq and the people of Afghanistan. I don't want us to turn 
and leave the Middle East. I want to let the Middle East know, and its 
biggest ogre, the Nation of Iran, that we will not stand for a nuclear 
weapon in Iran. If they continue to try and progress toward that, there 
will be sanctions that will be crippling. America will not turn its 
back on Iran; we will stand toe to toe with them and say this will not 
stand.
  I commend Senator Burr for his leadership in including that in this 
portion of the veterans bill, as well as those members of the Foreign 
Relations Committee and the other 57 Members of the Senate who have 
signed the Iran sanctions bill. It is my hope and plea that sometime in 
the weeks ahead, before the Iranians think we have no teeth left at 
all, that we will do the right thing on the floor of the U.S. Senate 
and enhance the conditions of sanctions against the Nation of Iran if 
they lie to us or fail to keep the promises they have made in the 
interim agreement and the ultimate permanent agreement we make.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we have a lot of challenges before this 
Nation and this Congress. I believe the most critical challenge is how 
we handle financial matters that have been entrusted to us, how we 
handle the budget and spend the debt we are approving in America, and 
are we able--do we have the will, do we have the integrity--to stand up 
and put this Nation on a sound fiscal path.
  I would note to all my colleagues that the week before last before 
the Budget Committee, our own Congressional Budget Office Director Mr. 
Doug Elmendorf repeated once again--which is absolutely accepted by 
virtually every economist in America--this country remains on an 
unsustainable debt course. This is an unsustainable path we are on. He 
indicated and said flatly we could, indeed, face a fiscal crisis, 
something like 2007, perhaps, something like Greece, because our debt 
is so large and growing at such a pace. We have never been here before. 
We are in the red zone on the tachometer. We are in the danger area, 
and we need to get out of it.
  So I would say to my colleagues, isn't this true? Does anybody doubt 
it? Does anybody deny it? Then why don't we respond in an appropriate 
way?
  I was shocked, deeply disappointed, amazed, and saddened that this 
headline appeared earlier in the week in the Washington Post. This is 
what it said: ``With 2015 budget request, Obama will call for an end to 
era of austerity.''
  What does this mean? Every Member of this Congress knows what it 
means. It means the President of the United States is no longer 
interested in fiscal responsibility. He is saying: We no longer need to 
tighten our belt. He is saying he is going to attack anybody who 
suggests more spending is bad. He is going to say that he is going into 
this election with the idea that he is going to promise, promise, 
promise more and more spending, more debt, and he is not concerned 
about it. That is what it means. I am not exaggerating. I think every 
Member of this body knows exactly what that signal was.
  So we will see the budget. It will be out next Tuesday, and we will 
have a hearing in the Budget Committee, of which I am the ranking 
Republican, on Wednesday. But I suspect and am confident it will do 
just like his last two budgets. It would increase spending $1 trillion 
above the amount of spending we agreed to in 2011 and reaffirmed 
essentially with the Ryan-Murray bill that he signed about 2 months ago 
into law.
  We cannot do this. This is how we destroy a country, how we weaken an 
economy. I cannot--I do not have words to express it.

[[Page S1197]]

  I will say one more point. Economists are telling us that our 
economic growth today is below what it otherwise would be because of 
the size of the debt this country faces right now--not in the future, 
right now. It is a wet blanket on economic growth. The Rogoff-Reinhart 
study talks about the slower growth, and we have consistently seen 
projections for growth not being met.
  Director Elmendorf, in his testimony--I asked him about it 2 years 
ago. He predicted 2013 would allow us to see 4.6-percent economic 
growth. It came in at 1.9 percent--a stunning miss, well below. Below 
2-percent growth means you are not creating jobs, you are not creating 
wealth, you are basically stagnant with an increasing population.
  We need to be at 4.6 percent. We need some of that kind of growth. 
One reason we are not is bigger government, more taxes, more 
regulations, and more debt.
  We are not going to get out of it until we get off that path.
  So now we have a veterans bill before us. Nobody, I do not believe, 
is more committed to veterans in this body than I have been, and so 
many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle want to do the right 
thing for veterans. But it is an audacious thing we are seeing here 
today.
  Let's review some of the history.
  Two months ago, every Senate Democrat--every Senate Democrat--voted 
for a bill to cut military pensions for our soldiers, our military 
retirees, and even our disabled veterans. It was in their bill.
  Senate Democrats then blocked--not once but twice--my efforts, other 
Republican efforts to restore those cuts by closing a tax credit 
loophole for illegal immigrants.
  Mr. President, I see my colleague and friend, Senator Sanders, in the 
Chamber. I am going to get to the point. I will do it now because I 
know he has a busy agenda, and I think I know how the script will all 
play out.
  I say to Senator Sanders and colleagues, the pending measure before 
us today, S. 1982, the Comprehensive Veterans Health and Benefits and 
Military Retirement Pay Restoration Act of 2014--which is a good title 
for a bill--would cause the aggregate level of budget authority and 
outlays for fiscal year 2014, deemed pursuant to section 111 of Public 
Law 113-67, to be exceeded. Therefore, I raise a point of order under 
section 311(a)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Alabama for 
accommodating my schedule. I will have more to say on this issue later 
this afternoon. But let me at this point simply say: Mr. President, 
pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the 
waiver provisions of applicable budget resolutions, I move to waive all 
applicable sections of that act and applicable budget resolutions for 
purposes of the pending bill, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Well, Mr. President, reclaiming the floor, now you have 
it in stark clarity. This bill proposes to spend more than we agreed to 
spend passing the Ryan-Murray Act a few weeks ago. President Obama 
signed it 2 months ago. The ink is hardly dry on it, and here we have 
another bill to raise that, to raise the spending again. And it will 
not be the only one. We are going to see bill after bill after bill, 
and it is part of the President's strategy.
  What is it? The era of austerity is over. He signed Ryan-Murray. He 
signed the Budget Control Act. But he had no intention of complying 
with it. He will not support enforcement of it. That is a failure of 
leadership of a monumental proportion. It is a stunning event.
  I do not know why we have a Congress, why we pass laws that say we 
are only going to spend so much money and then we waltz in, just a few 
weeks later, and spend billions more than we agreed to. And, oh, we 
will just waive the budget we just passed. Oh, this is important. But 
everybody knew when we passed the limits on spending that there were 
going to be important bills.
  I am actually shocked, even by Senate and congressional standards, 
how blase this body has been about these laws. I thought at least 
people would pretend to honor them. There is no pretense here. And it 
is a failure of responsibility in this body if such spending were to 
pass.
  So our colleagues voted to cut the retirement pay of veterans, which 
I opposed and Republicans opposed. That was already in law--a 
commitment we made to military people that if they served 20 years, 
they get this retirement benefit.
  They waltzed in to save $6 billion, supposedly, and they were going 
to reduce their pension benefits. I did not feel, No. 1, it was 
necessary. There were other ways to save money. And I felt we had ways 
to save the money in a different way and offered legislation to that 
effect. So the attempts to fix it were blocked twice.
  What was in the Ryan-Murray bill was fiscally responsible--bad policy 
but responsible fiscally. This bill is not. This bill increases, 
creates new veterans programs, new spending for veterans, and it is not 
paid for in any way. It is all borrowed money. We are already in debt, 
so when we enter and commit ourselves to additional obligations above 
what we have agreed to, every penny of that is borrowed, every penny of 
that will add to the debt of our country.
  This bill busts the caps we agreed to. These are caps we all voted 
for--or at least our colleagues did, the Democratic colleagues, because 
I did not vote for the Ryan-Murray bill. I thought it eroded the Budget 
Control Act more than I wanted it to and it raised the caps. But it 
kept them in place. It eased pressure in several areas where the shoe 
was pinching badly. It eased that pressure. But that is not enough now? 
We have to have more?
  It is using the veterans as a political tool, in my view. I do not 
think our veterans want their programs to be enhanced if every penny of 
money that is going to enhance those programs is added to the debt of 
the United States of America.
  This is eight times at least since the Budget Control Act was passed 
that we have seen efforts to bust it. So our military men and women who 
worked tirelessly, selflessly, for the good of this country, have 
always put duty first. Shouldn't we put duty first?
  This massive Federal budget of ours is filled with waste, filled with 
projects that cannot be defended intellectually. It was our duty to get 
rid of wasteful pet projects and do the right thing for our veterans.
  I say to my colleagues, for example, you could have closed the tax 
credit loophole for illegal immigrants that is costing America billions 
of dollars. The cut to the veterans pension was about $6 billion over 
10 years. Annually, according to the President's own inspector general 
at his own Department of Treasury, we are losing $4 billion a year in 
improper tax credit payments to illegal aliens. Why don't we fix that? 
The inspector general asked that we fix that. It would save $20 billion 
over 10 years. No, sir. What do they tell us? We are not doing anything 
on immigration.
  Well, the first thing you should do to create a lawful system of 
immigration in America is to quit rewarding people financially who come 
illegally. That is the first thing. For Heaven's sakes, what is wrong 
with that? Is that immoral?
  We had an instance in which there was a trailer, I believe in 
Indiana. A number of people lived there. No children. They claimed 19 
children and got refunds from the United States of America of $30,000--
all of which were not proper, none of which were proper.
  That is what the inspector general was talking about. You are not 
entitled to come to America illegally--have children in some other 
country--and then demand that we give you a tax credit, which is the 
equivalent of a direct check from the U.S. Treasury. A tax credit is 
not a deduction. It is a check from the U.S. Treasury.
  But, oh no, we will not even discuss that. That is a nonstarter. So 
it looks like politics trumps helping veterans. So if we had had a plan 
to fix the veterans retirement, that could have all worked together on 
a good basis. Here we have now another veterans bill that is not going 
to work. Are there no programs, are there no spending plans out

