[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 68 (Wednesday, May 7, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2743-S2763]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ENERGY SAVINGS AND INDUSTRIAL COMPETITIVENESS ACT OF 2014--MOTION TO
PROCEED--Resumed
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the motion to
proceed.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 368, S. 2262, a bill to
promote energy savings in residential buildings and industry,
and for other purposes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, my staff just told me we are now at more
than 500 filibusters--500.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the majority leader has brought to the
attention of the Senate today the headline news across America. This
report by our government about what we are facing with environmental
changes in America is a call to action.
I came to the floor yesterday and I made a challenge, which I have
made before. I will make it again. I am asking any Republican Senator
to come to the floor today and dispute the following claim: The
Republican Party of the United States of America is the only major
party in the world--the only major political party in the world--that
is in denial of what is happening to our environment when it comes to
climate change and global warming.
I have said it repeatedly. No one has disputed it. One political
party is in denial about a change on this Earth that could literally
affect generations to come. As a result, we are, I guess, stopped in
our tracks. There is nothing we can do.
This bill before us today--the energy efficiency bill, which is on
the calendar--if there were ever anything we should agree on, it is
this. If your motive in energy efficiency is to save money for a
business or a family, it is in this bill. If your motive in energy
efficiency is to create jobs in America, it is in this bill--190,000
maybe 200,000 American jobs. If your motive is to do something for the
environment, energy efficiency is the right bill. But here we are stuck
in another Republican filibuster. Why? Because they insist on a series
of amendments.
The sponsors of this legislation--Senator Shaheen from New Hampshire;
Senator Portman, a Republican from Ohio--basically came to an agreement
on a bill that is bipartisan in nature, and there are 10 or more
bipartisan amendments included in this bill.
Has the minority had an opportunity to be part of this process?
Absolutely. Yet it is never enough. They want more and more, and they
are prepared to slow down or stop the passage of a bill which in
ordinary times would have passed by a voice vote. That is not going to
happen. Unfortunately, we are going to be mired down in more procedural
votes until some of these Senators get the amendments they want.
We wasted a week last week, a week in the Senate when nothing
happened, when this bill could have passed. Why? One Republican Senator
wanted to offer an amendment on the Affordable Care Act. They have
flogged the Affordable Care Act in every imaginable direction, and now
this Senator wants to deny health insurance coverage or at least make
it more expensive for the staff of Members of the Senate and the House
of Representatives, as well as Members themselves. That is his idea of
a good idea to debate on the floor of the Senate at the expense of this
bill.
Well, shame on the Senate. Shame on those who are obstructing us. We
have had enough, have we not, of these filibusters and this
obstruction? It is time that we roll up our sleeves and get down to the
work of the people of this country.
Health Research
While I am on the subject, I am leaving to go to a committee meeting
of the Appropriations Committee to talk about Federal funding for
health research. This is another issue which troubles me, because of
the lack of commitment by this Congress to one of the most fundamental
responsibilities we have as a government.
We are blessed with the best biomedical research agency in the world
today--the National Institutes of Health--one of the most
extraordinarily public health agencies--the Centers for Disease
Control--and we continue year after year to underfund these agencies at
the expense of America's health and at the expense of creating good-
paying jobs in our country.
For the last 10 years or more we have failed to give the National
Institutes of Health protection from inflation, and as a result their
spending power to award research grants has declined by 22 percent over
the last 10 years. As to the researchers at the National Institutes of
Health, there are fewer and fewer younger researchers. They have lost
hope that there is a commitment by this government, by this Nation, to
medical research. What is the net result? The net result is that we, at
our peril, fail to do the research, to find the cures for diseases that
make a difference in the lives of Americans and American families.
The Republicans argue that it is just too darn much money, that we
cannot afford medical research. Well, let me give you one statistic to
think about. Last year Medicare and Medicaid spent $203 billion of
taxpayers' money--$203 billion--on the victims of Alzheimer's--$203
billion. If research at the National Institutes of Health could get to
the heart of this disease and find a way to cure it--that would be a
miracle--or delay its onset--it seems within the realm of possibility
maybe--we could save dramatic amounts of money. Medical research pays
for itself.
Listen to what is happening in the House of Representatives. We have
a proposal for an extension of a Tax Code provision that will give a
break to businesses to invest in research projects. There is nothing
wrong with that. I have supported it. Throughout my time in the House
and Senate, I have supported it. But listen--listen--to the logic. The
Republicans in the House argue that if it is an R&D tax credit that
goes to the private sector for research so they can develop new
products and services and be more profitable and create more
employment, it does not have to be paid for. Over 10 years, it would
cost us $140 billion for the extension of this credit, on a 10-year
basis, to the private sector, and the Republicans have argued, yes,
this may nominally add to the deficit. But, in fact, it does not. The
research and development leads to more businesses, more jobs, more tax
revenue to the government, and so they argue we do not have to pay for
it.
Now let me step over here. What about the research and development
done, the medical research done by government agencies? Is that worth
some money to taxpayers? Absolutely. Finding cures for diseases at
NIH--Alzheimer's, diabetes, cancer; I could go on--each and every one
of them would be a savings to the taxpayers. Yet they argue: No, that
is government spending; that adds to the deficit.
That is such upside-down thinking. It is such a denial of reality.
Basic fundamental medical research and biomedical research by these
agencies relieves suffering, finds cures for diseases, and reduces the
expenditures of
[[Page S2744]]
our government on health care. I would argue it is just as justifiable,
if not more so, for us to be making the same investment in increasing
biomedical research over a 10-year period of time--incidentally, at the
same cost.
A 5-percent increase--real increase--in spending in biomedical
research each year for the next 10 years at the National Institutes of
Health, the Centers for Disease Control, the Department of Defense
medical research, the Veterans' Administration medical research--those
four agencies--5 percent real growth comes out to almost identically
the same cost as extending the R&D tax credit for private companies.
Do them both. Do them both and I guarantee you America will get more
than a $140 billion return for each one of them. Thinking ahead in an
innovative way, with some vision toward the future, investing in
research is really buying for the next generation a better life in
America and a stronger economy for our country.
I want to make that appeal to my colleagues. If we bring the R&D tax
credit to the floor and the argument is made: Well, we do not have to
pay for that because it is going to private companies, the same
argument should be made when it comes to increasing our investment in
biomedical research at the most fundamental agencies that promote
health in America and the world.
Back to this bill for a moment, I hope that by the end of the day the
Republicans will end this filibuster, that we can start moving toward
passing this bill. It should have been done last year. It should be
done now. These excuses that we need a litany of amendments before we
can even consider the bill are just delaying something that is very
important for this country.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Recognition of the Minority Leader
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader is
recognized.
Energy Amendments
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, earlier this morning it was suggested
that Republicans are creating a problem on the Portman-Shaheen bill
because we are insisting on amendments. I am stunned that anybody would
think that insisting on amendments would be unusual or out of order.
That is what we used to do in the Senate. We had amendments offered and
we had votes on them by both sides.
One Senator, it was suggested, insisted on an ObamaCare amendment.
That was dropped 5 days ago. Nobody is insisting on an ObamaCare
amendment on the Portman-Shaheen bill. Senator Vitter had suggested
that earlier but decided that was not a good idea on this particular
bill because it was the opportunity, we hoped, to get four or five
votes on important energy-related amendments. Senator Durbin actually
objected.
So I think it is important to set the record straight this morning.
What Senate Republicans are asking for is four or five amendments
related to the subject of energy. I would remind our colleagues that
the minority in the Senate has had eight rollcall votes on amendments
it was interested in since last July--since last July.
During that same period the House of Representatives, where it is
often thought the minority has no influence at all, has had 125
rollcall amendment votes. So what is going on is the Senate is being
run in a way that only the majority leader gets to decide who gets to
offer amendments. He says: Maybe I will pick one for you.
That is not the way the Senate used to operate, not the way the
Senate should operate, and I hope not the way the Senate will operate
starting next year.
The majority leader, as I indicated, is basically shutting down the
voice of the people here in the Senate; that is, the people who are
represented by 45 of us. For 7 long years he has refused to allow truly
comprehensive debate on energy in this Chamber. We have not had a
comprehensive debate since 2007. He had a chance to change that
yesterday. Dozens of Senators asked him to do that. We know the
American people want us to do it. But he refused. Apparently he does
not think the American people deserve a vote on a single energy
amendment. Apparently he does not think the American middle class,
which is being squeezed by rising energy costs and over-the-top
government regulations, needs the kind of relief Republicans are
proposing. He clearly must not think the people of eastern Kentucky
deserve our help either. Kentuckians in the eastern part of my State
are experiencing a depression--that is a depression with a ``D''--that
the President's energy policies actually created and are making worse.
The administration has proposed new rules that would make life even
harder for those folks, rules that would make it effectively impossible
to build another coal plant anywhere in the country. Coal is a vital
industry to the livelihood of literally thousands of people in my
State. We should be allowed to help them, but the majority leader said
no.
Let's be honest. He does not seem to think the people we represent
deserve a say on much of anything anymore. Democrats over in the
Republican-controlled House, as I indicated earlier, have had 125
amendment votes since last July, but here in the Senate the Democratic
majority has allowed us nine. I said eight earlier. It is actually nine
amendments since last July, that is, rollcall votes. It is shameful.
But it says a lot about which party is serious these days and which one
is literally playing games. It says a lot about the complete lack of
confidence Washington Democrats have in an open debate. What is wrong
with having an open debate? They are completely out of ideas, and
apparently they do not want anybody to know that Republicans have
suggestions to be made. So they are attempting to muzzle us at a time
when middle-class Americans are in need of some relief. Do they really
think that Americans who have had to cope with rising electricity
prices, stagnant wages, and growing hopelessness in the Obama economy--
do they really believe the Senate should not even be debating ideas
that might help them?
It is hard to think otherwise. So I think middle-class Americans,
looking at the Senate these days, are left to draw an obvious
conclusion: That their concerns matter far less to today's Senate
Democrats than the political imperatives of the far left. We know the
President's political team must be pleased. One White House aide said
they plan to lean on Senate Democrats to ``get the right outcome'' this
week; in other words, to stop the American people from having a real
debate on energy policies.
For the President and his political pals, it must feel like ``mission
accomplished.'' This means he can avoid having to sign or veto
legislation that might be good for the middle class but offensive to
the furthest orbit of the left. It also means he can continue to impose
energy regulations such as the one I mentioned earlier, through the
back door, to govern by executive fiat, without having to worry about
niceties such as Democratic accountability.
After all, far-left activists presumably demand that the President
impose those regulations because they do not want the American people
getting in the way again. They know what happened the last time they
let that happen, when a fully Democratic-controlled Congress could not
even pass a national energy tax.
As long as it has a Senate Democratic majority on its side, the far
left knows it will not have to worry about the American people messing
up its plans again. The majority leader proved that again this very
week. The far left will not have to worry about the representatives of
the American people voting through the Keystone XL Pipeline either.
Here you have a project the American people support overwhelmingly
that would create thousands of jobs when we have rarely, rarely needed
them more, and that would pass Congress easily if the majority leader
would allow a vote, but he will not because the far left will not let
him. If we do get a vote, the Democratic leadership will be sure to
filibuster against the jobs the Keystone XL Pipeline will create.
[[Page S2745]]
Activists on the left positively hate this energy jobs initiative.
They rail against it constantly, even though they cannot seem to
explain in a serious way why it is a bad idea. But it is a symbol in
their minds, so they demand Senate Democrats block its approval and
Senate Democrats dutifully do just that.
Again and again we see the needs of the middle class subsumed to the
whims of the left. That has become the legacy of today's Democratic
majority. They have diminished the vital role the Senate plays in our
democracy. We do not seem to debate or address the most serious issues
anymore, even with significant events at home and abroad that deserve
our attention, because for the Senate Democrats who run this place, the
priority is not on policy, it is on show votes and political posturing
24/7. This reflects a party that has simply run out of ideas, that has
failed to fix the economy after 5\1/2\ years of trying, and now sees
its political salvation not in making good policy for the middle class
but in exciting the left enough to save the day come November.
I guess we will see if this strategy pays off. But that is not what
truly matters around here. What matters is that millions in our country
are hurting and that Senate Democrats do not seem to want to act. Look,
they should be joining with us to help our constituents because the
American people did not send us here to play games or to serve the far
left. Our constituents sent us here to have serious debates on issues
that matter to them, such as energy security, national security,
economic security. All three can be addressed if the majority leader
would simply allow Republican amendments to be considered.
Our constituents want Congress to make good policy. The fact that we
do not seem to do that under the current majority is quite tragic. The
American people deserve better. They deserve a debate and they deserve
to be heard.
Honoring Our Armed Forces
Specialist Russell E. Madden
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I want to pay tribute to a brave and
honorable young man from Kentucky who was tragically lost in the
performance of his military service. SPC Russell E. Madden, of
Bellevue, KY, was killed on June 23, 2010, in Afghanistan in support of
Operation Enduring Freedom.
Specialist Madden volunteered for his final mission and was in the
lead vehicle in a convoy that was attacked by the enemy. His vehicle
was struck by a rocket shell. He was 29 years old.
For his service in uniform, he received the Bronze Star Medal, the
Purple Heart Medal, the Army Good Conduct Medal, the National Defense
Service Medal, the Afghanistan Campaign Medal with Bronze Service Star,
the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, the Army Service Ribbon, the
Overseas Service Ribbon, the NATO Medal, and the Combat Action Badge.
Russell Madden joined the Army just under 2 years before his death.
His father Martin Madden reflects on his son's time in service by
saying:
Nineteen months is not a long military career. But 19
months was long enough to graduate basic training at Fort
Sill, Oklahoma, with honors.
His dad continues:
Nineteen months is long enough to be running and gunning as
a lead convoy gunner on convoys that sometimes took 16 hours
to move 40 miles to replenish forward operating bases,
completing over 85 missions outside the wire in nine months .
. .
Nineteen months may not represent a prolonged period of
time in the minds of most Americans; however, it is just long
enough to create a patriot, to define heroism, and accept a
place of honor among those who stand in silent testimonial to
the strength of this great nation.
The bond between father and son that moves Martin to speak these
words was forged, of course, not just over 19 months but over Russell's
entire lifetime. Like so many of the extraordinary heroes who hail from
Kentucky, Russell's childhood is full of examples of a young man
devoted to a cause greater than himself.
He was the oldest of three children, along with his younger sister
Lindsey and younger brother Martin. Like most young siblings, at times
the kids would fight. Russell's parents had a unique way to defuse
family tussles. Martin said:
In order to settle [disagreements], we placed both [Russell
and Lindsey] in the middle of the living room and told them
to stand there hugging each other. After about 20 minutes of
standing there hugging, we would begin to hear them laughing
and having a good time, and we would go in and tell them if
they could get along they could stop.
Little sister Lindsey remembers childhood stories like these, just as
she remembers her brother's dedication to service. She said:
All he ever told me, every time I talked to him, was that
he wanted to make me proud. And he has. He always made me
proud.
Russell attended Bellevue High School, where he displayed his
dedication to serving on a team as a star athlete in football,
baseball, and track. During his senior year, the track team was 1 week
away from the State meet when the top hurdler was injured. The whole
team was in danger of not qualifying unless someone stepped in. Russell
volunteered to run the hurdles, even though he had never run a hurdle
event in his life.
Martin Madden recalls:
Russell took off running at full sprint, stopped when he
got to the hurdle and jumped over it, then took off running
at full speed until he reached the next hurdle and stopped
and jumped over that one, throughout the track. It was the
most unorthodox style the coach had ever observed, but with
the state qualifier taking place next week, the coach allowed
Russell to represent the team.
As a result, Russell's first-ever hurdle event was the State-
qualifying match. Even using what his father calls his ``God-awful ugly
style,'' Russell qualified and ran in the final State competition,
where he placed sixth.
Russell was a winner on the football field just as he was in track
and field. Every Friday night, during the 1999 season, fans packed
Gilligan Stadium to watch Bellevue High play out what would be an
undefeated season. Russell played running back and was such a talented
athlete that he could also kick field goals and extra points, return
kickoffs, punt, quarterback, and play wide receiver--and that is only
on the offensive side of the ball. He also played linebacker on
defense.
As a result of his all-around athletic success, volunteer work, and
coaching of youth football teams, Russell was inducted into both the
Bellevue High School Sports Hall of Fame and the Northern Kentucky
Youth League Football Hall of Fame. He was also recognized by the
Northern Kentucky High School Football Coaches Association for his
sportsmanship. Russell graduated from Bellevue High School in 2000.
In 2008 Russell and his wife Michelle learned that their son Parker
had a preliminary diagnosis indicating a high potential for cystic
fibrosis. Martin said:
Russell joined the Army to fight for his country and
provide the medical treatment necessary for his young son.
Russell enlisted in 2008, and during his deployment to Afghanistan
was assigned to the 1st Squadron, 91st Cavalry Regiment, 173rd Infantry
Brigade Combat Team based out of the Conn Barracks in Germany.
Russell's father Martin recalls how Russell's fellow soldiers felt
about Russell's dedication to them and their team--a dedication that
echoed the drive of the young man who volunteered for the hurdles and
excelled on the gridiron.
``This . . . is what the soldiers in his platoon told me,'' Martin
said.
Russell said to them:
Guys, I will not let you down. We will get there. . . .
If ever there was going to be a problem, they wanted to be with
Russell because they knew he would never let them down.
Respect and admiration for Russell's dedication to a cause greater
than himself even reached the halls of the Kentucky General Assembly,
which passed a joint resolution to designate Kentucky Route 1120,
within the city limits of his hometown of Bellevue, as the ``SPC
Russell Madden Memorial Parkway.'' Russell's family was present as the
new street sign was unveiled for the first time.
Russell's wife Michelle said:
It is an awesome tribute to my husband. He deserves it. I
want this sign for my son to say, ``Hey, that's my dad's
sign. That's what my dad's done for us.'' This is what is
going to carry on his legacy.
We are thinking of SPC Russell E. Madden's family today, including
his wife Michelle, his son Parker, his stepson Jared, his parents
Martin Madden and Peggy Davitt, his sister Lindsey, his brother Martin,
and many other beloved family members and friends.
[[Page S2746]]
It is important that Russell's family knows that no matter how long
or how short his time in uniform may have been, Martin Madden is
absolutely right that his son will and must be forever remembered and
revered for the sacrifice he has made on behalf of our country.
I know SPC Russell E. Madden certainly will be remembered by this
Senate. I ask all of my colleagues to join me in expressing the utmost
respect for his life and his service.
We extend our greatest condolences to his family for a loss on behalf
of our Nation that can never truly be erased.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Heitkamp). The Republican whip.
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I was on the floor, as was the Presiding
Officer, listening to the distinguished Republican leader's glowing
tribute to this fallen warrior. We were moved, certainly, by it.
He preceded his comments by talking about what is happening to the
Senate and the fact that even though we are debating, supposedly, the
first energy legislation to come to the Senate floor since 2007, the
majority leader's--Majority Leader Reid, who has the power under the
Senate rules to basically be the traffic cop, to decide which
amendments get heard and voted on and which ones do not--comment was to
the effect that the majority leader has essentially shut the Senate
down and denied the minority an opportunity to offer their amendments
and to get votes on amendments.
I know people listening must say: Well, here they go again talking
about the prerogatives and rights of Senators. But that is not what I
am talking about. I am talking about the rights and prerogatives of the
people I represent, 26 million Texans who are being shut out of a
debate on--of all topics--energy.
We take great pride in the fact that Texas is an energy-producing
State, and it is one of the reasons why our economy has been doing
better than much of the rest of the country, because we have
responsibly, and with the right kind of environmental stewardship,
taken advantage of this gift of the natural resources that we have in
our State.
Thanks to the innovation, and thanks to the investment and the hard
work of a lot of people, we are doing better--thank you--than the rest
of the country when it comes to job creation.
It really offended me when the majority leader this morning said:
Mr. President, during today people will be watching
[presumably in the gallery, on C-SPAN, maybe on the evening
news] and they will see a quorum call, nothing on the screen.
Why? Because we are in the midst again of one of these never-
ending filibusters of the Republicans--hundreds of them,
hundreds of them. Let me remind everyone, Lyndon Johnson was
majority leader for 6 years.
Well, I would just interject Lyndon Johnson didn't run the Senate the
way Senator Reid does, when he was majority leader. Senator Reid
continues:
During that period of time he had to overcome one
filibuster.
Mr. President, I have lost track. It is hundreds and
hundreds of filibusters that we have had to overcome, and we
have the Republicans coming here saying today: Well, all we
want are a few amendments. They do everything they can to
stop us from progressing on legislation and things that are
good for this country.