[[Page S1198]]

there that could not be trimmed, eliminated or reconfigured that could 
help us honor the commitments we have made to our veterans? There 
surely are. Lots of them. We have seen a lot of them offered.
  So I challenge any of our colleagues, Senate Democrats, to come to 
the floor and name one program they are willing to terminate in order 
to help fund our veterans adequately. Come down and let's hear it. 
There is a circling of the wagons in this administration. What did the 
President mean when he said: The era of austerity is over, as the 
Washington Post reported? What did me mean? He meant that we are not 
cutting anything else. He meant that he is going to propose, as he has 
in the past, new spending programs, not fewer spending.
  We can't even get amendments up on this legislation. The majority 
leader has filled the tree. He will not allow us even to vote on 
alternative proposals. We cannot have an honest debate in this Chamber 
over how to legitimately and responsibly meet the needs of veterans or 
any other group, it appears. So really, in effect, the majority leader 
and his caucus will not allow votes on proposals. He will not allow our 
veterans to have a vote really. As long as that is the case, you have 
got no right to proceed with this legislation, in my opinion.
  So to those who come to the floor and attack Republicans, saying we 
do not care about veterans, I will issue this challenge: Tell your 
leader--because he cannot function without your support--tell your 
leader to let us offer some amendments. Let us offer some offsets that 
would help pay for this. Tell your leader to let this Chamber work its 
will in the Constitutional and historic way.
  If you do not, it is clear that your goal is to create a misleading 
headline and not do what is right for veterans. One more thing, because 
Congress has refused to live within its means, interest on our debt is 
surging, unbelievably so. It will crowd out this kind of spending, 
defense spending, education spending, highway spending, throughout our 
whole government.
  Let me draw your attention to this chart. This is what Director 
Elmendorf told us 2 weeks ago--last week--in his testimony before the 
Budget Committee on the budget of the United States of America. He told 
us that the interest we pay this date, this past year, was $230 
billion.
  The savings from reducing veterans' retirement over 10 years was $6 
billion. The Federal highway bill for 1 year is approximately $40 
billion. The amount of money we spend on education is around $100 
billion. That is all of those programs that we spend it on. The amount 
of money we spend on the Defense Department is about $500 billion.
  So last year, we spent $230 billion on interest. When we borrow 
money, we go into debt. We borrow the money. People loan us the money. 
We give them Treasury bills, with interest. Look at this chart. This 
year, 2013, it is $230 billion. Look at the increase Director Elmendorf 
told us we can expect over the next 10 years. In 2024, 10 years from 
now, colleagues, interest on the debt will be $870 billion in 1 year.
  How many good projects are going to have their programs cut to just 
pay the interest on the debt? It is the fastest growing item in the 
United States budget. What do we have? We want to do something for 
veterans a few weeks after we agree to limit spending. We come right in 
with a bill to waive the budget limit, spend above that, borrow every 
penny of that money, and increase this interest and debt situation.
  The Director did not count that. His calculations assume we honor the 
Budget Control Act and the Ryan-Murray spending limit. He assumes we 
are honoring what is in law. But what do we have? A motion to waive. 
Spend above that limit. This whole reckless spending is what Admiral 
Mullen meant when he said: The greatest threat to America's security is 
our deficit, our debt. It is going to crowd out other spending. It 
threatens our economic viability, our growth potential, and it actually 
places us at risk for some financial crisis in the years to come.
  Our voters deserve better. Look at how they tend to maneuver this 
legislation. It is so absurd sometimes. We should laugh about it if it 
were not so serious. It is serious. The Sanders bill, the veterans 
bill--we are being told we must vote for it or they will accuse us of 
being unkind and unsupportive and unsympathetic to our veterans. That 
day is over. We are not going to be intimidated on this. We are going 
to do the right thing for veterans and America.
  This bill would exceed the spending limit for the current fiscal year 
that Congress and the President agreed to just 3 months ago. 
Initially--it gets worse in the outer years--it would clearly add 
another $260 million in mandatory spending and authorize another $182 
million this year, fiscal year 2014, which we are already in--$182 
million. It gets worse.
  So we agreed in 2011, August of 2011, to set certain spending limits. 
The President signed that. Both Houses of Congress voted for it. Come 
January, the President of the United States, who signed that bill, laid 
forth his budget, which would increase spending $1 trillion over the 
limits that we agreed to in August. So less than 6 months later, he was 
coming back before Congress completely ignoring the will, the 
established law, the Budget Control Act limitations on spending that he 
agreed to.

  He actually bragged about it. This is no way to get our country on a 
sound financial path. It is not any way to do it. Let me point out one 
more thing. They say that we are cutting spending, that this is 
austerity, that America is cutting its spending. Look at this chart. It 
is just a simple chart.
  In 2007, before we had the fiscal crisis, we were spending about $2.6 
trillion in that year. In 2011, right before we signed this August 
Budget Control Act agreement to limit the growth of spending--only the 
growth. It did not limit spending. It limited growth. We were spending 
about $3.5 trillion. The CBO baseline projects that in 2015, that is 
the year we are working on now, trying to prepare our budget and so 
forth, we are going to spend even more than we spent then.
  So the spending is going up. We made a few adjustments to curtail the 
growth in spending, which is good, but really not enough to get us on a 
sound path. The reason I assure you that we are not on a sound path, as 
this chart shows that, is the interest we are going to be paying over 
10 years. This is last year, 2013. This is what they tell us we are 
going to be paying in interest in 2024. It goes up every single year. 
We are on an unsustainable path. You can't get something for nothing. 
Julie Andrews tells us: Nothing comes from nothing. Nothing ever could. 
It can't.
  So I am flabbergasted really. The most disappointing thing to me is I 
know now what we are going to see in the President's budget come next 
Tuesday. Any hint at belt tightening is going to be gone. We are going 
to see proposals for massive increases in spending. Oh, not spending, 
investments. That is what we are going to see.
  But we do not have the money. We do not have to damage America. We do 
not have to destroy our country. This is what we agreed to now. It 
shows continual growth. Under the Budget Control Act, we are going to 
see growth in spending every year. There is no reduction in spending. 
It is going to grow every year for the next 10 years. It will not grow 
quite as fast, as if we did not have a Budget Control Act.
  It looks like, if we continue to have efforts to waive the budget and 
just spend above that, it will be even worse than this. The growth will 
be even greater.
  I want to share one point, and I will wrap up. The bill also relies 
on a budget gimmick. It claims that it has got some pay-for, that it is 
not all borrowed money. It claims this pay-for. It is really a gimmick 
that every honest observer who has commented on it has just mocked it. 
It is the OCO gimmick. The bill proposes to reduce Overseas Contingency 
Operations programs used to combat terrorism worldwide, Iraq and 
Afghanistan, our OCO, Overseas Contingency Operations.
  Every penny of that is borrowed. It is not in the regular budget. It 
is spent above that as emergency spending, war spending. That is how it 
has been done. For good or ill, that is the way it is done. At least 
while I am troubled by the President's policies with regard to Iraq and 
Afghanistan, the costs are coming down. They are projected to come down 
every year until we basically eliminate those costs.

[[Page S1199]]

  It claims that reducing the amount of money we borrow to fund the war 
and support our military is somehow now available to spend on whatever 
the project of the day is. Today it is veterans. It will be something 
else tomorrow. They have tried this before. It is ludicrous. It is like 
claiming credit today for the end of Vietnam. We are not borrowing 
money to fight the war in Vietnam, so we can spend that money.
  This is how a great Nation goes broke. They want to do this to the 
tune of $18 billion. That is what it is going to take to fund Senator 
Sanders' bill. The problem is, the money was never going to be spent at 
this rate. It is not a real savings. Every piece of legislation that 
the majority has tried to move since January has exceeded the levels 
that we reached in the December agreement: unemployment insurance, the 
farm bill, flood insurance, and now the veterans bill. All of them 
spend above what we agreed to.
  Colleagues, these measures represent critical needs. I know we want 
to do something about all of them, and acknowledge that people have 
suffered and are suffering under the policies that promised to do so 
much good but have not.
  The solution is not to abandon fiscal discipline. The solution is not 
to breach the agreements we reached only a few weeks ago to have some 
modest limitation on the growth of Federal spending.
  This approach has been widely derided as a gimmick. The Congressional 
Budget Office says this is not real money that can be spent. Of course 
it is not.
  Mr. Elmendorf followed up with a letter to Congressman Paul Ryan. 
Budget director Mr. Elmendorf wrote:

       Establishing caps on discretionary appropriations in the 
     future would not affect spending under current law and would 
     not offset changes in direct spending or revenues. Further, 
     appropriations for war-related activities have declined in 
     recent years and may decline further as military operations 
     in Afghanistan wind down. Caps on OCO appropriations that are 
     lower than baseline projections might simply reflect policy 
     decisions that have already been made and that would be 
     realized even without such funding constraints. Moreover, if 
     policymakers believed national security required 
     appropriations above the capped amounts in future years, they 
     would almost certainly provide emergency operations that 
     would not, under current law, be counted against the caps.

  It points out that this is an unacceptable way to count money.
  Experts on the Federal budget have said the same. Maya MacGuineas, a 
capable observer with the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, 
said:

       Using the war gimmick to offset other costs or to count 
     toward deficit reduction would send a message to the American 
     public and our investors that we are not serious about 
     controlling the debt. In fact, it would send the message that 
     not only are we not serious, but we are going to try to trick 
     everyone that we're actually doing something productive on 
     the deficit. That's the height of irresponsibility.

  Maya MacGuineas--respected on both sides of the aisle, a person 
committed to getting this Nation to fiscal responsibility--is from the 
Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. She said that last 
November.
  So we are not going to go for this. We are not going to waive the 
budget in this fashion. It is not going to pass, and it should have 
been known beforehand when Senator Sanders and Senator Reid sought to 
push this bill through that it was never going to pass because there 
are enough Senators in this body who have enough strength of will to 
honor the commitment we made a few weeks ago in the Ryan-Murray 
legislation. We are not going to use some bogus gimmick to justify 
busting the budget. The deal is over, nada. It is not going to happen. 
And I will defend my commitment to veterans and seeing that they are 
treated fairly in this country.
  There are a lot of positive things we need to be doing in America. 
This is certainly not one them. We need to figure out how to run this 
government on the spending increases to which we have already agreed. 
In fact, we need to reduce those increases more than we have.
  Otherwise, we are placing at risk our economy today, job creation 
today, and the future of our children.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CASEY. I rise this morning to speak about two issues. The first 
will be on the matter that is before us, the veterans legislation.
  I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this legislation. I 
commend the work of Chairman Sanders and others who have brought us to 
this point. We know we have a challenge ahead of us to pass this 
legislation.
  The good news is that these issues are bipartisan. Both parties have 
a real concern about what happens to our veterans and what happens to 
our veterans' families. We often have different pathways to get there, 
but I do think we have a bipartisan concern.
  Perhaps it is appropriate to start with a reflection on what I think 
our obligation is as Members of the Senate, but it is our obligation as 
citizens as well.
  Years ago I heard it expressed--we often express it by using the word 
``worthy.'' When we consider what our veterans have done for us, it is 
important that we express gratitude in so many different ways. 
Sometimes that is one-on-one expressing to a veteran: We appreciate 
your service. And when there is a parade or another demonstration of 
public support for our veterans, that is important.
  But the question we have to ask ourselves both as elected officials 
and as citizens is the following: Are we doing everything we can to 
prove ourselves worthy of the valor of our veterans? The answer to that 
question--depending on what year it is or depending on what time period 
it is, we will get different answers to that question.
  Most of the time we like to believe that the Congress is worthy of 
the valor of those veterans, that we are doing everything we can to 
help them. But we have to be honest with ourselves and say that there 
are substantial periods of time when this body and the other body--both 
the Senate and the House--have not been worthy of the valor of our 
veterans because we haven't done enough to help veterans and their 
families.
  We hope, we pray this can be one of those moments when we prove 
ourselves worthy of the valor of those veterans who served their 
country. They didn't ask the price; they didn't put down conditions; 
they just served their country, and they asked us to enact legislation 
and policy that is commensurate with the sacrifice and the commitment 
they made to their country. It is about keeping promises, and I hope we 
can be in one of those moments right now.
  As many across the country know, the bill improves VA health care 
coverage. It reauthorizes important job-training programs for 
unemployed veterans and provides instate tuition assistance benefits 
for all post-9/11 veterans through the GI bill.
  We know that when we look at the unemployment data, some of the 
highest percentages for any sector or category are post-9/11 veterans--
a much higher unemployment rate than the overall unemployment rate and 
an even higher unemployment rate than all of their fellow veterans.
  In this case, for this bill, hundreds of people across Pennsylvania 
have reached out to my office, urging that the Senate pass this bill. 
It has the support from various veterans service organizations, 
including the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, the American 
Legion, and the VFW, just to name a few.
  I wish to address a couple of provisions in the bill, ones that are 
particularly significant to Pennsylvania and some of the work we have 
been doing.
  The VA health care system in Pittsburgh had a terrible tragedy not 
too long ago where several veterans lost their lives while in the care 
of the VA health care system. There was a Legionnaires' outbreak. 
Legionella was the problem in the water system, and that terrible 
tragedy was obviously a devastating loss for those families. Not only 
the city of Pittsburgh but all of southwestern Pennsylvania was 
affected. We are thinking of them today when we reflect upon some of 
the provisions in this bill.
  Veterans and their loved ones need to feel confident and secure in 
the care they receive at all health care facilities. The failures--and 
there is no other way to describe them--that occurred at the VA in 
southwestern Pennsylvania surrounding this outbreak of Legionnaires' 
disease is, in a