He is talking about the 45 Senators on this side of the aisle--that
we will do everything we can to stop from progressing on legislation
and on things that are good for the country. How insulting can you be?
We are going to have differences of opinion, sure. That is why are
here. That is why they used to call the Senate the world's greatest
deliberative body, because on the floor, not even Majority Leader Reid
can shut me down or any other Senator who stands and is recognized by
the Chair to speak on a matter of importance to their State or to the
country.
But to have the majority leader come to the floor and say that what
we are trying to do is stop progress on legislation and things that are
good for the country--he goes on. Senator Reid accuses us of trying to
stop:
Anything that is good for Barack Obama they think is bad
for the country, and they, for 5\1/2\ years, have opposed
everything that this good man has tried to do. It is a shame.
So anyone out there wondering what is going on, it is
another of the hundreds of filibusters they have conducted.
Majority Leader Reid has been a Member of the Senate for a long, long
time. He knows this is not true.
So why he would come to the floor of the Senate and say it is
puzzling to me.
We had 2 years when President Obama and Senator Reid's party could do
anything they wanted. How is that? Well, because they had 60 votes in
the Senate, which is sort of the magic number, when you can basically
do anything you want in the Senate because the minority doesn't have
enough numbers to stop the majority or to check their power.
So Democrats had the House of Representatives, with Nancy Pelosi as
Speaker. They had the Senate, with 60 votes, Harry Reid as the majority
leader, and they had Barack Obama in the White House.
What did we get in those 2 years? Well, one of the things we got was
ObamaCare. We know it was sold on the basis of: If you like what you
have you can keep it, your premiums would go down $2,500 and, yes, you
could keep your doctor too. But none of that proved to be true--none of
it.
We got Dodd-Frank. Do you remember Dodd-Frank? That was the
legislation following the financial crisis of 2008 and the meltdown on
Wall Street that was very damaging to the economy of this country;
there is no doubt about it. What we got with unrestrained and unchecked
single-party efforts during the time when they controlled both branches
of government--the executive and the legislative branches--was
legislation that targeted Wall Street, but Main Street was actually the
collateral damage. I hear that from my credit unions and community
bankers in Texas all the time, that the regulations are strangling them
and keeping them on the sidelines, hurting the economy and hurting job
creation.
My point is the Framers of our Constitution understood it is
important to have vigorous debate on the differences of opinion each of
us bring in representing our various States. The Constitution makes the
point, in Article I, Section 1, that ``all legislative Powers herein
granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall
consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.''
I ask the majority leader, if the Constitution vests all legislative
authority in the Senate and the House, what happens when half of the
Senate is shut down and denied an opportunity to participate in the
legislative process?
The Constitution goes on to state what kind of legislative power is
vested in the Senate and the House. Section 8, Article I of the
Constitution lays out a laundry list of powers the Congress has--the
sorts of things Congress is intended to legislate on. It contains
everything from the ``Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts
and Excises . . . To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization . . . To coin Money . .
. To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and
current Coin of the United States; To establish Post Offices and post
Roads; To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts . . . To
constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court.''
The list goes on and on. Of course, finally, the last phrase in
Article I, Section 8 is laying out the power of the Congress to
legislate, where it says, ``To make all Laws which shall be necessary
and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all
other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the
United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.''
So I ask the majority leader: If the Constitution grants the Congress
the power to legislate and specifies all of the things we are supposed
to legislate on and do as the elected representatives of our various
States, what happens when we are shut out of the process, when we are
denied an opportunity to represent the people who elected us to office,
who have entrusted us with a sacred responsibility and a stewardship?
It is beyond outrageous. It is beyond outrageous for the majority
leader to make the remarks he made this morning that I previously
quoted because he knows they are not true. He knows they are not
factual. The Constitution itself guarantees my constituents, all 26
million of them, the rights laid out in the Constitution in Article I.
When
[[Page S2747]]
they vote for a U.S. Senator, they are entitled to have their Senator
participate in the legislative process. We are not guaranteed the right
to win these votes, but we are given the responsibility and the
privilege of representing them in this place, and we cannot do it when
the majority leader runs this place like a dictator.
We are debating--supposedly--an energy efficiency bill. As I said, it
is the first time we have had an energy debate on the floor since 2007.
There are a lot of very good ideas that have been offered to improve
the underlying piece of legislation. I have no doubt the underlying
legislation would pass. It will pass, if the majority leader allows us
an opportunity to offer and debate our proposals for improving the
underlying bill, but if he is going to shut us out of the process and
deny the people I represent a voice and an opportunity to improve this
piece of legislation, we are not going to cooperate.
The majority leader keeps saying no to amendments, and he denigrates
our right on behalf of our constituents to offer amendments and to get
votes on those amendments. I know I have come to the floor before, as
other Members have come to the floor, and tried to speak on this topic.
I know sometimes this sounds as though it is all just about process. It
is about process. How boring could that be. It is important because in
essence the majority leader has imposed a gag rule on the minority in
the Senate, a gag rule in the world's greatest deliberative body--no
more.
I don't know what the majority leader is afraid of. Is he afraid of a
vote on the Keystone XL Pipeline? I think I saw a poll the other day
that said roughly 61 percent of the respondents to that poll thought
this was a good idea, that we get more of our energy from a friendly
source, such as the nation of Canada, and rather than having to
transport all of it in tank cars on trains that occasionally crash and
cause a lot of damage, it might be better to build this pipeline so we
could safely transport that oil from Canada down to refineries in my
State, where it could be converted into gasoline, aviation fuel, and
the like, and in the process create an awful lot of jobs.
Sixty-one percent, according to that poll I read, said they thought
that was a pretty good idea. Yet the majority leader will not even
allow a vote on that amendment. He will not allow a vote on minority
amendments. He will not allow a vote on Democratic amendments. I bet my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle must be frustrated, indeed,
because they have been denied an opportunity to participate in this
process, too, thanks to the autocratic powers being exercised by the
majority leader.
Here is another idea this side of the aisle had for an amendment we
would like to get some debate and a vote on. We are not asking to win.
We can do the math. We know we are in the minority. But these are
important topics. Vladimir Putin invades Crimea, the Russian Army is
building up in the Ukraine and causing havoc in that country, and it
looks like he is not going to stop. The President said we are going to
make sure there is a cost imposed as a result of Vladimir Putin's
invasion of Ukraine, so we are going to impose a number of sanctions.
The fact is, as my colleague from Arizona, the senior Senator from
Arizona, has said, Russia is a gas station posing as a country. I think
that is a pretty humorous way of saying the energy Russia produces and
transmits to Ukraine and Europe is its main source of economic power
and revenue. If we could undermine that by exporting more energy from
the United States to Europe, that would dissuade Vladimir Putin,
perhaps, in addition to other things we might do, but the majority
leader will not even allow us an opportunity to vote on that issue. By
the way, it will also continue to create more jobs in America.
Here is what the majority leader has done. Since he has been majority
leader, he has basically blocked any opportunity for Republicans to
offer amendments on legislation 84 times--84 times--including 14 times
just this year. He has shut us out. He has imposed the Reid gag rule
and said: I don't care what the Constitution says. I don't care that
you were elected by the people in your State to come here and be their
voice and to offer their ideas on legislation. I don't care. We are not
going to allow it, is what Majority Leader Reid has said 84 times.
Then he has the audacity to impugn our motives this morning, to
insult the job we are trying to do to represent our constituents. He
calls that a filibuster. George Orwell wrote a book called ``Nineteen
Eighty-Four,'' where he talked about how people can twist the ordinary
understanding of the English language in a way that is very dangerous.
But I would suggest that no definition of filibuster could be derived
from the fact the majority leader has imposed his gag rule, has shut us
out of the legislative process, and denied us the opportunity to do
what the Constitution guarantees. He calls that a filibuster? Give me a
break.
So the majority leader comes to the floor this morning and says: If
you are watching C-SPAN or if you happen to be visiting the Capitol and
are in the gallery, all you are going to see are quorum calls. You are
going to hear nothing but crickets on the Senate floor because there is
not going to be anything happening there.
The reason that is true, in large part, is because he has shut down
the process. He has denied us a voice. He has denied us an opportunity
to participate in the legislative process the Constitution talks about
in the provisions I just read.
I am probably not going to persuade Majority Leader Reid about the
error of his ways because I don't think he cares. I don't think he
cares. It is not going to affect whether he is reelected in Nevada,
perhaps, and there is nothing the minority can do, given the fact the
majority leader has extraordinary power under the Senate rules and
under the precedent of the Senate. He can get away with it, if the
Senate allows it, if the public allows it. But that is why it is
important to come to the Senate floor and expose this fraud for what it
is. It is a fraud.
The majority leader is trying to deceive the American people into
thinking that by speaking out against this gag rule we somehow are an
obstacle to passing legislation. We have certain responsibilities to
the people who sent us, and that responsibility does not include
sitting down and shutting up when we are being run over by a freight
train by the name of Senator Harry Reid. It is outrageous. It is
outrageous.
Thanks to the majority leader we likely will not have any amendments
on this piece of legislation. I think at last count there were roughly
30 ideas we had that we would like to offer amendments on. We have even
proposed to Majority Leader Reid that we would take those 30 or 40
amendments and talk among ourselves and maybe we can reduce those to 5
or so relevant amendments--items that have to do with energy, with
jobs, with national security. His answer is, no, forget it.
Instead of accepting responsibility for his decision, he blames us
for filibustering. What does he expect us to do? To be quiet? To sit in
our offices while he runs this railroad that used to be known as the
world's greatest deliberative body, runs over our rights and the rights
of the people we represent? Well, we are not going to sit down and shut
up. We are not.
Back in my younger days I used to be a practicing lawyer. I would be
hired by a client to come into court and make an argument on their
behalf, to give them the representation they were entitled to under our
system of justice. I had my argument and the opposing party had their
argument and their lawyers and their witnesses, and they came in and
presented it before a jury of either 6 people or 12 people, depending
on the court you were in, and we would ultimately settle that dispute
between the parties, kind of like the difference of opinion we have
here on how the Senate ought to operate and what business we ought to
be conducting.
In court, when you have a dispute between opposing parties, the judge
and the jury who are impartial will listen to the facts, and the judge
will decide what the law is that applies in that kind of case, and then
you will have a verdict. And that law, with the judgment the judge
signs incorporating those findings of fact by the jury, is how the case
is decided.