[[Page S1200]]

word, unacceptable. Frankly, that is not a strong enough word to 
express the outrage I know people felt across southwestern Pennsylvania 
and beyond, so I worked and it led to the introduction of legislation. 
Portions of what we worked on are included in this bill, and we are 
very pleased about that.
  Specifically, the bill requires the VA to implement local and State 
reporting requirements of infectious diseases. The bill also requires 
that the VA develop performance measures to assess whether the veterans 
integrated service networks and medical centers are complying with 
these requirements. We are pleased that is part of the legislation.
  Mr. President, I wish to highlight a part of the legislation that is 
very important to me.
  Fortunately, it includes the Corporal Michael J. Crescenz Act, which 
Senator Toomey and I introduced last year. The bill renames the VA 
medical center on Woodland Avenue in Philadelphia after Corporal 
Crescenz. He was the city of Philadelphia's only Medal of Honor 
recipient from the Vietnam war. I will give a description of why he was 
awarded the Medal of Honor for his service in Vietnam. We know it is 
the highest honor that can be granted to any soldier.
  In this case, for his actions in Vietnam on November 20, 1968, his 
Medal of Honor citation states that he gave his life when he ``left the 
relative safety of his own position, seized a nearby machine gun and, 
with complete disregard for his safety, charged 100 meters up a slope 
toward the enemy's bunkers which he effectively silenced. . . . As a 
direct result of his heroic actions, his company was able to maneuver 
freely with minimal danger and to complete its mission, defeating the 
enemy.''
  We are grateful that his family will have some measure of peace of 
mind that his sacrifice and his service are remembered.
  I thank Chairman Sanders for including this in the bill, and I know 
Senator Toomey joins me in that note of gratitude.
  (The further remarks of Mr. Casey are printed in the Record under 
``Morning Business.)
  Mr. CASEY. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I come to floor today as a cosponsor 
of the legislation that is being considered now in the Senate, the 
Comprehensive Veterans Health and Benefits and Military Retirement Pay 
Restoration Act of 2014.
  The package of reforms included in this bill will help provide our 
Nation's veterans, to whom we owe so much, more job opportunities, 
greater health care access, improved educational programs, and 
increased oversight of the disability claims backlog, which is a real 
challenge that so many of our veterans are facing.
  I thank the leadership of Senator Sanders, who chairs the Senate 
Veterans' Affairs Committee. This bill includes provisions that have 
been sponsored by both Republicans and Democrats in the Senate, which 
is why more than 20 veterans service organizations have endorsed the 
legislation, including the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign 
Wars, the Disabled American Veterans, and the Iraq and Afghanistan 
Veterans of America.
  As the heroes of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan return home, they 
deserve our utmost gratitude and appreciation. Many of our returning 
veterans served multiple tours of duty, sacrificing so much to protect 
this Nation. They deserve nothing less than access to the best health 
care, the best education, and the best opportunities for employment.
  Medical care for injured servicemembers is at the heart of the VA's 
mission. We have a basic responsibility to care for the men and women 
injured while protecting this country. This legislation addresses one 
of the most common requests from our veterans: expanded access to the 
VA's dental care program.
  I was meeting with some folks recently who told me one of the biggest 
reasons our men and women serving in the military on Active Duty are 
not able to be deployed overseas is because they do not have some of 
the basic dental care they need. Anyone who has suffered from dental 
issues knows it can be completely debilitating. So simply put: Veterans 
should not have to suffer because of a lack of capacity to support this 
basic medical need.
  The bill also contains provisions that will help expand treatment 
options for young men and women who have sustained major injuries that 
may prevent them from starting a family. Starting a family is one of 
the most rewarding joys of life, and we should do everything possible 
to make sure our military men and women are able to overcome any 
reproductive challenges they may face.
  Access to mental health care and counseling, both for our returning 
service men and women and their families, is also critically important. 
When our brave heroes deal with these kinds of health issues, their 
families are also affected. This legislation would expand mental health 
resources available to veterans and their family members.
  One of the most significant reforms that is included in this 
legislation is moving the entire Department of Veterans Affairs to an 
advanced appropriations cycle. This means that Congress would pay the 
VA's bills 1 year in advance, making it absolutely certain there will 
be no gaps in funding for veterans programs.
  Several years ago Congress moved the Veterans Health Administration 
to a 1-year advanced appropriation. The intent was to provide increased 
budget certainty and protection for the hospitals, community clinics, 
and other health care providers taking care of our wounded veterans. By 
funding the Veterans Health Administration in advance, Congress made 
sure that budget delays would no longer affect veterans health 
care. But the rest of the Department of Veterans Affairs, including the 
Veterans Benefits Administration, does not receive that advanced 
appropriation. That means during last year's government shutdown 
veterans were at risk of not receiving their disability payments, and 
some personnel involved in decreasing the disability claims backlog 
were not working. Veterans should not have to wait longer or be put at 
risk of losing their benefits because of political disagreements here 
in Congress, and this bill will ensure that will not happen again in 
the future.

  As I have talked with New Hampshire veterans over the past year, this 
advanced appropriations process has consistently been one of their top 
requests. I am very glad to see it is included.
  The bill also takes important steps to help create job opportunities 
for veterans. It reauthorizes parts of the VOW to Hire Heroes Act, 
including a joint program between the VA and the Department of Labor 
which provides 12 months of training for high-demand occupations to 
unemployed veterans. So far, this program has provided job retraining 
benefits to more than 50,000 eligible veterans.
  The legislation also includes programs which help veterans train for 
new careers and identify and apply for existing job openings. It will 
award grants for hiring veterans as first responders and would cut 
redtape for veterans seeking licenses for skills they have developed 
during their military service.
  We should do all we can to get our veterans in the workforce. There 
are far too many veterans, particularly post-9/11 vets, who have not 
been able to get jobs and are experiencing so many of the unfortunate 
consequences of being out of the workforce.
  This is why I have filed amendments to this bill which will create 
new tax incentives for businesses to hire veterans, and will make it 
more affordable and easier for veteran-owned small businesses to 
participate in Small Business Administration loan programs.
  I have also filed amendments to address the backlog at the Board of 
Veterans Appeals, which is one of the really unfortunate situations we 
have for our veterans. We have veterans in New Hampshire who have been 
waiting up to 4 years to have their appeals heard before the board.
  Finally, another amendment I filed to the bill is in memory of my 
friend

[[Page S1201]]

Charlie Morgan. Charlie was a member of the New Hampshire National 
Guard 197th Fires Brigade. After the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, 
she became one of the first servicemembers in the country to come 
forward and talk about the challenges of keeping her family and her 
private life secret while she served in the military.
  What also prompted Charlie to come forward was, in addition to those 
challenges, she was also dealing with breast cancer. Sadly, we lost 
Charlie last year to breast cancer. She was just 48 years old.
  I met Charlie while she was serving as a chief warrant officer in the 
New Hampshire National Guard, but she had actually enlisted in the Army 
in 1982. After serving on active duty, Charlie joined the Kentucky 
National Guard in 1992, because that is where she was living then. But 
shortly after the 9/11 attacks, she joined the 197th Fires Brigade of 
the New Hampshire National Guard.
  I have said it before and I will say it again today: There is a very 
special place in this Nation's history for those who step forward to 
defend this country and protect the very same freedoms denied to them 
out of uniform. Charlie Morgan never gave up the fight for her civil 
rights, and neither will we.
  My amendment is cosponsored by Senators Mark Udall, Blumenthal, 
Gillibrand, and the Presiding Officer, Senator Baldwin. It ensures that 
all veterans and their families--no matter where they live, no matter 
their sexual orientation--get the benefits they have earned by putting 
their lives on the line for our country.
  My bill passed the Veterans' Affairs Committee last July by a voice 
vote. I hope, first of all, we will get an amendment process on this 
veterans bill which allows me and so many of my colleagues to offer 
relevant amendments which I think would improve the bill we are hoping 
to consider. I hope my colleagues will support all of my amendments but 
particularly this important Charlie Morgan amendment because our 
veterans deserve nothing less.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I rise today to talk about the Iran 
sanctions legislation, but first I want to talk about the veterans 
legislation we are on, and why it is so important that we include the 
Iran sanctions provision.
  I believe we all want to make sure we take care of our veterans. We 
will have on the floor two bills today which deal with our veterans, 
one offered by Senator Sanders of Vermont and another offered by 
Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina.
  I am asking the majority leader to allow an open process so we can 
craft a good bill for our veterans. This means allowing amendments. 
This means allowing a vote on both bills. I believe that with an open 
process--with an open amendment process, by allowing votes as I have 
described--we can in fact build the kind of bipartisan support, the 
kind of bipartisan consensus we need to pass this legislation. There 
are provisions in the bills which I think have broad bipartisan 
support, which is why it is so important we have this open process.
  One such provision which can help us build that kind of bipartisan 
support is the Iran sanctions provision in the legislation. It is 
sponsored by Democratic Senator Bob Menendez of New Jersey and also 
Republican Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois, and it is cosponsored by 57 
other Senators, including myself. So we are talking about a piece of 
legislation within the Burr bill which has 59 Senators cosponsoring the 
legislation.
  If this legislation is put on the floor included as part of the Burr 
bill, it is pretty much guaranteed we can pass it. It has 59 
cosponsors. If we pick up one more vote, we pass the bill. It is good 
for our veterans and it is also very important for our national 
security.
  Let me talk about the Iran sanction provision for a minute.
  Right now the Obama administration is trying to negotiate an 
agreement with Iran to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, 
and while the administration is negotiating, Iran continues to develop 
its nuclear weapon. While President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry 
negotiate with President Hassan Rouhani, Iran continues to build a 
nuclear bomb. While the administration and our Secretary of State talk 
with our allies in Europe about the negotiations with Iran, the Supreme 
Leader and Iran continue to build a nuclear bomb.
  The reality is the only thing which has brought Iran to the 
negotiating table is sanctions and only continuing those sanctions will 
get them to stop building a bomb. The sanctions should be reinstated, 
and they should not be lifted until, one, Iran agrees they will not 
build a bomb, and we have an open, verifiable transparent process to 
make certain they are not doing so.
  Sanctions take time to work. The sanctions we applied more than 1 
year ago--particularly the Kirk-Menendez banking sanctions--have had a 
real impact on Iran's economy. I bring a background as a banker to my 
work experience, both as a Governor for 10 years, and my work 
experience here in the Senate. The reality is that the Kirk-Menendez 
banking sanctions have been extremely effective. It is a well-crafted 
piece of bipartisan legislation which passed this body overwhelmingly, 
which is really effective. The reason it is so effective is because it 
prevents any company, any country which wants to do business with the 
U.S. banking system--and countries and companies worldwide have to be 
able to transact with the U.S. banking system, but they are not allowed 
to transact with our banking system if they also do business with Iran.
  If Iran can't sell its oil because it can't get paid for its oil, 
they are in a very tough situation. Not only do they not have the 
resources or the funds to build a bomb, their administration--the 
regime--does not have the money to operate their country. So we not 
only prevent them from building a bomb, but we put the regime itself at 
risk if they continue to build a bomb. That is why the Kirk-Menendez 
sanctions--those banking sanctions--have been so effective. But they 
work over time. They work over time.
  When the sanctions are lifted, the relief is immediate, the relief is 
immediate because now Iran can sell and get payment for their oil. They 
can purchase what they need, not only to continue to build a bomb but 
to keep their country and keep the regime in power.
  When we are talking about sanctions and negotiating an agreement to 
get them to stop building a bomb, it is important that we have a 
process that is open, transparent, and verifiable. We need to know that 
they have stopped building the bomb and are dismantling their nuclear 
weapons enterprise.
  It is very important to understand that sanctions work over time, but 
when sanctions are lifted, the relief is immediate. That is why we 
cannot lift sanctions while we negotiate the agreement. We have to get 
Iran to stop first and give us a process to verify that, in fact, they 
have stopped before we can lift those sanctions.
  We have the opportunity in this body right here, right now, today, to 
address that problem. It is incredibly important that we do address 
this issue. We have 59 sponsors on the legislation. We are one short. 
If you put it up for a vote, we will have well more than 60 votes. If 
we impose those sanctions now, we will tell Iran: You stop, and we make 
them stop. That is the option before us today. That is what we need to 
do.
  If we don't do it, what are our options? A military strike? That is 
the last option. That is what we don't want to have to do. We don't 
want to have to do a military strike to take out their bomb-making 
capability. But if we don't act and reimpose those sanctions, that is 
the option that is left.
  Today we have a choice. I ask that we be allowed to vote on the Burr 
legislation, that we be allowed to vote on amendments, and that we be 
allowed to vote to reimpose sanctions on Iran.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that following the

[[Page S1202]]

disposition of S. 1982, the veterans benefits bill, the Senate proceed 
to executive session to consider Calendar No. 561, Michael L. Connor, 
to be Deputy Secretary of the Interior, that there be 2 minutes for 
debate equally divided in the usual form, and that all other provisions 
of the previous order remain in effect.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Montana.


                         Taking Responsibility

  Mr. WALSH. Madam President, in Montana we have a long history of 
being represented by true statesmen--larger-than-life figures such as 
Senator Mike Mansfield. These men always served us well, while at the 
same time defending Montana's principles and freedoms. These statesmen 
never took their privileges for granted, and they always had the 
courage to put their differences aside to do what is right for our 
country. At a time when privilege seems to be gaining on principle, I 
pledge to find the same courage to do what is right.
  Senator Mansfield called Butte, MT, home. Born and raised in Butte, I 
was brought up with a great deal of respect for Senator Mike Mansfield. 
It is a tremendous honor for me to stand today where he stood so many 
years ago and pledge to you and the people of Montana that I will take 
responsibility for my actions and that I will have the courage to do 
what is right no matter what the consequences.
  Of course, I would not be where I am today without the love and 
support of my wonderful family. My wife of 29 years, Janet, who is here 
today, our sons Michael and Taylor, our daughter-in-law April, and our 
9-month-old granddaughter Kennedy have stood by my side through every 
challenge life has handed us.
  Last week, while at home, I traveled across Montana as Montana's 
newest Senator. I had an opportunity to talk to a lot of Montanans who 
believe we need more courage in Washington, and I tend to agree.
  As a public servant, I have sworn an oath to protect and defend 
Montanans, our Nation, and our Constitution.
  I am no stranger to answering the call to serve. I spent 33 years in 
the Montana National Guard where I served for 9 of those years as an 
enlisted man before becoming an officer.
  I also had the honor of leading over 700 of Montana's finest young 
men and women into combat in Iraq. It was the largest deployment of 
Montana's soldiers and airmen since World War II.
  In August of 2008, Governor Brian Schweitzer asked me to serve as the 
adjutant general of the Montana National Guard, and I was truly honored 
by the opportunity to continue serving our State and our Nation.
  I am also extremely proud of my oldest son Michael who is now 28 and 
is following in my path of public service. He is currently serving in 
the National Guard and is deployed to the Middle East as a C-12 pilot 
and a Black Hawk medivac pilot.
  Throughout my many years of service, and now with my son's service, 
ensuring our veterans and their families have access to the services 
and benefits they have earned is a responsibility I take very seriously 
and very personally.
  I recently met with student veterans at Montana State University in 
Bozeman, MT, where I heard from young men and women who are concerned 
about their mounting student debt. I also heard from veterans from all 
across Montana about their frustrations with the long delays in 
processing disability benefit claims. I have heard from veterans from 
across the State who are frustrated with the distances they have to 
travel to receive care. These failings on behalf of our veterans and 
their families cause me grave concern. We must, and I will, fight for 
them every day I am serving in the Senate.
  The face of modern war has changed and the VA must keep up with the 
changing times. Medical care must include robust mental health 
benefits, and it must also include proper screenings to help mitigate 
the effect of post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain 
injuries. As a military commander, I also know firsthand what the 
unseen injuries have done to America's heroes and their families. We 
can and we must do better.
  The oath I have taken is one I take very seriously. It is an honor, 
it is a privilege, and a great responsibility that I will work 
tirelessly to fulfill.
  To honor their service and sacrifice, we must welcome our heroes home 
and help them during their transition from active duty back into 
civilian life. I know how difficult that transition can be. I have 
experienced it firsthand, I have witnessed it, and I will take 
responsibility to improve it.
  On these and other issues facing our State and our country, I look 
forward to working with my friend and colleague Senator Jon Tester to 
solve problems not only for our veterans but for all Montanans.
  Last week Jon and I traveled the State. We heard from members of the 
Little Shell Tribal Council about the importance of Federal recognition 
and ways to help Indian-owned businesses grow and create jobs. We heard 
from tribal nations across Montana about the Land Buy-Back Cooperative 
Agreement Program within the Department of Interior. I made a 
commitment to Montana's tribal leaders that I would work hard to make 
sure the Federal Government is being responsive and working to move 
this program forward in a way that works for our sovereign tribal 
nations.
  We also had the opportunity to speak with business owners in Miles 
City and Wolf Point, MT, who are working hard to grow jobs while at the 
same time dealing with infrastructure challenges caused by the oil boom 
in eastern Montana. My job is to bring their voices to the Senate.
  One additional issue I heard loudly and clearly from every corner of 
Montana is that our government is not doing enough to protect our civil 
liberties. As I have throughout my career, I will continue to fight to 
protect our civil liberties, our freedoms, and our Montana values. We 
must do what it takes to protect our Nation and the freedom we enjoy--
something I have dedicated my life to. But we must, and we can, do it 
without trampling on the rights we have fought so hard for.
  Bulk data collection with no transparency, whether by the government 
or by private corporations, is unacceptable. That is why during my 
first week in the Senate, I signed on to a bipartisan bill that is an 
important first step in this fight.
  I have also heard loudly and clearly from Montanans that our national 
debt is unacceptable. Washington has a spending problem that we must 
get under control. There is no better example of privileges gaining on 
our principles. Responsibly cutting our debt and wasteful spending is 
one of my top priorities as a Senator, just as it was as Montana's 
lieutenant governor working alongside Governor Steve Bullock.
  Congress needs the courage to cut spending without doing it on the 
backs of our veterans, our children, or our seniors. Almost everyone I 
talked to in Montana told me where they see waste in government, and 
they all have specific examples. We need to find the courage to stand 
up to special interests and cut that wasteful spending. But we must not 
do it on the backs of our most vulnerable citizens.
  Having served for 33 years in the military, I am confident we can 
make the Defense budget more efficient while at the same time enhancing 
programs that grow our economy and protect our children and seniors.
  We should start by reducing waste in contracting and procurement. 
Today we spend millions to have contract security guards check IDs at 
our bases rather than servicemembers, but no one is any safer. I take 
responsibility to fix this.
  It is a privilege to be chosen to serve on the Agriculture Committee. 
I am the only member of Montana's delegation to sit on the agriculture 
committee. This committee is so important to Montana where our No. 1 
industry is agriculture. From livestock disaster assistance to crop 
insurance, commonsense forest reforms, I look forward to making sure 
the farm bill works and works efficiently for Montana's farmers and 
ranchers.
  I also look forward to serving on the commerce committee where I will 
focus on transportation, energy, rural telecommunications, and tourism. 
Tourism is Montana's second largest sector. It not only contributes to 
our State's economy, but also helps preserve the outdoor heritage that 
makes Montana such a slice of heaven.

[[Page S1203]]

  I will bring Montana courage to the Senate where I will fight on 
behalf of the people of Montana to protect Social Security and Medicare 
in my new role on the aging committee. I am also prepared to help fix 
some of Washington's problems while serving on the rules committee.
  I know I only just joined this distinguished body, but I also know 
there is very real work to be done to get our country on the right 
track again. Beginning on day one, I rolled up my sleeves and started 
working. My purpose here is to have the courage to do what is right for 
the people of Montana, our veterans, and the United States of America.
  Thank you for this amazing opportunity and may God bless the United 
States of America.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Texas Independence Day

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I rise today to commemorate a very 
special day in Texas history, and I would say in American history. This 
is a day that inspires pride and gratitude in my State. I rise to 
commemorate Texas Independence Day, which is celebrated on March 2, 
this Sunday.
  I will read a letter that was written 178 years ago from behind the 
walls of an old Spanish mission that is now in San Antonio, TX. It is 
known as the Alamo. It is a letter written by 26-year-old Lieutenant 
Colonel William Barret Travis. In doing so, I am carrying on a 
tradition started by the late Senator John Tower, who represented Texas 
in this body for more than two decades. This tradition was later upheld 
by his successor, Senator Phil Gramm, and thereafter by Senator Kay 
Bailey Hutchison. It is a tremendous honor that this privilege has now 
fallen to me.

  On February 24, 1836, with his position under siege and outnumbered 
nearly 10 to 1 by the forces of the Mexican dictator Antonio Lopez de 
Santa Anna, Travis penned the following letter:

       To the People of Texas and all Americans in the World:
       Fellow citizens and compatriots--
       I am besieged by a thousand or more of the Mexicans under 
     Santa Anna. I have sustained a continual bombardment and 
     cannonade for 24 hours and I have not lost a man. The enemy 
     has demanded a surrender at discretion. Otherwise, the 
     garrison are to be put to the sword, if the fort is taken.
       I have answered the demand with a cannon shot, and our flag 
     still waves proudly from the walls.
       I shall never surrender or retreat.
       Then, I call on you in the name of Liberty, of patriotism 
     and everything dear to the American character, to come to our 
     aid with all dispatch.
       The enemy is receiving reinforcements daily and will no 
     doubt increase to three or four thousand in four or five 
     days.
       If this call is neglected, I am determined to sustain 
     myself for as long as possible and die like a soldier who 
     never forgets what is due to his own honor and that of his 
     country.
       Victory or death.
       Signed: William Barret Travis.