How does that work here in the Senate? What is the analogy? The best
analogy I can think of is that we will indeed have a verdict, but it is
going to be by the voters in the midterm elections come November.
[[Page S2748]]
My only conclusion is that the majority leader must be afraid of
having this sort of robust debate because he knows it will expose some
of his members to votes they may have a hard time explaining back home.
There actually may be some accountability, Heaven forbid. So his answer
is to shut down the Senate. It is very sad.
Veterans Administration
Mr. President, with each passing week we are finding out more and
more about institutional failures within the Department of Veterans
Affairs. We recently learned that the Phoenix VA system had a secret
waiting list designed to conceal a massive backlog of delayed
appointments, and that some of the veterans who were put on this secret
waiting list actually died while waiting to get the treatment they
deserved.
Now we are learning that staffers at a VA outpatient clinic in Fort
Collins, CO, were deliberately showing their clerks how to create
fraudulent appointment records. In the meantime, there are still more
than 589,000 VA pension and compensation claims pending nationwide, and
a majority of them are backlogged according to the VA's own criteria,
which is more than 4 months.
Every day it seems as though we learn of a new part of this scandal
because whistleblowers stepped forward and said: Yes, that was
happening where I worked too.
Yesterday, the Austin American-Statesman published a story entitled
``VA employee: Wait list data was manipulated in Austin, San Antonio.''
The story says:
A Department of Veterans Affairs scheduling clerk has
accused VA officials in Austin and San Antonio of
manipulating medical appointment data in an attempt to hide
long wait times to see doctors and psychiatrists, the
American-Statesman has learned.
. . . the 40-year-old VA employee said he and others were
``verbally directed by lead clerks, supervisors, and during
training'' to ensure that wait times at the Austin VA
Outpatient Clinic and the North Central Federal Clinic in San
Antonio were ``as close to zero days as possible.''
The medical support assistant . . . said he and other
clerks achieved that by falsely logging patients' desired
appointment dates to synch with appointment openings. That
made it appear there was little to no wait time, and ideally
less than the department's goal of three months.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Austin American-Statesman, May 6, 2014]
VA Employee: Wait List Data Was Manipulated in Austin, San Antonio
(By Jeremy Schwartz)
A Department of Veterans Affairs scheduling clerk has
accused VA officials in Austin and San Antonio of
manipulating medical appointment data in an attempt to hide
long wait times to see doctors and psychiatrists, the
American-Statesman has learned.
In communications with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel,
a federal investigative body that protects government
whistleblowers, the 40-year-old VA employee said he and
others were ``verbally directed by lead clerks, supervisors,
and during training'' to ensure that wait times at the Austin
VA Outpatient Clinic and the North Central Federal Clinic in
San Antonio were ``as close to zero days as possible.''
The medical support assistant, who is seeking whistleblower
protection and has been advised to remain anonymous by
federal investigators, said he and other clerks achieved that
by falsely logging patients' desired appointment dates to
sync with appointment openings. That made it appear there was
little to no wait time, and ideally less than the
department's goal of 14 days. In reality, the clerk said,
wait times for appointments could be as long as three months.
The claims echo recent allegations that VA officials in
Arizona and Colorado similarly manipulated wait time data or
maintained secret lists to obscure lengthy wait times for
medical care. Three top administrators at the VA medical
center in Phoenix have since been put on leave and the VA's
inspector general is conducting an investigation into an
alleged secret wait list at the facility. A retired doctor at
the Phoenix facility told CNN that more than 40 veterans
there died while waiting for an appointment.
This week, the American Legion, the nation's largest
veterans service organization, called for the resignation of
VA Secretary Eric Shinseki, citing several issues, including
wait times for medical care.
When asked to respond to the allegations, local VA
officials said in a statement they would review their
scheduling practices, but didn't directly address the claims.
``In light of the charges recently made against the Phoenix
VA, (director of the Central Texas Veterans Health Care
System Sallie) Houser-Hanfelder has made it clear she does
not endorse hidden lists of any kind,'' the statement reads.
``To ensure the integrity of the health care system, she has
directed each service chief to certify they have reviewed
each of their sections and scheduling practices to ensure VA
scheduling policies are being followed. All staff who
schedule appointments have also been instructed to have
refresher training to make sure policies are clear and being
followed accurately.''
U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, called for emergency
hearings after learning of the Texas allegations.
``This is yet another deeply troubling account, and I'm
afraid we have not heard the last of gross mismanagement
within the VA and deception by VA bureaucrats,'' Cornyn said
in a statement. ``It is time for urgent steps to be taken
that match the gravity of this situation.''
He also called for Shinseki to step down.
``It is absolutely disgusting to think that another VA
facility would be cooking the books like this, especially in
our own community. The House of Representatives is digging
into these allegations against the VA from every direction
possible and we will get to the bottom of this,'' said U.S.
Rep. John Carter, R-Round Rock.
The Texas clerk said he saw the scheduling manipulation
when he worked at the Austin VA Outpatient Clinic from
December 2012 to December 2013 and when he transferred to the
San Antonio clinic, where he still works. He said he also saw
similar maneuvers at the Waco medical center earlier in 2012.
``If you had any appointments showing over a 14-day waiting
period you were given a report the next day to fix it
immediately,'' said the clerk, a disabled veteran who served
in the Army from 2002 to 2011. Fixing it meant recording the
requested appointment date closer to the available opening,
he added.
The clerk said that scheduling clerks in Austin were also
instructed specifically not to use a VA tool called the
Electronic Waiting List, which is designed to help veterans
waiting for appointments get slots created when other
veterans cancel their appointments.
``The failure to use (the electronic waiting list) may also
pose a substantial and specific danger to public health,
because patients who should be included on the EWL are not
receiving more timely appointments when they become
available,'' according to the clerk's communications with the
Office of Special Counsel.
While the VA's massive backlogs of disability benefits
claims have garnered much attention in recent years,
investigators have also increasingly discovered problems with
access to VA medical care.
In 2012, the VA inspector general found that the department
had vastly overcounted how many veterans were waiting 14 days
or less for a mental health evaluation. While the VA claimed
a 95 percent rate in meeting the two-week target,
investigators found that the real number was 49 percent, with
the remaining 51 percent of patients waiting about 50 days
for an evaluation.
That same year, a scheduling clerk at a VA medical center
in New Hampshire told a Senate committee that staffers there
were instructed to obscure wait times for mental health help
by using a method similar to that described by the Texas
clerk.
``The overriding objective at our facility from top
management on down was to meet our numbers,'' Nick Tolentino
told the committee. ``Performance measures are well intended,
but are linked to executive pay and bonuses and as a result
create incentive to find loopholes that allow facilities to
meet its numbers without actually providing services.''
Last week, the House voted to ban bonuses for VA
executives, a move opposed by VA leadership. Shinseki has
defended the bonus system, saying it is necessary to
``attract and retain the best leaders.''
Rep. Jeff Miller, R-Fla., chairman of the House Committee
on Veterans' Affairs, which is also investigating delays in
VA medical care, blasted the VA on Tuesday for not taking
better advantage of its authority to send patients who are
waiting months for appointments to private medical providers.
``Whether we're talking about allegations of secret lists,
data manipulation or actual lists of interminable waits, the
question VA leaders must answer is `Why isn't the department
using the tools it has been given--fee-based care being one
of them--to ensure veterans receive timely medical care?' ''
he said.
Mr. CORNYN. Scandals such as these confirm the VA lacks safeguards
against official abuses, and it also lacks accountability--the kind of
accountability that would ensure American veterans get the care and
support they need in a timely fashion.
In the wake of the Phoenix revelations--and now, more urgently after
what happened at Fort Collins and now reports of abuses at San Antonio
and Austin, perhaps--I have called on the majority leader to hold
hearings on these scandals, and I reiterate that call today.
I also reiterate my call for VA Secretary Eric Shinseki to resign his
position and to let someone else take on the reforms necessary to get
the VA back on track.
[[Page S2749]]
As I said yesterday, and as the American Legion noted, Secretary
Shinseki is an American patriot who did multiple combat tours in
Vietnam and has devoted his life to serving his Nation. He deserves
nothing but our respect for that service. But, unfortunately, the VA
scandals on his watch have been so numerous and so outrageous that they
demand immediate accountability, and it has become clear to me that
Secretary Shinseki is not the right person for the job.
He has been in charge of the Department more than 5 years. Under his
watch, many of the VA's problems have gotten worse, not better. These
problems call for new leadership and a new direction.
As Dan Dellinger of the American Legion said on Monday:
There needs to be a change, and that change needs to occur
at the top.
I emphasize again the urgency of the situation.
I know the President yesterday was talking about the urgency of
dealing with climate change. I hope the President and Congress would
act with at least the same kind of urgency the President was arguing
for when it comes to climate change, when it comes to our veterans--
some of whom are dying, waiting to get the treatment they are entitled
to.
What the VA needs is full-scale institutional reforms which introduce
much stronger safeguards against administrative abuses and much greater
accountability for senior officials. Because, let's face it, the VA's
problems go well beyond a few rogue health care personnel and
administrators in Phoenix and Fort Collins, CO.
At a time when American veterans are facing enormous physical and
psychological and financial challenges, the Federal Government is
letting them down. Don't take my word for it. According to a recent
survey of war vets from Afghanistan and Iraq:
Nearly 1.5 million of those who served in the wars believe
the needs of their fellow vets are not being met by the
government.
One Iraq veteran--a former Army staff sergeant named Christopher
Steavens--told the survey group he had been trying to get health care
and financial relief for more than a half year, and had yet to hear
back from the VA. They hadn't even gotten back to him and responded. He
said:
When I raised my right hand and said, ``I will support and
defend the Constitution of the United States of America,''
when I gave them everything I could, I expect the same in
return. . . . It's ridiculous that I've been waiting seven
months just to be examined by a doctor--absolutely
ridiculous.
Sergeant Steavens is right. It is ridiculous. But it is more than
that. It is disgraceful, and it dishonors the brave service our men and
women in uniform have given on our behalf. It is past time for us to
get serious about fixing the problem.
Again, to underscore the urgency of these issues, the survey I
mentioned a moment ago found that one out of every two Afghanistan and
Iraq war veterans says they know a fellow servicemember who has
attempted or committed suicide. One out of two knows somebody who has
tried or has successfully committed suicide, and our message to the
veterans is: Just wait. Be quiet. Sit down. Shut up.
It is unacceptable. As I said earlier, Secretary Shinseki is an
American patriot. But after 5 years as head of the Veterans'
Administration, it is time for him to step down and make way for new
leadership.
More important, it is past time for the Veterans' Administration to
start honoring its promise to America's heroes. The status quo is
unacceptable and no one disputes that. The only question is: Are we
going to do something about it? Appointing a new Secretary would be a
good start.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Talwani Nomination
Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, I rise today in support of the
nomination of Indira Talwani to the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts. Ms. Talwani is a brilliant and
accomplished attorney who will make an outstanding addition to our
district court.
She is an American success story. Her parents were immigrants from
India and Germany. If confirmed, she will be the first Asian-American
district court judge in Massachusetts.
She has received honors throughout her career, and her background and
experience unquestionably qualify her for the bench. She will be
someone the people of Massachusetts, of New England, and our whole
country can be proud of.
I believe she will be an objective, unbiased decisionmaker, and that
is exactly what we need for our district court judges. I recommend her
wholeheartedly to the Members of this body.
The Shaheen-Portman energy efficiency bill is going to be considered
here today, and I recommend it to all of the Members of this body
because it is a bill that has been developed across parties in a
bipartisan way--across industries, across labor, across consumer
groups.
This is a bill which on a bipartisan basis is going to lead to
improvement in the building codes of the United States to reduce energy
consumption, increases in the efficiency of industrial equipment to
reduce energy consumption, to increase the energy efficiency of Federal
buildings in our country to reduce energy consumption. None of it is
being done on a mandatory basis. It is all done on a voluntary basis.
That is why we have a consensus here today.
The consensus includes an understanding that this is going to create
190,000 new jobs in our country--from the Shaheen-Portman bill. It will
save consumers $16 billion per year. And it will cut carbon dioxide
going into the atmosphere, polluting our country and our world by the
equivalent of 22 million automobiles per year by the year 2030.
These are benefits that are going to be maximized because we are
going to start working smarter, not harder, just reducing the amount of
energy we consume, reducing the amount of CO2 we send into
the atmosphere, and doing it on a voluntary basis--voluntary.
So let's have a vote here on the Senate floor. Let's just get it
done. Let's agree on what it is that we know is going to help our
country. We know it is going to create more jobs. But the Republicans
say: No, we need a vote on the Keystone Pipeline. We need a vote on
something that is highly controversial, and we demand that vote.
Majority Leader Reid agrees to have a vote on the Keystone Pipeline--
agrees to have a vote on the Keystone Pipeline. How controversial is
that? Well, you are going to take the dirtiest oil in the world, coming
down from Canada, build a pipeline through the United States, bring it
down to Port Arthur, TX, which is a tax-free export zone, and then that
oil is going to be exported out of the United States. Where are the
benefits for the United States in this scenario? We take the
environmental risk, the Canadians get the benefit of having the
dirtiest oil in the world come through that pipeline, and then it is
going to be exported out of the United States.
How do I know it is going to be exported out of the United States?
Because I, as a member of the House of Representatives, had this
amendment over and over brought to the floor of the U.S. House of
Representatives, and every time the American Petroleum Institute
opposed it. Even though they say it is all about North American energy
independence--ha-ha--when you have a vote, every Republican votes to
keep that provision out of the bill so the oil can go out of the United
States. So just stop this about ``energy independence for North
America'' if you don't, as a part of the Keystone Pipeline, accept a
provision where the oil has to stay here. Otherwise, what is the point?
I will tell you what the point is. It is maximizing profit for the oil
industry because they make more money when they sell the oil outside
the United States. American consumers don't get the benefit of it, no.
The world is going to get the benefit of it; the oil industry is; the
Canadians are.
Majority Leader Reid said: We will have a vote on that. We will have
a vote on it.
And then what happens? We come back this week, and the Republicans
say that is not enough. This nice energy efficiency bill is going to be
the vehicle for even more highly controversial issues, which at the end
of the day is all meant to do what? To kill the energy efficiency bill
because it reduces the amount of CO2 that goes into the
atmosphere on a voluntary basis.
How do we know that? Well, we know it because their amendments go
right
[[Page S2750]]
to the heart of what it is that we should all now finally accept. They
want to have a vote and a big debate here that would prevent the
Environmental Protection Agency of the United States of America from
regulating greenhouse gases, from regulating global warming. That is
the debate they want to have. They are saying: No energy efficiency
bill--which everyone agrees on--unless we have a debate on whether our
Environmental Protection Agency can regulate greenhouse gases.
It is 2014. It is 100 degrees in Kansas today. There are hurricanes,
cyclones, the tides are rising, the water is warmer, and the storms are
more intense. It is not just here, it is all across the planet. The
scientists agree that there is global warming. Their amendment would
prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating global
warming pollution. That is what they call something that is reasonable.
We have a bill everyone agrees should pass, but after getting an
agreement that the Keystone Pipeline would be debated, they just
continue on down the pathway.
Yesterday the Obama administration released a third U.S. National
Climate Assessment. From droughts in the West to deluges in the East,
this new report shows that we are becoming the United States of climate
change and that we must act in order to keep our Nation safe and
strong.
Second, they want to attach a provision to massively expand our
exports of natural gas. They want to take the natural gas that is being
drilled for here in the United States and put it on ships and send it
out of our country. The more natural gas we export out of our country,
the higher the prices are going to be for natural gas in our country.
It will be more expensive to generate electricity. It will be more
expensive for manufacturers to make their products in our country. It
will be more expensive for those who want to build natural gas buses
and natural gas trucks to be able to do so.
That is something they want to do--export the natural gas of the
United States to other countries. Does that make any sense? Is that the
kind of noncontroversial discussion we should have at the time we have
an energy efficiency bill that should go through? No, not at all. This
is meant to dynamite the energy efficiency bill. That is what that
amendment is all about.
Then they want to add a rider to the bill as well that will prohibit
the EPA from even considering at any time in the future a price on
carbon--or, for that matter, prohibiting anyone.
These are loaded, highly controversial amendments, all at their heart
denying the reality of how much harm they will do to the United States.
Meanwhile, the Koch brothers smile. They smile because they know it is
all going to accomplish their principal goal: making sure no energy
efficiency bill passes in the Senate this year, no reduction in the
amount of greenhouse gasses we are sending up. That is the agenda. It
is going to be the agenda into the future for the Republican Party. It
has been the agenda.
I look out and I see Republicans who have worked hard to put together
this energy efficiency bill. I praise them for their willingness to
come together on commonsense, reasonable provisions that reduce the
amount of carbon going into the atmosphere on a voluntary basis by
encouraging the creation of 190,000 new jobs in our country that
Democrats and Republicans agree on. And I see this whole process
getting hijacked by the Koch brothers, by the oil industry, by the
natural gas industry that wants us to devolve into a big debate over
science that is now completely and totally consensus not only here but
around the planet.
The planet is running a fever. There are no emergency rooms for
planets. We have to engage in preventive care to avoid the worst, most
catastrophic impact of climate change on this watch we have here in the
Senate. But, no, the process is being hijacked. You can see it here.
They want to torpedo this process so that more oil, more coal, and more
profits for the coal and oil companies become the agenda.
So all I can say, ladies and gentlemen, is that we are at a historic
turning point. The headlines in the newspapers across this country and
across this planet tell the story today: Climate risk growing. That is
the consensus. That is the reality. That is what this energy efficiency
bill is meant to deal with. And what will happen--and we are going to
see it over and over--is we are going to have Member after Member on
the Republican side get up and demand that we have a debate on
something unrelated to this energy efficiency bill where there is a
consensus. They want to take climate science that is a consensus around
the planet and have another huge debate here on it. That is the tragedy
of this.
The green generation, the young people in our country, they know this
is the challenge of this generation. We as a nation have to stand up. A
high percentage of that CO2 in the atmosphere is red, white,
and blue. We cannot preach temperance from a barstool. We cannot tell
the rest of the world ``you must do something'' if we are not doing
something. That is what the bill we should be debating here today would
do on a bipartisan basis: reduce greenhouse gases, create 190,000 jobs,
and do it all on a voluntary basis--too simple, too good, too clearly
consistent with these two objectives of job creation and greenhouse gas
reduction.
So I think what we are seeing is that the conserve in conservative no
longer exists--not with the Koch brothers around. So this is now just
going to be something that short-circuits the legislative process. It
ensures that the energy efficiency bill is collateral damage because of
their insistence on these amendments, when instead we have a chance
this week to say that we are going to move forward on a smart energy
policy; that we will work smarter, not harder; that we should come
together to pass this bill without these giveaways to the oil industry
and to the coal industry so that we can create jobs and save energy.
And I would recommend to my colleagues that is the correct historical
position this Chamber should be in right now.
At this point, Madam President, I yield the back the remainder of my
time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
(The remarks of Mr. Hatch pertaining to the introduction of [S. 2301]
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. HATCH. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, it is my understanding that the Senator
from Missouri Mr. Blunt will be recognized next for 10 minutes or so.
I ask unanimous consent that following the remarks by Senator Blunt,
I be recognized for up to 15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, I thank my good friend from Oklahoma for
ensuring that I have the time to talk for a few minutes about an issue
he and I feel very strongly about; that is, the best use of American
energy and what American energy means to American families.
It seems to me the request our side of the aisle is making is not at
all unreasonable. It has been 7 years since the Senate had a real
debate on energy. The Shaheen-Portman bill creates that opportunity,
but suddenly we were told: This bill is so good already. Why do you
want to continue to talk about ways to make it even better? There are
very few things beyond energy and health care which I can talk about
for a substantial period of time--and I hope to talk about health care
sometime between now and the end of the week. Energy has the same kind
of impact on families that health care has.
The majority leader wants to control every debate every week in the
Senate,
[[Page S2751]]
which means nothing happens. That is not the way the Senate works.
Traditionally, any Member of the Senate can introduce any amendment
they want on any bill at any time. However, that is not the way the
House works. I served in the House. The majority runs the House, and
the Rules Committee in the House is nine in the majority and four in
the minority. It is pretty hard to lose a vote in a 9-to-4 committee. I
think that is why the committee was established that way.
The Senate has never been run that way. Now we have a one-man rules
committee that wants to decide on every bill and every rule which comes
up. This gag rule where Senators can't talk about the topics they want
to discuss is something that didn't used to happen in the Senate, but
it is now a daily and weekly part of the Senate.