  As we have since learned, in the battle that ensued, all 189 
defenders of the Alamo gave their lives. But they did not die in vain.
  The Battle of the Alamo bought precious time for the Texas 
revolutionaries, allowing General Sam Houston to maneuver his army into 
position for a decisive victory in the battle of San Jacinto. With this 
victory Texas became a sovereign nation and an independent republic.
  For nine years the Republic of Texas thrived, as I said, as a 
separate nation. Then, in 1845, it agreed to join the United States as 
the 28th State.
  Many of the Texas patriots who fought in the revolution went on to 
serve in the Congress. I am honored to hold the seat originally held by 
then-General Sam Houston but later the president of the republic and 
U.S. Senator for Texas. More broadly, I am honored to have the 
opportunity to serve 26 million Americans that call Texas home because 
of the sacrifices made by these brave patriots 178 years ago.
  May we always remember the Alamo, and may God continue to bless Texas 
and these United States.


                             IRS Intrusion

  Madam President, I will spend the rest of my time on a separate topic 
about which many Americans are greatly concerned, and I am one of them.
  It has been more than nine months since we first found out that the 
IRS was deliberately targeting certain political organizations for 
their political beliefs. At first, the Obama administration 
acknowledged that any abuse by the IRS was unacceptable. But then, in 
subsequent days and months, it has tried to play down the scandal and 
blame it on a few rogue operators in the Cincinnati Field Office. Yet 
the more we have learned, the more we realize the abuses involved 
significant coordination with the IRS headquarters here in Washington, 
DC.
  Because of these abuses, millions of Americans now worry that the 
Internal Revenue Service and their own Federal Government have been 
corrupted, and we have become more like a banana republic. This damage 
to the public confidence and the public trust is immeasurable, and much 
of the damage may end up being irreversible.
  Of course, the right response when the administration and Congress 
learned of these abuses would have been to clean house at the agency 
and give the American people ironclad assurances this would never, ever 
happen again. Of course, the right response would have been 
accountability, firing people, and strong support for congressional 
investigations on a bipartisan basis and the adoption of new safeguards 
against potential future abuses.
  Instead, we have seen that the investigations, most notably led in 
the House of Representatives, have been met with whitewash, and there 
have been active efforts to prevent Congress from actually uncovering 
the full story. That is a shameful response, and it is dishonest. 
Unfortunately, it is about to get worse.
  The Obama IRS is now proposing a new political speech rule that would 
force many 501(c)(4), or grassroots organizations, to dramatically 
change their activities or else form formal political action 
committees. If the groups are forced to register as political outfits, 
they will be subject to new campaign finance rules, which, of course, 
may be the whole point.
  As the Wall Street Journal noted earlier this week:

       The purpose of this disclosure is to set up donors as 
     political targets for boycotts and intimidation so that the 
     costs of participating in politics will be too steep.

  I might note the Supreme Court of the United States addressed this 
concern in a very important case decades ago, NAACP v. Alabama, where 
they held that under the First Amendment to the Constitution, the NAACP 
was not required to disclose its membership list because, at the time, 
sadly, they were worried about intimidation and targeting of their 
members. So the Supreme Court of the United States said that under the 
First Amendment of the Constitution and the freedom of association 
included there, the NAACP did not need to disclose its membership list 
because of this bona fide threat.
  These are not contrived concerns today. Back in 2012, donors to the 
Mitt Romney presidential campaign found themselves publicly attacked 
and slandered for daring to support Governor Romney and participating 
in the political process. For that matter, something even more sinister 
happened to one Idaho businessman by the name of Frank VanderSloot. In 
April of 2012, Mr. VanderSloot was one of 8 Romney donors who were 
condemned by an Obama campaign Web site and called ``less than 
reputable.'' Shortly thereafter, a Democratic opposition researcher 
began searching for Mr. VanderSloot's divorce records. Meanwhile, the 
IRS decided to audit 2 years worth of tax filings for Mr. VanderSloot 
and the Labor Department announced a separate audit of the workers 
employed on his cattle ranch. Coincidence? I suspect Mr. VanderSloot 
was targeted because of his political activities. It was a deeply 
troubling question in 2012, and it is even more troubling today, given 
all we have learned about the IRS targeting since that time.
  I offer as my next example the experience of one of my constituents, 
Catherine Engelbrecht in Houston, TX. Ms. Engelbrecht is a Texas 
businesswoman

[[Page S1204]]

who founded both the King Street Patriots and an organization called 
True the Vote. She was mainly concerned about the integrity of the 
ballot and training people to participate in the process and express 
themselves more effectively through that process. But she found herself 
targeted by multiple Federal agencies, including the IRS, the FBI, the 
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, and OSHA, none of which had 
ever contacted her family's businesses before her involvement in 
grassroots activism. As Ms. Engelbrecht recently told a House committee 
investigating:

       We had never been audited, we had never been investigated, 
     but all that changed upon submitting applications for the 
     nonprofit statuses of True the Vote and King Street Patriots. 
     Since that filing in 2010, my private businesses, my 
     nonprofit organizations, and family have been subjected to 
     more than 15 instances of audit or inquiry by federal 
     agencies.

  Make no mistake. The proposed IRS rule would make it even harder for 
people such as Ms. Engelbrecht to participate in the political 
process--something that is her constitutional right--and it would 
strongly discourage other similarly interested and concerned citizens 
from exercising their rights. In other words, it would strike at the 
very heart of self government, and at the very heart of the American 
democracy.
  The IRS was meant to be a tax collection agency, period--not to be 
the police of political speech and political activity. But now we know, 
after the Affordable Care Act was passed--now more commonly called 
ObamaCare--we now know the IRS is in charge of enforcing ObamaCare by 
collecting the penalties for people who don't buy government-approved 
health insurance. But, still, that is apparently not enough of a job 
for the IRS, even though the work they are already doing they are not 
doing very well. With this now 501(c)(4) rule, the IRS would 
effectively become a campaign finance regulator.
  As the advocates for this rule are aware, we already have an agency 
responsible for enforcing campaign finance rules. It is called, 
strangely enough, the Federal Election Commission, and it is a strictly 
bipartisan institution, as it should be. If the President and my 
friends across the aisle want to change campaign finance laws, they 
should either draft legislation or make their case to the Federal 
agency that has the jurisdiction to deal with them: The election 
commissioners at the Federal Election Commission. But turning the IRS 
into a de facto arm of the FEC is just more political overreach, and it 
is going to be ripe for abuse. Indeed, not only would the proposed 
501(c)(4) rule further distract the IRS from its core mission, it would 
trample the First Amendment, intimidate people from exercising their 
rights of free speech, and it would weaken our participatory democracy.
  I also note the rule would not cover the political activities of some 
other tax-exempt organizations. I am sure this was just an oversight. 
Labor unions are exempted. So why, if the Treasury is proposing this 
rule--why, if this is going to be given to the IRS--would we carve out 
some of the largest donors and participants in the political process in 
America today, which is organized labor? Not for reasons of fairness, I 
suppose but, rather, because the proponents of this rule basically want 
to tilt the scale in their favor, once again, and they want to suppress 
the speech and the political activity of people they disagree with--
which is un-American.
  Not surprisingly, the IRS has received tens of thousands of comments 
on the rule, and most of these comments have been critical. This 
morning in the Senate Judiciary Committee, my colleague Senator Cruz 
read a comment from the American Civil Liberties Union that was 
critical of this rule. I don't agree with a lot of the policies of the 
American Civil Liberties Union, but they are absolutely right in this 
instance. Given the tremendous importance of this issue, including the 
potential consequences and damage to First Amendment rights, we need to 
make sure this rule is not implemented as proposed. I urge all of my 
constituents in Texas and all Americans and everyone within the sound 
of my voice to continue making their voices heard and to continue to 
urge President Obama and the IRS commissioner to stop this dangerous 
IRS power grab.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I come to the floor today in support 
of S. 1982, the Comprehensive Veterans Health and Benefits and Military 
Retirement Pay Restoration Act of 2014.
  I believe we must keep the promises we have made to our veterans. We 
can do this by giving them the same quality of service they gave us, 
and by providing them with the care they deserve. That is why I support 
this bipartisan bill.
  The bill contains a number of provisions that will improve the lives 
of the men and women in uniform and our veterans by:

       Restoring the full cost-of-living adjustment for all 
     military retirees;
       Reforming the system for processing veteran's disability 
     claims to reduce the existing backlog;
       Providing in-State tuition assistance for post 9/11 
     veterans pursuing a college degree;
       Expanding programs designed to help veterans find a job;
       Requiring new services for survivors of sexual assault: and
       Improving health care services related to mental health, 
     traumatic brain injury and other conditions.

  In addition to supporting this bill, as the Chairwoman of the Senate 
Appropriations Committee, I have put money in the Federal checkbook to 
improve the veteran's health care system so that wounded and disabled 
warriors get the care and benefits they need. I have worked to ensure 
veterans suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, PTSD, or a 
Traumatic Brain Injury, TBI, receive better diagnosis and treatment 
through the Defense Department and the VA.
  I have also led the charge to reduce the backlog in processing 
veteran's disability claims. I brought Secretary Shinseki to Baltimore 
to create a sense of urgency to end the backlog by 2015. I used my 
power as Chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee to convene a 
hearing with the top brass in the military and members of the Committee 
to identify challenges and get moving on solutions. I cut across 
agencies to break down smokestacks and developed a 10-point Checklist 
for Change enacted as part of the FY2014 Omnibus Appropriations bill. 
This plan includes better funding, better technology, better training 
and better oversight of the VA.
  We made a sacred commitment to honor those who served by giving them 
the benefits they've earned. This legislation is a significant step in 
the right direction, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, the Veterans Benefits Act, S. 1982, 
purports to place caps on future years' expenditures for Overseas 
Contingency Operations, ``OCO'', ostensibly to pay-for the added 
expenditures authorized by the bill.
  OCO is an emergency expenditure. Therefore, it does not count against 
the statutory budget caps. How much OCO, if any, will be needed in any 
given year is a determination made year by year in an appropriations 
bill and can only be made in that year, when we know what national 
security contingencies our military will actually face.
  If OCO caps could be used to pay for this bill, there would not be a 
need to waive the budget points of order against the bill. So, my vote 
to waive budget points of order is not a vote to use OCO caps as an 
offset, because they cannot be so used. Instead, my vote is a vote in 
favor of the worthwhile expenditures for veterans' benefits that S. 
1982 authorizes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley). The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, as chairman of the Senate Veterans 
Affairs' Committee, I want to thank many people for helping me bring 
forth the legislation we are going to be voting on this afternoon.
  I thank those people who have come down to the floor to speak on 
behalf of our veterans. That includes Majority Leader Reid, who has 
been so helpful throughout, Senators Murray, Blumenthal, Heinrich, 
Pryor, Durbin, Merkley, Walsh, Shaheen, and Casey. I suspect I have 
left out some Members.
  I thank my entire staff at the Veterans Affairs' Committee--Steve 
Robertson, Dahlia Melendrez, Travis Murphy, Kathryn Monet, Kathryn Van 
Haste, Elizabeth Austin, Carlos Fuentes, Ann Vallandingham, Rebecca

[[Page S1205]]

Thoman, Jason Dean, Shannon Jackson, Shanna Lawrie, and Rafael 
Anderson--for their help on this effort.
  I thank the 28 cosponsors of this important legislation. I will not 
read their names. They know who they are, and I thank them very, very 
much.
  As I indicated earlier, this legislation is not Bernie Sanders' 
legislation. This is legislation that, by and large, comes from the 
hearts and souls of the veterans of this country.
  As chairman of the committee, I thought it was my obligation to 
listen to what the veterans of our country were saying about their 
problems and their needs and how we might go forward, and that is what 
I and others on the committee did. We listened. That is the reason why 
this legislation is being supported by virtually every veterans 
organization in the United States of America, representing millions and 
millions of veterans. I thank them for their support--and not only for 
their support but for their help in crafting this legislation: the 
American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Disabled American Veterans, 
Jewish War Veterans, Vietnam Veterans of America, Paralyzed Veterans of 
America, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, Wounded Warrior 
Project, Gold Star Wives, Student Veterans of America, Air Force 
Sergeants Association, American Ex-Prisoners of War, Association of the 
United States Navy, Commissioned Officers Association of the U.S. 
Public Health Service, National Guard Association of the United States, 
Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States, Fleet 
Reserve Association, Marine Corps League, Marine Corps Reserve 
Association, Military Officers of America Association, Military Order 
of the Purple Heart, National Association of Uniformed Services, Non 
Commissioned Officers Association, Retired Enlisted Association, 
American Military Retirees Association, National Coalition for Homeless 
Veterans, National Association of State Veterans Homes, and many other 
veterans organizations. Thank you very much for your support for this 
legislation.
  It is no secret that Congress today is extremely partisan and to a 
significant degree dysfunctional. That is why the approval rating of 
Congress is somewhere around 15 percent. There are problems facing the 
American people, and we cannot address those problems. The American 
people are profoundly disgusted with what we do and, in fact, with what 
we do not do.
  I had hoped from the bottom of my heart that at least on this issue--
the need to protect and defend the veterans of this country and their 
families, others who have given so much to us--we could rise above the 
day-to-day rancor and the party politics we see here on this floor 
almost every single day.
  We will, in fact, see within a short while whether we will rise to 
the occasion, whether we will, in fact, stand with the veterans of this 
country, or whether once again we are going to succumb to the same-old, 
same-old politics that we see almost every day.
  Let me very briefly touch upon some of the objections my Republican 
colleagues have made to this bill. Some of them--not a whole lot, by 
the way, but some have come to the floor and they have objected to this 
bill. So let me respond to some of their concerns.
  Some of my Republican colleagues have said they cannot vote for this 
bill because they could not get the opportunity to offer an amendment 
on the Iran sanctions situation.
  Mr. President, you know what. The issue of Iran sanctions is an 
important issue, but it has nothing to do with the needs of veterans. 
In case people do not understand it, this is a comprehensive veterans 
bill, and while Iran sanctions may be important, they have nothing to 
do with what we are discussing today. That is not just my opinion. Far 
more importantly, we have the opinion of the largest veterans 
organization in this country, which represents over 2 million veterans, 
and that is the American Legion. Here is what Daniel M. Dellinger, the 
national commander of the American Legion, said just yesterday on this 
issue:

       Iran is a serious issue that Congress needs to address, but 
     it cannot be tied to S. 1982--

  This veterans legislation--

     which is extremely important as our nation prepares to 
     welcome millions of U.S. military servicemen and women home 
     from war. This comprehensive bill aims to help veterans find 
     good jobs, get the health care they need and make in-state 
     tuition rates applicable to all who are using their GI Bill 
     benefits. This legislation is about supporting veterans, pure 
     and simple. The Senate can debate various aspects of it, and 
     that's understandable, but it cannot lose focus on the matter 
     at hand: helping military personnel make the transition to 
     veteran life and ensuring that those who served their nation 
     in uniform receive the benefits they earned and deserve. We 
     can deal with Iran--or any other issue unrelated specifically 
     to veterans--with separate legislation.

  That is Mr. Dellinger, the national commander of the largest veterans 
organization in this country. I thank him very much because he is 
exactly right, and he reflects what the overwhelming majority of the 
American people believe: Deal with the issue at hand.
  But it is not just the American Legion I want to thank. The Iraq and 
Afghanistan Veterans of America tweeted the other day:

       The Senate should not get distracted while debating & 
     voting on the vets bill. Iran sanctions, Obamacare, etc. 
     aren't relevant to S. 1982.

  They are absolutely right. Let's talk about veterans' needs.
  Now, some other Republican colleagues, in objecting to this bill, 
have said they cannot vote for it because it is not bipartisan enough 
and it has not been fully marked up in committee.

  Well, that is not quite true. Almost all of the provisions in this 
bill did come out of the committee. In fact, two of the major 
components of this bill--two separate omnibus bills--were passed by a 
unanimous vote. You cannot get much more bipartisan than when you have 
two major provisions in a bill passing with all Republicans and 
Democrats voting for it. That is pretty bipartisan where I come from.
  Furthermore, this legislation contains a number of provisions 
authored and supported by Republican members of the Veterans Affairs' 
Committee. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, there are 26 separate 
provisions that Republican members have authored or cosponsored.
  This legislation also includes two key provisions that were passed in 
a bipartisan way by the Republican House of Representatives. With 
almost unanimous votes, the House passed a provision that we have in 
this legislation that would authorize the VA to enter into 27 major 
medical facility leases in 18 States and Puerto Rico. In other words, 
this was a new provision that I did add to this bill, was not discussed 
in committee but, in fact, has overwhelming bipartisan support. The 
second provision we added to the bill not discussed in committee also 
passed the House with broad support, and that deals with the very 
important issue of ensuring that veterans can take full advantage of 
the post-9/11 GI bill and get instate tuition in the State in which 
they currently live.
  So to as great a degree as possible I have tried to make this bill a 
bipartisan bill. That is where we are.
  Now, other Republicans have come to the floor and they have objected 
to this bill because they argue that by expanding VA health care to 
veterans currently not eligible for it--veterans who in some cases are 
trying to get by on $28,000, $30,000 a year in this tough economy; and 
it is true, we do expand VA health care to those veterans who do not 
have a whole lot of money--the Republicans who object say, well, that 
would open the floodgates for millions or tens of millions--I think 
somebody said 22 million veterans--every veteran in America would be 
eligible for VA health care, that the health care system would be 
swamped and health care, especially for those most in need, would 
deteriorate because so many people came into the system.
  As I mentioned yesterday, this is absolutely untrue. No new veteran 
would be added into VA health care until the VA had the infrastructure 
to accommodate those new veterans. So we are not opening the door for 
millions of new veterans--not true--and, as currently is the case, 
those with service-connected disabilities would continue to get the 
highest priority service, as they currently do and which, in my view, 
should always be the case. Those who were injured in war are the top 
priority, and those folks must always be the top priority, and that is 
certainly the case in this legislation.
  Then last but not least there is the objection that we are going to 
be dealing with in about 45 minutes--the vote

[[Page S1206]]

we will be having--and that is that some of my colleagues basically 
say: Senator Sanders, this bill is just too expensive and we just 
cannot afford to pass it. This bill costs $21 billion--that is a lot of 
money, I do not deny it--and that is just too much money, and we cannot 
afford to pass this bill, which helps millions of veterans.
  I want to respond to that point in two ways. First, I want to address 
it from an inside-the-beltway, more technical perspective, and then I 
want to talk to the American people about the cost of war and what we 
can afford and what we cannot afford.
  In terms of the funding of this bill, the Congressional Budget 
Office--the nonpartisan scorekeeper--has estimated that mandatory 
spending in this bill will total $2.88 billion over the next 10 years--
$2.88 billion. All of this mandatory spending is completely offset. Let 
me repeat that. All of this mandatory spending is completely offset, 
not by OCO funds, but through more than $4.2 billion in actual savings 
from the programs within the jurisdiction of the Senate Veterans' 
Affairs Committee. As a result, CBO has determined that overall 
mandatory spending in this bill will be reduced--will be reduced--by 
more than $1.3 billion.
  That is what the CBO said. In addition, this bill authorizes $18.3 
billion in discretionary spending. We have 4.2 in mandatory, more than 
offset, and then we have 18.3 billion in discretionary spending over 
the next 5 years.
  As the Presiding Officer knows, there is no rule in the Senate that 
an authorization of funding has to be offset. That is what the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs is. We are an authorizing committee. We 
are not an appropriations committee. In essence, the discretionary 
spending provisions in this legislation are just recommendations on how 
much additional funding we believe is needed for our Nation's veterans. 
It will be up to future legislation in the Appropriations Committee, as 
is always the case, to approve or disapprove of these recommendations.
  In other words, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, an authorizing 
committee, has made a recommendation. The final word, as is always the 
case when we spend money, rests with the Appropriations Committee. The 
discretionary spending authorized under this bill is, in fact, paid for 
by using savings from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, 
otherwise known as the OCO fund.
  Again, these are recommendations. The Appropriations Committee has 
the final word. CBO estimates that spending for Overseas Contingency 
Operations will total a little over $1 trillion over the next decade. 
Spending as a result of this legislation to improve the lives of 
millions of our veterans will be less than 2 percent of that $1 
trillion. So anybody who comes down to the floor and says this bill is 
going to take away from the needs of our men and women in Afghanistan 
or elsewhere is simply inaccurate.
  One trillion dollars is what is in the fund for the next 10 years. We 
spend less than $20 billion of that fund. Some people say, well, yes, 
that is fine. But OCO funding has to go into ammunition, it has to go 
into planes, it has to go into tanks. That is where it goes.
  That is not quite the case. Let me give you an example of how we have 
spent past overseas contingency operation funds.
  Since 2005, the Defense Department has used OCO funding for childcare 
centers, for hospitals, for traumatic brain injury research, for 
equipment, and schools. In 2010, $50 million of OCO funds were used for 
the Guam Improvement Enterprise Fund. To my mind, if we can use money 
for the Guam Improvement Enterprise Fund--I do not know much about 
that--I do believe we should be able to use some of the OCO funds to 
protect the needs of men and women who made enormous sacrifices 
defending our country.
  Last year OCO funds were allocated to a number of countries around 
the world: Egypt, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Lebanon, Somalia, South 
Sudan, and many other countries.
  This year $28 million in OCO funding is being used for the TRICARE 
health care program. In other words, we are using a tiny percentage, 
less than 2 percent of the funds in the OCO fund, to protect veterans. 
We have seen over the years OCO funding used in a whole lot of other 
areas.
  I happen to believe that what we are trying to do with OCO funds 
falls well within the definition of what that fund is supposed to be 
used for. If we are supposed to be using that fund for military 
purposes, then we take care of the military personnel who served our 
country--totally legitimate, totally consistent.
  That is kind of the technical, inside-the-beltway explanation for why 
I think the funding mechanism we have chosen and the approach we have 
taken is legitimate. But let me get actually to the far more important 
reason as to why this bill should be passed and it should be paid for; 
that is, very simply, this bill in a small way attempts to pay back and 
help veterans and their families for the enormous sacrifices they have 
made for this country, sacrifices which in the deepest sense can never, 
ever be fully paid back.
  This is what this bill does. This bill helps Members of Congress, on 
Memorial Day or Veterans Day, when they go out and they meet with 
veterans and their families, that if a Member of Congress, Member of 
the Senate bumps into a young veteran who is in a wheelchair, who 
because of a war-related injury is unable to have a baby and start a 
family that he or she wanted, some of those injuries, maybe the spinal 
cord, some of them may have taken place in the genital region, but for 
whatever reason--we have over 2,000 veterans in this country today who 
are unable to naturally have babies. Many of them want families. If a 
Member of the Senate wants to look that veteran in the eyes and say to 
him or her that they think we cannot afford to help that individual who 
sacrificed so much for this country have a family, well go do that. 
Tell that individual that you think we cannot afford to help him or 
her, but when you do that, I hope you will also tell him why you voted 
to give $1 trillion in tax breaks to the top 2 percent at a time when 
the wealthiest people in this country are doing phenomenally well. 
Virtually all of my Republican colleagues thought it was appropriate to 
provide huge tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires.
  So when you speak to that young veteran who can no longer have a 
child and you are going to explain why we cannot afford to help that 
family, tell them it was OK to vote for tax breaks for the Koch 
brothers or the Walton family, but we do not have enough money to help 
them start a family.
  If you as a Senator see a 70-year-old woman or 75-year-old woman 
pushing a wheelchair for a veteran who lost his legs in Vietnam, tell 
that woman, have the courage, have the honesty to tell that woman we 
cannot extend the caregiver benefits to her that we have, quite 
appropriately, for the post-9/11 veterans. Tell that woman who may be 
taking care of that disabled vet 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, who 
lives under enormous stress, that we do not have the resources to help 
her with a modest stipend; we do not have the resources as the U.S. 
Government to maybe have a nurse come in once a week to relieve her. We 
do not have the resources to give her some technical help for herself, 
for her husband. Explain to her that we cannot afford to do that.
  But then in the same breath, if you please, explain how you can 
support a situation where one out of four corporations in this country 
does not pay a nickel in Federal income taxes. It is OK for General 
Electric, some of the largest corporations in the world in a given 
year, not to pay a penny in Federal income tax, but we somehow do not 
have the money to give a little bit of help to a 70-, 75-year-old wife 
who is working 24/7 to give support to their loved ones.