We are now at the point where we go to the majority leader and ask:
On the energy bill, could we have five amendments that deal with
energy? That is so far from how the Senate and the Constitution was
designed to be or the Senate practice has been. It is pretty hard to
believe that Senators on the minority are reduced to the point that we
have to go to the majority leader and ask: Mr. Leader, could we have
five amendments that deal with energy?
When the Energy bill was on the floor of the Senate 7 years ago--the
last time the Senate dealt with energy--every Senator could have every
amendment they wanted on anything they wanted to talk about because
that was the Senate. One of the prices we paid for that 6-year term was
we might have to vote on some things we would rather not vote on. Now
we have the 6-year term, but the majority leader doesn't want us to
vote on things that the majority may not want to vote on, and there are
probably people in the minority who don't want to vote either. Not
voting is a pretty safe route apparently politically, but it is not the
best route for the country.
I would like to see a real debate on energy, and one of the issues I
would like to see debated is the amendment I offered to this bill to
have a point of order to be sure that at least 60 Senators would have
to approve a carbon tax.
I offered a similar amendment to the budget last year, in 2013, and
52 of my colleagues agreed with me, and we had a majority vote of 53
who said we don't want to have a carbon tax, but if we do have a carbon
tax, it needs to be extraordinary because it affects everybody's
utility bill. It affects everybody's ability to pay that bill. It
affects whether a person has a job with a paycheck that allows them to
pay that bill. Fifty-three of my colleagues, including myself, said we
don't want to do that.
Several people who voted against that amendment in 2013 have had a
hard time explaining why they were against it, so I thought maybe we
would vote on it again. I think we would have more than 53 votes this
time. If we don't vote this time, we are more likely to have a lot more
than 53 votes next time because the American people get it.
For the vast majority of the country, half of the utilities come from
coal. Rules that create a carbon tax--the simple focus of that is coal,
and the focus is fossil fuels generally. The Germans are buying
resources from us because they are abandoning their nuclear facilities
and converting to coal-fired powerplants.
We have a lot of coal and, more importantly, we have a lot of coal-
powered plants. If we could say, let's not use coal, but our utility
facilities work just like they work without having to take millions of
dollars for new investments, that would have a different kind of impact
on families than saying, let's not only not use coal, let's build a new
powerplant everywhere they have a coal powerplant because otherwise the
utility bills will double when we build a new powerplant. When we build
a new powerplant, the utility bill is going to double.
Also, why would we want to have even the access to a policy that
would allow people's utility bills to double? Middle-income families,
low-income families are the hardest impacted by that, especially in
States such as my State, where 80 percent of the utilities come from
coal; but, again, a majority of the utilities come from coal in a
majority of the landmass of the country. Our rates would rise 19
percent in the first year with a carbon tax or the kinds of rules the
regulators are trying to put in place that would have a carbon tax-like
impact, and in the decade after that first year they would double.
One doesn't have to be very smart to multiply a utility bill by two.
If the boss showed someone the utility bill at work, they wouldn't have
to be a genius to multiply that by two, and they wouldn't have to be a
genius to figure out that if the utility bill doubles, the job that
helps them pay their utility bill at home might go away as well.
It would cause significant job loss. It would cause households to pay
more for all of the energy they have. They already pay a lot for
energy. For the 40 million American households that earn less than
$30,000 a year, they already spend more than 20 percent of their income
on energy. Do we want those families to continue to see that bill go up
and every month wonder what they could have less of so they can pay
more for the same utilities, and not because it had to be that way but
because the government decided it wanted it to be that way? The
households that will be the last households to get the new energy-
efficient appliances, the last families to get the new windows and the
better doors and more insulation in the ceiling, those are the families
impacted in a dramatic way. Those are the families who live in houses
where they have to think: Which room can we no longer afford to heat or
no longer afford to cool in the heating and cooling months of the year,
when we will have to close that door and roll up the throw rug and put
it at the base of the door so the heat and cooling no longer impacts
that room? Do we want families to do that so we can have a carbon tax,
so we can have bad energy policies?
We can do a better job by making American energy more affordable and
more accessible, not making it less so.
What is wrong with having that? I heard my friend from Massachusetts
say earlier that we are insisting on a controversial amendment on the
Keystone Pipeline. So what. What is controversial about it? A majority
of us say we are for it. Controversy would mean people must feel
strongly the other way, so they can vote against it.
Let's let the American people know where we stand on these issues.
Are we going to do smart things about more American energy or not? The
energy future of the country is so good that in spite of everything the
government has done to slow it down, it still has been a major economic
driver.
I would like to see us vote on the Keystone Pipeline. I would like to
see us vote on the carbon tax, whether that is a good idea or not. I
would like to see us vote on what kinds of facilities we need to secure
our energy position in the world economy.
There shouldn't be anything wrong with these amendments. Senators
shouldn't be stopped with a gag rule from the majority leader's office
of what we can and cannot talk about. The idea that we can't have
energy amendments on an energy bill should embarrass every single
Senator here and concern everybody we work for. Hopefully, we will be
able to move forward with debate on an energy bill that is actually
about energy.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, let me first say to my good friend from
Missouri, I plan to talk about energy, the very thing he is talking
about. If we go back and look logically, if we are dependent upon
fossil fuels for 75 percent of our ability to run this machine called
America, and we extract that, what is going to happen? I think we all
know what is going to happen and I think people need to be forewarned.
I am going to tee this up by talking a little bit about President
Obama's climate assessment meeting he had yesterday. All of these
people were talking about the world coming to an end, the report he
came out with--let me, first of all, ask unanimous consent that at the
conclusion of my remarks, the Senator from Delaware be recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. The whole idea in this report by design is to spark fear
in the American people so they will go along with the administration in
implementing their policies that will kill
[[Page S2752]]
fossil fuels and leave us with nothing but a broken economy. When I say
broken economy, if, in fact--and no one would refute this--we are
dependent upon fossil fuels--coal, oil, and gas--for 75 percent of the
energy to run America, then what is going to happen to our economy if
we extract 75 percent? I think we all know logically what is going to
happen.
In the words of White House counselor John Podesta this morning:
``The American public doesn't feel that sense of urgency about the
impacts of climate change and I think this report will help influence
that.'' That is nothing but an admission. The whole reason for this
report is to try to resurrect the issue of global warming. We heard my
good friend from Massachusetts talking about that. He is very
knowledgeable, and I will refer to some of his activities in a minute.
But keep in mind, this is John Podesta. It is the same John Podesta
who is representing some of the terrorist regime from Sri Lanka that is
no longer in effect. He is the same one who ran the White House during
the Clinton years. So he comes from a very partisan perspective. But
nonetheless, I appreciate the fact that he is admitting this is the
reason for the climate assessment President Obama did yesterday,
because he wants to try to bring this up again.
I can remember back when the polling showed that global warming was
either the No. 1 or No. 2 of the environmental issues in America. Do we
know where it is now? It is No. 10, according to the last Gallup poll.
So people have forgotten about it. People have caught on. They have
seen the scientists come in and refute all this IPCC stuff that the
United Nations has been putting forth for a long period of time. I
think it is a recognition that people have caught on to this and it is
no longer the issue they want it to be.
Whether it is a drought or a flood, high temperatures, low
temperatures, you can't find a job, you are finding more allergic
reactions, then the White House blames it on global warming. Fear has
always been a tactic the administration and other global warming
alarmists have used to spur people into action. Time and time again,
when the American people learn the details and the costs of the
solutions to global warming that they contend exist, they don't want
anything to do with it--and the costs are enormous.
Congress last debated global warming when my good friend, now Senator
Markey, was in the House of Representatives. It was the Waxman-Markey
cap-and-trade bill. This bill would have cost, according to Charles
River Associates--and I think people recognize them as authentic--
between $300 billion and $400 billion a year. That is the cost. I would
contend this would be the largest tax increase in the history of this
country. That is consistent with other analyses. One was the Wharton
Group and many of the scientists there who were making evaluations came
out with the same thing: between $300 billion and $400 billion a year.
MIT came out with about the same amount of between $300 billion to $400
billion a year. The cost estimate has been the same over the last 15
years since we first started debating this issue. I don't think anyone
is challenging that.
But what is important--and this is kind of in the weeds, but we have
to talk about this: I applaud Senator Markey for at least the levels of
pollution--of emissions, I should say--that come from different sources
that he was wanting to regulate, and that was those with 25,000 tons of
CO2 emissions or more. That would be, quite frankly, the
major emitters, the refineries and all of that. Here is the problem we
have today. It is far worse than the Waxman-Markey bill would have
been, because it wouldn't call for the regulation of just those
entities that emit 25,000 tons or more, but the same as the Clean Air
Act.
The Clean Air Act has a threshold of 250 tons of greenhouse gases a
year. Stop and think about that: If it costs between $300 billion to
$400 billion to regulate the emitters who emit 25,000 tons of
CO2 a year, how much more if we regulate everyone with 250
tons? It has never been calculated. It would be very difficult. But we
are talking about billions and billions of dollars more. So the
regulations are far worse.
The first of these regulations now being developed is the New Source
Performance Standards for newly constructed powerplants. The rule would
essentially make it illegal to build new coal-fired powerplants. That
is what it was designed to do.
The next step would be to take the existing powerplants--those that
are employing hundreds of thousands of people in America today--and
they would be out of a job. So that would go to the refining industry,
and so forth, and establish new regulations for each and every
industry. These greenhouse gas regulations mark the latest attempt by
the EPA to destroy affordable and reliable electricity and energy
supplies that have been the hallmark of our economy for a long period
of time. They are already doing it in other areas too. It is not just
regulating the greenhouse gas emissions or CO2 emissions; it
is other regulations that are unbearable.
This one right here--they are talking about changing the ocean
regulation. This chart is an interesting one because this shows that
virtually every county in America would be out of attainment with their
new goals. In my State of Oklahoma, we have 77 counties. All 77
counties would be out of attainment if they are able to do that.
In 2011, the EPA finalized its utility MACT. By the way, that stands
for maximum achievable control technology. That is what we are talking
about. So they passed this. Now it is passed. It is history now. They
finalized utility MACT with a rule that costs over $100 million and
would result in 1.65 million lost jobs.
The EPA put this rule out without even considering the cost of it,
saying it wasn't required to do so. In other words, the law does not
say they are required to say what it costs. I take issue with that.
They estimated the rule would result in the retirement of less than
10,000 megawatts of electricity generation, but today we know the power
companies around the country have announced the retirements totaling
more than 50,000. So they are off by 500 percent. Fifty thousand
megawatts in direct response to the EPA regulation.
By the way, when we had the utility MACT, I filed a CRA, and this is
something I want to make sure people are aware of, and certainly my
colleagues and friends on the other side of the aisle. On all of these
regulations, when they reach the point where the regulation is final--
and we know for a fact it is going to cost dollars and it is going to
cost jobs--I am going to file a CRA. A CRA is a Congressional Review
Act. A CRA provides that if there is a regulation--and I hear so often
my colleagues in the Senate will say to their constituents, Don't blame
me for these regulations because that is the regulatory--that is the
EPA and other regulators doing it. But a CRA forces them to take an
issue. So all one has to do is find 30 people in the Senate, have them
sign a CRA, file the CRA, and then it is simply a simple majority--51.
In the case of this utility MACT, I only lacked three votes for
stopping that rule. So we anticipate that we are going to be able to
stop a lot of these rules.
In about 10 days, the EPA is poised to propose another new rule, the
316(b) cooling water intake rule. This rule is designed to protect fish
from being caught and killed in nets designed to prevent them from
entering powerplant systems. While the rule doesn't have any human
health benefits, it is expected to cost industry over $100 billion in
compliance costs, which, of course, will be passed on to everyone in
America who ends up paying these bills.
The North American Electric Reliability Corporation, which is called
NERC, has warned that this rule will have a far worse impact on
electricity affordability and reliability than the utility MACT did. We
know it will.
In fact, the FERC Commissioner recently said that because of EPA's
rules, the United States is likely to see rolling electricity blackouts
over the summer months in the next few years as demand for electricity
outstrips the supply remaining after all of the powerplant shutdowns
that are slated to occur in response to EPA's rules.
The EPA has been systematically distorting the true cost of its
regulations for years, and I have been raising this as an issue for
some time now, but it has been very difficult to air them out before
the entire Senate simply because at this point the sole goal of the
[[Page S2753]]
Democrats seems to be to protect their majority.
If we look at this chart, this was prior to the 2012 election. What
we found they were doing, prior to the 2012 election, was postponing
many of these very onerous regulations because they knew we would be
doing a CRA and the public would know who is responsible for these.
They had postponed this. This is a report I put out in October 2012,
and that was to try to force the administration to not wait until after
the election to come out with their rules. That is what they did.
They are doing it again. Last week I released documents revealing
that the EPA intentionally delayed the release of its greenhouse gas
new source performance standards--that is the NSPS--by 66 days in order
to avoid it being finalized before the midterm elections--the same
thing as 2012.
I also sent a letter to Gina McCarthy, who is the Director of the
Environmental Protection Agency, asking why the rule was delayed,
especially when she had previously told me it was the result of a
blacklog in the Federal Register. In other words, she was saying: The
Federal Register did not post this rule until 66 days after we gave it
to them. We checked with the Federal Register, and they said that is
absolutely false. They have an immediate turnaround for these rules.
So now I am waiting for a response to that letter. I do not want to
use the ``L'' word. I know there is a lot of pressure put on the
employees and certainly the Director of the EPA to try to minimize what
the public feels is going to be the cost of these regulations.
Had the EPA stuck with its original timeline of finalizing this rule
by September 20 of this year, then I would have been able to work with
my colleagues to force a Congressional Review Act vote to overturn the
rule just weeks before the election. Then people would know the cost of
these things.
But what we could do right now is vote on a few of the amendments.
Our Senator from Missouri was talking about these amendments. We have a
bill that is coming up. We have amendments that should be considered--
all having to do with energy, so they are all appropriate amendments to
offer, as he articulated for about 10 minutes a few minutes ago.
I have some amendments that would do this. He mentioned one of them
that he and I are together on. But one of my amendments is amendment
No. 2977, entitled the ``Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2014.'' It simply
prohibits the EPA from promulgating any greenhouse gas emissions
regulations to combat climate change because they are denying this is
the reason they are doing it. Of course we know what has happened to
the science they are relying on through the United Nations that has now
been refuted.
The second amendment I have is amendment No. 2979. It would prevent
the EPA from issuing any new Clean Air Act regulations--such as those
on climate change--until it complies with section 321(a) of the Clean
Air Act. Let's keep in mind, this is the Clean Air Act, as shown on
this chart. We are talking about decades ago. This is what the
Environmental Protection Agency is supposed to do:
The Administrator shall conduct continuing evaluations of
potential loss or shifts of employment which may result from
the administration or enforcement of the provision of this
chapter. . . .
It is saying they are supposed to already tell the public what the
cost is in terms of jobs and money. That is the law, but they are not
obeying the law. So I have an amendment that puts teeth in it and says
you cannot have any new rules until you comply with section 321(a) of
the Clean Air Act. Very reasonable, and it is the law today.
Unfortunately, the EPA is not interested in doing this. With the
Utility MACT rule, it completely dismissed the rule's cost and did not
consider it when putting out the rule.
The EPA acted in contradiction to Supreme Court precedents that
decisionmakers are required to ``weigh advantages against
disadvantages, and disadvantages can be seen in terms of costs.'' That
is the U.S. Supreme Court.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has consumed 15 minutes.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given
5 more minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. I have to get to the last part. Rather than to face these
issues head-on, I am going to share something that happened last year
and then again this year. There is a very wealthy person named Tom
Steyer. Tom Steyer has a mansion that overlooks the Golden Gate Bridge.
He had a fundraiser for Barack Obama last year, raising a lot of money,
but the one I am more concerned about is the fundraiser he had when he
announced--this is just within the last month--Tom Steyer, a very
wealthy person, said he was going to personally donate $50 million and
raise an additional $50 million to try to do two things. One is to
resurrect this whole idea on global warming since the people do not
care about it anymore. As a result of that, we had an all-night vigil.
Remember that? That was right after Tom Steyer made his announcement.
The second thing he is mandating is to kill the Keystone Pipeline.
There is a lot of money out there. The regulatory burdens already being
placed on this country are enormous, and the cost of regulations are,
perhaps arguably, the worst problem facing this country.
Last week the Competitive Enterprise Institute published a major
report calculating the cost of the President's regulations at $1.86
trillion. To put that in perspective, Canada's entire GDP is $1.82
trillion. India's is the same amount. So that is what the cost would
be, according to the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
People know what has happened to the military with this
administration, they know what has happened to energy, but the cost of
these regulations is something that is going to have to be addressed.
Lastly, I would say this. I know there are people out there who
legitimately believe greenhouse gas is causing global warming and the
world is going to come to an end, but I would suggest this: Lisa
Jackson was the Administrator--chosen by Barack Obama--the first
Administrator we had for the EPA. I asked her this question, on the
record, live on TV. I said: Madam Administrator, if we were to pass
bills like the Markey-Waxman bill or regulate by regulation the
CO2 in the United States of America, would this have the
effect of lowering the CO2 emissions worldwide? She said:
No, because that is not where the problem is. It is in China. It is in
India. It is in Mexico.
In other words, if you believe--as I do not believe--but if you
believe CO2 is going to bring about the end of the world,
then even if we do something in this country, it is not going to solve
the problem. Arguably, it would make the problem worse because as we
lose our manufacturing base, they are out seeking electricity and
energy from countries where they do not have any of these regulations,
and that would have the effect of increasing, not decreasing, emissions
of CO2.
With that, I yield the floor and thank my friend for not objecting to
my additional time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Bulletproof Vest Partnership
Mr. COONS. Madam President, our Nation's police officers work
fearlessly and tirelessly every day to protect our families and to keep
our communities safe. As we get ready to honor their service during
National Police Week, the least we can do is stand by them and ensure,
as they are doing their job, they are able to do it as safely as
possible.
Every day more than 1 million law enforcement officers across this
country accept risks to their personal safety. As they leave their
families at dawn and head off to their jobs, they know and their
families know they accept, as a part of their mission of public safety
service, the risk that they may not come home that night.
We owe it to them to do what we can to make that service just a
little bit safer, to ensure that more of them come home safely, week in
and week out, year in and year out. Providing officers with bulletproof
vests is one of the most effective ways we can contribute to that
desired outcome.
I have come to the floor because I share the deep frustration of my
good
[[Page S2754]]
friend Chairman Patrick Leahy over the continued inability of this body
to overcome the objection of one Senator and move forward to renew, on
a bipartisan basis, the Federal Bulletproof Vest Partnership.
Yesterday, Chairman Leahy gave the Senate another opportunity to take
up and reauthorize this partnership through a unanimous consent
request. He is trying to move forward a bill we have already voted out
of the Senate Judiciary Committee on a bipartisan basis. Yet it was
blocked again by objections raised by a colleague, the Senator from
Oklahoma.
For 14 years the Federal Bulletproof Vest Partnership has been an
important way for our Nation to equip local police departments with one
of the most effective ways to keep our officers safe, but this needs to
be a lasting commitment. This needs to be an enduring partnership. As
new officers join, they need to be fitted for new vests. Because vests
wear out and do not last forever, we need to ensure they can be
replaced.
We know bulletproof vests work. Since 1987 bulletproof vests have
saved the lives of more than 3,000 police officers across this country.
I am proud to continue in the tradition of my predecessor, now-Vice
President Joe Biden, in supporting local law enforcement and in
supporting this initiative.
In my home State of Delaware, this partnership has provided our
officers with thousands of vests over the last 14 years, including more
than 3,800 over just the last 5 years.
The Delaware community has, unfortunately, seen up close why these
vests are so important. It was 13 years ago that Dover Police Sergeant
David Spicer was trying to make an arrest--an arrest he successfully
completed--when the suspect with whom he was wrestling pulled out a gun
from a hidden pocket and shot him at close range four times.
As Sergeant Spicer bled out--he lost nearly half the blood in his
body before effecting the arrest--because he was wearing a vest
provided to him through the Federal Bulletproof Vest Partnership his
life was saved.
I was honored to welcome Dover Police Sergeant David Spicer here 2
years ago on a previous effort at reauthorizing this long bipartisan
bill.
More recently--just last February of 2013--at the New Castle County
Courthouse, in my hometown of Wilmington, a gunman unleashed a stream
of bullets into the courthouse lobby, tragically killing two. On what
was a devastating morning in the courthouse lobby, two lives were also
saved--those of Sergeant Michael Manley and Corporal Steve Rinehart--
Capitol Police officers who were wearing bulletproof vests funded in
part through this Federal Bulletproof Vest Partnership.