  I say to my follow Senators: If you happen to meet a veteran who is 
trying to get by on $28,000, $30,000, $35,000 a year, and you notice 
that the teeth in his mouth are rotting, if you notice that person may 
not have health insurance, one of the million veterans in this country 
who have no health insurance, I want you to go up to that veteran and 
have the courage, the honesty, to tell them that you believe the United 
States of America does not have the money to take care of his needs, to 
get him VA health care, to help him fix his teeth.
  But explain to him why you may have voted for more than $100 billion 
in tax breaks for the wealthiest three-tenths of 1 percent because you 
think we should repeal the estate tax that only applies to the 
wealthiest three-

[[Page S1207]]

tenths of 1 percent, the wealthiest of the wealthy. You are prepared to 
vote, and virtually all Republicans are, to give millionaire and 
billionaire families, the wealthiest of the wealthy, the top three-
tenths of 1 percent, $100 billion in tax breaks, but we are not 
prepared, we supposedly do not have the money to get VA health care for 
someone making $28,000, $30,000 or dental care for someone whose teeth 
are rotting in his mouth.
  You go explain that. Have the honesty, the courage, guys, to say: 
Yes, tax breaks for billionaires, but we do not have the resources to 
get you into VA health care. I want you to explain to a young woman who 
left the military, maybe broken in spirit because she was raped or 
sexually assaulted while in the military, tell her America does not 
have the resources to get her, through the VA, the proper care she 
needs to get her life back together after her sexual assault. Tell her 
that.
  If you happen to meet a young man who was eligible for the post-9/11 
GI bill, who today cannot afford to go to college where he lives 
because he is not eligible for in-state tuition and there is a gap 
between what the GI education bill pays and what is required in the 
State he is living in of $10,000, he cannot afford it, cannot go to 
college, explain to him that we do not have the money to help him.
  If you bump into an old veteran--we have heard some discussion in the 
last couple of days that the VA lacks adequate health care facilities, 
we do not have enough around the country. This legislation that we are 
voting on right now, that in fact was already passed in the House, 
provides for the VA to enter into leases for 27 medical facilities all 
across this country in 18 different States.
  Tell him, tell that 70-year-old veteran or the 80-year-old veteran 
who wants access to primary health care near where he lives that we do 
not have the resources to provide that primary care, but we can spend 
billions of dollars rebuilding the infrastructure in Afghanistan, where 
most of that money is stolen by a corrupt leadership.
  Maybe, colleagues, one of you will see a young veteran, one of 
hundreds of thousands of veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan who are 
dealing with PTSD or traumatic brain injury or maybe it is a young man 
who has come back who just cannot find a job in this very tough 
economy. Go up to him and say: Yes, tax breaks for the rich are great; 
corporations not paying taxes, that is OK, but I do not believe we 
should be providing help to you.
  The bottom line is what we believe in. It is not just speeches we 
give on Memorial Day and on Veterans Day. I know my colleagues give 
great speeches.
  The question is, and the more important issue is, not your fine 
rhetoric, but are you prepared to vote for programs that help human 
beings in need. Speeches are great, but action is better and far more 
important.
  This is about who we are as a people. It is about what our priorities 
are. In my view, at the very top of our priority list has to be to 
protect and defend those people who protect and defend us, those people 
who have given much more than we can ever repay.
  There are gold star wives who want to go to college, and we allow 
that in this bill. They lost their husbands. They are trying to take 
care of their kids. They want a new shot at life. They need a college 
education. We say they should have that. I don't think that is asking 
too much.
  Enough of the rhetoric, enough of the speeches, enough about how 
everybody loves the veterans. Now is the time for action. I implore all 
of my colleagues to overcome this vote, to give us the votes that we 
need to go forward to protect those who have protected us.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I ask unanimous consent for Senator McCain, Senator 
Ayotte, and me to engage in a colloquy for approximately 20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection.
  Mr. GRAHAM. My colleagues will be here in a moment. I will start. 
Thank you for recognizing me.
  Senator McCain has arrived.
  The time has come, colleagues, for us as a body to provide some 
oversight that is missing when it comes to the death of four Americans 
at the Benghazi consulate on September 11, 2012. I will try not to get 
emotional.
  The bottom line is all of us very much appreciate those who serve in 
harm's way in the State Department and in the military. When bad things 
happen that can cost someone their life, that is sometimes the 
consequence of service.
  But when the system breaks down, it is utter and complete failure, 
nothing responsible happens to those who allow the failure, and when we 
really don't know the truth about how the system has failed, then they 
have died in a fashion that is unacceptable.
  I am urging my colleague, the Democratic leader, to form a joint 
select committee of the relevant committees, the Armed Services 
Committee, the intelligence committee, the Foreign Relations Committee, 
and any other committee that is relevant, to get to the bottom of what 
happened in Benghazi.
  I have come to conclude that this issue is not going away. It will 
not die out because four Americans lost their lives.
  We have compiled an event timeline that I think does the following. 
The story told by Susan Rice and the President himself shortly after 
the attack on September 16, and for a couple of weeks later, has 
absolutely collapsed. It is not credible. It is a fabrication. It was a 
manipulation of the intel 7 weeks before an election, and I think it is 
abundantly clear that the information coming from Libya never suggested 
there was a protest and identified this as a terrorist attack from the 
very beginning. On September 16, 5 days after the attack U.N. 
ambassador Susan Rice assured the Nation that the consulate was 
substantially, significantly, and strongly secured.
  There is absolutely nothing in the talking points about that. Clearly 
that was not the case. Why did she say that?
  Her story about a protest caused by a hateful video being the most 
likely cause of the attack is not based on any facts or any reporting 
from Libya. We will walk through the timeline, but the head of the CIA 
in Libya on September 15 sent a message, an email, a cable, to the No. 
2, Mike Morell, in the CIA in Washington, saying this was not--not--a 
protest that escalated into an attack.
  That story line about a protest was misleading. It was false, it was 
politically motivated, in my view. The No. 2 at the CIA, Mike Morell--
his testimony before the House and the Senate is highly suspect. He 
testified on November 14 or 15, 2012, to the Senate and House 
intelligence committees.
  There was one episode where Mr. Clapper, the Director of National 
Intelligence said: He did not know who changed the famous talking 
points. The talking points originally identified Al Qaeda as being 
involved, identified this as a terrorist attack and were completely 
changed in the protest story line, not mentioning Al Qaeda at all.
  Mike Morell, in May of 2013, admitted to changing the talking points. 
But when Director Clapper said: We don't know who changed the talking 
points. Mike Morell was sitting right by him and never said a word.
  About 10 days later, Susan Rice asked to meet with me, Senator 
McCain, and Senator Ayotte to explain her side of the story. This was 
November 24 or 25; I can't remember the date. But Mike Morell 
accompanied her, and we had a meeting in the classified portion of the 
Capitol, the secure portion of the Capitol.
  One of the first questions I asked Mr. Morell was: Who changed the 
talking points?
  He said: We believe the FBI changed the talking points.
  Senator McCain asked him: Why did the CIA not know about the contents 
of the FBI interviews of the survivors on September 15, 16, and 17? Why 
didn't the CIA pick up a phone and call the FBI agents interviewing the 
Benghazi survivors in Germany on the September 15, 16, and 17, days 
after the attack?
  Mike Morell said: The FBI basically would not share that information 
because it was an ongoing criminal investigation.
  My mouth dropped. When the meeting was over I ran back to my office, 
called the FBI, and reported to them that the No. 2, the acting 
director at that time, Mike Morell, has claimed

[[Page S1208]]

that your agency, the FBI, changed its talking points, deleting all 
references to terrorism and Al Qaeda.
  They went ballistic. They also denied that their agents ever withheld 
information from the CIA because it was an ongoing investigation. The 
FBI literally went ballistic on the phone. Hours later we got a call 
from the CIA saying the acting director misspoke: We may have changed 
the talking points, but we don't know why.
  In light of this, it is now time for a joint select committee to be 
formed. How can we get to the bottom of the truth of what happened in 
Benghazi if no one has ever talked to Susan Rice about why she said 
what she said. Now is the time to recall Mike Morell to ask him 
questions about the validity of his testimony, the accuracy of his 
testimony to Congress.
  There are a lot of people who think this is no big deal, apparently, 
particularly in the Congress on the other side. There are a lot of 
Americans who feel as if their government has not been straightforward 
and honest with them about what happened in Benghazi.
  The role of the Congress is to provide oversight. I will conclude 
with this thought. When the war in Iraq was going fully, when Abu 
Ghraib became a disaster, when Guantanamo Bay tactics became exposed 
and they were outside of our values, Senator McCain and I joined with 
Democrats to get to the bottom of it. After 9/11, the Bush 
administration originally did not want the 9/11 Commission to be 
formed.
  Senator McCain and Senator Lieberman led the charge. We are doing no 
more now than we did then. We just need willing partners.
  I cannot say to any family member or anyone who served our Nation in 
harm's way that we know the truth about what happened in Benghazi at 
this stage.
  I can say this. We know what was told to us as a nation does not hold 
any water, and we know that people have manipulated the facts 7 weeks 
before an election.
  I am still not comfortable with the fact that nobody could provide 
help to these people for over 9 hours. Before the attack, not one 
person who allowed the security to deteriorate to the point of where it 
became a death trap in Benghazi, to the point it became a death trap--
not one person--has been fired. That is unacceptable.
  With that, I will turn it over to my colleague Senator McCain and 
eventually Senator Ayotte.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a 
colloquy with the Senator from South Carolina and the Senator from New 
Hampshire, who are on the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. My colleague from South Carolina laid out many of the 
salient facts according to how they transpired and didn't transpire.
  I will go forward a bit to last Sunday where on ``Meet the Press,'' 
Ambassador Rice was asked by David Gregory:

       When you were last here, Ambassador Rice, it was an 
     eventful morning on the story of Benghazi and the horrible 
     attack on our compound there. We haven't seen you in a while. 
     As you look back at your involvement in all of that, do you 
     have any regrets?
       David, no. Because what I said to you that morning, and 
     what I did every day since, was to share the best information 
     that we had at the time.

  The Senator from South Carolina has just outlined the fact that the 
information he had at the time was drastically different from that 
which was articulated that Sunday morning following the attack on our 
embassy and the death of four great Americans. So it was not the 
information that we had at the time.
  Then she said:

       And that information turned out, in some respects, not to 
     be 100% correct. But the notion that somehow I or anybody 
     else in the administration misled the American people is 
     patently false.

  The American people were misled. They were misled because she said, 
right after the attack, on ``Face the Nation,'' that it was ``based on 
the best information we have to date''--I quote from her statement back 
then, a few days after the attack--but based on the best information of 
what their assessment is:

       What happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a 
     spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before 
     in Cairo, almost a copycat of the demonstrations against our 
     facility in Cairo, prompted by the video.

  We know now for sure, and we knew then, before Ambassador Rice went 
on that Sunday show, that it was not because as the Senator from South 
Carolina just pointed out, the station chief sent a message immediately 
following saying that this was not--repeat, not--a spontaneous 
demonstration. I will submit that for the record.
  Somehow we have Ambassador Rice saying this was a hateful video that 
sparked this demonstration. It says: Whether there were Al Qaeda 
affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists, is one of the 
things we have to determine. But, again, she said: Sparked by this 
hateful video. There was no involvement of the hateful video.
  I hate to quote myself, but I was on that same program, and 
immediately after she spoke I said:

       Most people don't bring rocket-propelled grenades and heavy 
     weapons to a demonstration. That was an act of terror and for 
     anyone to disagree with that fundamental fact I think is 
     really ignorant on the facts.

  We know now that we now have facts that she was absolutely wrong. Of 
course, the question also remains what in the world was Susan Rice 
doing speaking that morning? What was she doing there? She had nothing 
to do with it. She was the Ambassador to the United Nations. And 
Secretary Clinton was ``exhausted,'' I believe was the rationale given 
why she wasn't on every Sunday morning show.

  So the fact is we knew at the time Susan Rice said--and this is what 
it really was all about. It was all about a Presidential campaign and 
the narrative of bin Laden is dead, al-Qaeda is on the run, because 
then Susan Rice, in response to Bob Schieffer, said: President Obama 
said, when he was running for President, that he would refocus our 
efforts and attentions on Al-Qaeda. Then she said--get this--we have 
decimated Al-Qaeda; Osama bin Laden is gone. He also said we would end 
the war in Iraq responsibly. We have done that.
  Is there anybody here who thinks the war in Iraq has been ended 
responsibly?
  He has protected civilians in Libya, and Qadhafi is gone.
  Obviously, we have not decimated Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaida is not on the 
run. In fact, Al-Qaeda is increasing everywhere across the Middle East 
and North Africa. Anybody who believes when the black flags of Al-Qaeda 
are flying over the city of Fallujah, where 96 brave Americans, marines 
and soldiers died, and 600 were wounded, that things were ``ended in 
Iraq responsibly,'' obviously that is not the case.
  I think we have to understand the timing of all this. It was all part 
of a Presidential campaign. The President of the United States, in 
debate with Mitt Romney, said: Oh, I called it an act of terror. He 
didn't call it an act of terror. He didn't. In fact, 10 days later, at 
the U.N., he was still talking about hateful videos that sparked 
spontaneous demonstrations. The American people were badly misled.
  I yield for my colleague from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Perhaps the Senator from New Hampshire could walk us 
through some of the reasons we now know the story line of a protest 
caused by a video doesn't hold water.
  Ms. AYOTTE. I thank the Senator from South Carolina and the Senator 
from Arizona for everything they have done on this important issue and 
to get to the truth.
  Frankly, I will quote the Senator from Arizona from last weekend, 
when he was asked what Ambassador Susan Rice said on ``Meet the 
Press,'' because I agree with his sentiment: I am speechless.
  I am speechless because when Ambassador Rice was asked on ``Meet the 
Press,'' do you have any regrets about what you said on every single 
Sunday show on September 16 of 2012, she said she didn't have any 
regrets. She said: What I said to you that morning, and what I did 
every day since, is to share the best information we had at the time. 
The information I provided, which I explained to you, was what we had 
at the moment.
  Actually, that is not the full picture and the information they had 
at the moment. That is why I think the word ``speechless'' applies. The 
fact she would have no regrets about misleading the American people is 
deeply

[[Page S1209]]

troubling. Because we know that immediately after he heard about the 
attacks, GEN Carter Ham, who was the commander of U.S. Africa Command 
at the time, told Secretary of Defense Panetta this was a terrorist 
attack. In fact, Secretary Panetta testified before the Armed Services 
Committee, as did the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Chairman 
Dempsey, they knew at the time it was a terrorist attack.
  But apparently, when Ambassador Rice went on to tell the story about 
this being the result of a hateful and heinous video and protest that 
started in Cairo, she missed that testimony and this incredibly 
important information held by key security leaders in our government.
  We also know on September 12, 4 days before she appeared on the 
Sunday shows, the day after the attacks, according to testimony given 
before the House Oversight and Governmental Reform Committee given last 
May, Beth Jones, who was then the Acting Assistant Secretary of State 
for Near East Affairs, sent an email on behalf of our government to the 
Libyan Ambassador in Washington, DC, which said the following:

       The group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al-Sharia, is 
     affiliated with Islamic terrorists.

  This was 4 days before Ambassador Rice went on all the Sunday shows 
and said this was in response to a hateful and offensive video.
  That was not the case.
  Let's go further. This wasn't the best information they had at the 
time. This raises questions as well about the role of Mike Morell, who 
at the time was the Deputy CIA Director. I was part of the meeting with 
Mike Morell and Ambassador Rice at the time, and one of the things I 
learned in that briefing also troubled me a great deal about the 
representation Ambassador Rice made on those Sunday shows, including 
her statement that she has no regrets, apparently, and the claim they 
had the best information at the time.
  One of the things that goes out is called the Presidential daily 
brief. In fact, Ambassador Rice had a very important position in our 
government at the time. I still wonder why she was the person who was 
sent out on every Sunday show with regard to the attacks on our 
consulate in Benghazi, but the daily intelligence briefing at the time 
actually contained references to the potential involvement of Al-Qaeda 
in these attacks. Yet somehow, when she went on the Sunday shows, she 
felt she could make the statement that Al-Qaeda has been decimated and 
then blamed the attacks on our consulate on this hateful video, further 
contradicting the information we had at the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 20 minutes has expired.
  Ms. AYOTTE. I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute to wrap up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. AYOTTE. I thank the Chair.
  I will defer to my colleagues, but the bottom line is this: We are 
speechless by what Ambassador Rice said last Sunday. We need to have 
her testimony before the Congress to get to the bottom of why these 
misrepresentations were made. Mr. Morell needs to be brought back 
before the Congress, and ultimately we need a select committee.
  I defer to my colleague from South Carolina to wrap up.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I thank my colleagues.
  Now is the time for us to move forward to set the stage for a vote; 
is that correct?
  Well, I will say, No. 1, as to the amendment of Senator Burr, it 
takes care of veterans similar to what Senator Sanders is proposing, 
but it pays for it in a more responsible way. Unlike the proposal of 
Senator Sanders, we have an additional element in the Burr amendment 
that not only takes care of veterans but it deals with a national 
security imperative, which is the Iran sanctions legislation. This is 
bipartisan in nature, with 59 cosponsors, including 17 Democrats. This 
would reimpose sanctions at the end of the 6-month negotiating period 
if we do not have an acceptable outcome regarding the Iranian nuclear 
program; we need to dismantle the reactor, remove the uranium, and stop 
enrichment.
  That is the goal of the Iran sanctions legislation, and I am very 
pleased Senator Burr would bring that before the body. I am urging my 
colleagues to allow us to vote on Iran sanctions. The sanctions are 
literally crumbling.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All Republican time has expired.
  Mr. GRAHAM. With that, I understand Senator Burr and others on our 
side have filed an amendment which would impose additional sanctions 
against the Government of Iran if it violates the interim agreement 
with the United States, and I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending motion so I may offer amendment No. 2752.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SANDERS. Reserving the right to object, I do find it interesting 
that, in the midst of this important debate about the needs of our 
veterans, my Republican colleagues are on the floor of the Senate and 
have virtually nothing to say about veterans.
  This bill is not about Benghazi. This veterans bill is not about Iran 
sanctions, it is not about Hillary Clinton. It is about protecting the 
needs of our veterans. So the amendment of Senator Burr does not go 
anywhere near as far as we need to go in terms of veterans issues. It 
brings the Iran sanctions issue into a debate where it should not be 
brought.
  I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. GRAHAM. In addition to Burr amendment No. 2752, there are many 
amendments on our side of the aisle waiting to be offered.
  Parliamentary inquiry: Is it correct that no Senator is permitted to 
offer an amendment to this bill while the majority leader's amendments 
and motions are pending?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. GRAHAM. In addition to the Burr amendment No. 2752, there are 
many amendments on our side of the aisle waiting in the queue to be 
offered.
  Further parliamentary inquiry: If a motion to table the Reid motion 
to commit is successful, would there be an opportunity to offer a 
motion to commit the bill to the Veterans' Affairs Committee to be 
reported back as a fully amendable bill with the Iran sanctions bill 
included?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the motion to table is agreed to, there 
would be an opportunity for Senators to offer another motion to 
recommit with instructions to which the Senator's amendment could be 
offered.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, in order to offer amendment No. 2752, the 
Iran sanctions amendment, I move to table the pending Reid motion to 
commit and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mrs. 
Gillibrand), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson), and the Senator 
from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. King). Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 44, nays 52, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 45 Leg.]

                                YEAS--44

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--52

     Baldwin
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King

[[Page S1210]]


     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Walsh
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Gillibrand
     Murkowski
     Nelson
     Stabenow
  The motion was rejected.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 
minutes equally divided in the usual form prior to the vote on the 
motion to waive; further, that the remaining votes in this sequence be 
10 minute votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and 
it so ordered.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, this budget point of order we are now 
going to vote on tells us in a very significant way who we are as a 
people. If you vote for this budget point of order, you are saying that 
in this great country we do not have the resources to help our veterans 
with their health care, education, and to be able to deal with sexual 
assault. We need to help older veterans get the nursing care and build 
new medical facilities that they desperately need.
  I personally--and I have to say this honestly--have a hard time 
understanding how anyone can vote for tax breaks for billionaires, 
millionaires, and large corporations and then say we don't have the 
resources to protect our veterans. We should not be supporting this 
point of order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, my only wish is that we had been on the 
Senate floor debating reforms within the system so we could fulfill and 
keep the promises we made to our veterans who are currently in that 
system.
  I yield back the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The yeas and nays were previously ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) and the Senator from Alaska (Ms. 
Murkowski).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. 
Wicker) would have voted ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 56, nays 41, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 46 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

     Baldwin
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murphy
     Murray
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Walsh
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--41

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Murkowski
     Nelson
     Wicker
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 56, the nays are 
41. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained, and under section 312 of the Congressional Budget Act the 
bill is recommitted to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

                          ____________________