The very real results of this Federal-State partnership, of this
investment in keeping the men and women of law enforcement safe in the
line of duty, are hard to ignore.
With many police departments at the local level facing shrinking
budgets, this bulletproof vest partnership makes vests, which cost more
than $500 apiece, more affordable, ensuring officers are outfitted with
the most current and effective and appropriate protection possible.
In fact, the program specifically prioritizes smaller departments
that often struggle to afford vests and do not provide vests or require
vests for their officers. It is exactly in these smaller and more rural
agencies and departments where line-of-duty deaths due to gunfire had
historically been high.
This is critical. As a county executive in my previous role in local
government in Delaware, I saw firsthand how officers in smaller
agencies often struggle to have current, up-to-date, and effective
bulletproof vests.
In addition, this is a program that is a 50-50 match with Federal and
local money. How could anyone oppose this program that saves thousands
of police officers' lives, that extends the reach of the Federal-State
partnership in keeping our communities safer, and that is such a wise
investment in saving lives that matters so much to our communities?
A colleague objected yesterday, has objected before, and will object
again. I am reminded of so many times when a bipartisan bill comes to
this floor and dies due to objection after objection after objection,
and at times I struggle to understand the rationale. In his objection
yesterday, my colleague raised an argument that somehow this program,
which promotes public safety, does not fit within the authority granted
to Congress under the Constitution, that it is not part of the
enumerated powers of Congress.
I disagree. Whether you ascribe to the narrow Madisonian view of the
general welfare clause in the Constitution or follow an expansive or
Hamiltonian view--as our Supreme Court has done since 1937, when they
affirmed the constitutionality of the Social Security Act in Helvering
v. Davis--this is not a close call.
If providing Federal-State partnership money for bulletproof vests
goes beyond the enumerated powers of this Congress, what does that mean
for public health, for investments in partnerships with State public
health agencies to prevent pandemics and flus? What does this mean for
the Interstate Highway System? What does this mean for hundreds of
different partnerships where, in a cost-effective way, we work together
with communities and States all over this country to extend and improve
the general welfare of the people of the United States?
To my colleague's argument today on this floor that this is solely a
State or local responsibility, the reality is that the Bulletproof Vest
Partnership does not replace local action with Federal action. It
ensures a Federal partnership, an investment, to help police
departments struggling to meet the safety needs, the equipment needs of
their officers, to act when they otherwise cannot.
In my view, the partnership is even more important because it is
about more than just handing out dollars and vests. It ensures all
vests are compliant with National Institute of Justice safety
standards. Only the Federal Government has the resources to do that
level of analytical work. It is no more reasonable for us to expect
every State to have their own National Institutes of Health to do
cancer research or for every State to have a National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration.
Having one coordinated national program to ensure that these
bulletproof vests are as effective as possible at saving the lives of
the men and women of law enforcement just makes sense. In my view, the
denial of the Federal role where it is necessary and efficient would
take us back to the Articles of Confederation, a very cramped and
narrow view of the appropriate role of our national government, one
which our forefathers found unworkable two centuries ago.
The truth is plain. Without this program, we leave police officers
without lifesaving vests in the line of fire, in the line of duty. For
us to fail to stand up for them, when they stand up for us each and
every day, I find outrageous. This is the way the world looked before
Chairman Leahy and Republican Senator Campbell created this program
jointly back in 1999.
In that world, before there was a Federal Bulletproof Vest
Partnership, there would today be two more Delaware families without a
hero at their dinner table tonight. Not on my watch. That will not
happen as long as I am here to stand for the men and women of law
enforcement and to promote the Federal role, an appropriate Federal
role, in standing side by side with State and local governments to
provide the equipment the men and women of law enforcement need.
This partnership expired back in 2012. Fortunately, we have been able
to fund it through short-term appropriations. This is a tiny program in
the scope of this Federal Government: $22 million a year. The entire
Federal investment in local law enforcement is less than one-tenth of 1
percent of the entire Federal Government. Yet it enables standards and
leveraging of the type I described that extends the reach of law
enforcement and improves the safety of the men and women who put their
lives on the line for us. Without authorization, this program becomes
unsustainable short term and does not allow us to improve the program
year in and year out. The reauthorization bill that was passed by the
Judiciary Committee this Congress extends the program another 5 years,
ensures its consistency, but makes important reforms to save money, as
well.
It prevents localities from using other Federal grants as their
matching
[[Page S2755]]
funds. It takes action to eliminate the Justice Department's backlogs.
The bill would require agencies using the program to have mandatory
wear policies, and would, for the first time, ensure these lifesaving
vests are fitted appropriately for women, at a time when there are more
and more women in law enforcement and more often at the very front line
of protecting our communities.
This bill is fiscally responsible. Enacting this bill is a moral
responsibility. Police officers work to keep us safe every day.
Congress can and should do the same for them. Congress should be
standing with our law enforcement officers, not standing in their way.
I applaud the persistent leadership of Chairman Leahy and will stand
with him as long as it takes to get this program back on track and
ensure its long-term survival.
While this program had a long history of bipartisan support and
passed out of the Judiciary Committee with a number of Republicans
voting for it, a few of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle
now do not seem to think this investment in officer safety is an
appropriate one for this body and this government to make.
Last year our Nation lost 33 police officers in the line of duty
killed by gunshots. According to the National Law Enforcement Officer's
Memorial Fund, there is some reason to be cheered because this is the
smallest number lost in a year since the 1800s. Those 33 deaths--line-
of-duty deaths of men and women shot to death while protecting their
communities--is 33 too many. We have an opportunity to continue to
provide to State and local law enforcement vests that can save these
and other lives.
We should continue working tirelessly until those numbers come down
to zero. In recent months, I have been proud as this body has come
together across the partisan divide, has passed a budget bill, an
appropriations bill, a farm bill, has begun to deal with some of our
Nation's most urgent needs. But I am distressed by this particular
action, to block even consideration of so small a program with such
important consequences, and it is to me profoundly disheartening. I
call on my colleagues to stop blocking this bill and to allow this body
to debate and to pass this reauthorization that will save lives in law
enforcement this year and every year going forward. We owe them no
less.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BARRASSO. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BARRASSO. I ask unanimous consent to be able to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Health Care
Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I come to the floor to talk once more
about the negative side effects of the President's health care law.
President Obama has been spiking the football over the number of
people who he says have actually signed up for insurance through his
exchanges. He also said that Democrats should forcefully defend and be
proud of the health care law.
He has had nothing to say to the Americans who are seeing their
premiums increase.
This Washington mandate insurance is loaded up with so many specific
mandates that unless you get a massive taxpayer subsidy, it is just not
affordable for many families across this country.
For some people the insurance gets even more expensive, even less
affordable, depending specifically on where you live.
Insurance companies used to base your premiums on a lot of different
factors, like how likely you were to use insurance, and different
things specific to how you would use medical services.
The Obama health care law took away some of that and replaced it with
what they call a community rating. Now there are only a few factors
that can be used to set people's premiums, and where you actually live
is one of those. Your premiums used to be based on you, but now they
are based on your neighbors and how likely your neighbors are to use
their own health insurance. What we are seeing is all across the
country people are paying more specifically because of where they live.
The Associated Press ran a story on this last month. The headline was
``Rural residents confront higher health care costs.''
The Associated Press quoted a rancher in Colorado whose premiums had
jumped 50 percent--to about $1,800 a month. The rancher said:
We've gone from letting the insurance companies use a pre-
existing medical condition to jack up rates, to having a pre-
existing ZIP code being the reason health insurance is
unaffordable.
As this rancher said, ``It's just wrong.''
I agree, so I looked into this, and here is what I found. Some of the
lines are drawn so that people just down the road or even people on
different sides of the street can pay wildly different premiums. These
are people of exactly the same age, and these are people who are buying
the lowest-cost silver plan.
The President likes to talk about income inequality, but the
President has created a new kind of insurance inequality. It is not
only rural areas like where that rancher lives in Colorado.
In Louisiana in one community the premium for the lowest-cost silver
plan in the ObamaCare exchange for a 40-year-old person who doesn't get
a subsidy would be $255 a month. But if you live right across the
street--right across the street--the premium for that same person, same
age, same lowest-cost silver plan, would be $311 a month--22 percent
higher, $56 more a month, just because you live on one side of the
street instead of the other side of the street, under the President's
health care law. That is $672 a year. That was Louisiana.
Now let's take a look at North Carolina, with the same situation. If
you live on that side of the line, if your ranch house or farm house is
over there, it is $263 a month. Just down the road, the other side of
the line, it is $319 a month. Again, it is $56 more a month or $672
more a year for the same individual. All they would have to do is move
from that side to this side and they would either save or pay that much
more. It is 21 percent more expensive on one side than the other.
Is this fair? The Democrats talk about fairness all the time.
Democratic Senators have come to the floor to talk about giving
everybody a fair shot. Do those Democrats who passed this health care
law, who voted for the law, think that in that county in North Carolina
they are getting a fair shot depending on which side of the line they
live? Does the Senator from Louisiana believe that they get this fair
shot on either side of the line? Does President Obama believe that
these people in North Carolina or Louisiana are getting a fair shot?
Why did the Democrats in Washington create a law that penalizes
people based on on which side of the street they live?
Here is another example--Arkansas. Here we have an area, one side of
the line or the other. On this side of the line it is $263 per month
and on this side $294 a month--same age, same situation, no matter
which of side of the line you live on--$31 a month more expensive.
Are those people in Arkansas getting a fair shot from the President's
health care law? For too many people in places such as Colorado,
Louisiana, North Carolina, and Arkansas, the costs of the President's
health care law are unfair and are too high. Sure, there are some
people who are being helped, but there are a lot of people who are
being hurt by the President's health care law, people who are feeling
the negative side effects of the law.
Why don't Democrats admit this? Why don't they admit that the health
care law is not giving people a fair shot?
The President says: Forcefully defend and be proud. Why aren't the
Democrats in this Senate who passed this law coming to the floor to
defend the fact that for millions of people in Arkansas, Louisiana,
North Carolina, Colorado, and all across America, the premiums are too
high. The health care law is too expensive for families, and it is also
too expensive for a lot of employers.
There was an article in the Denver Post last week entitled: ``Health
law
[[Page S2756]]
presents options, challenges for Colorado's small businesses.'' The
article tells the story of a small business in Denver that sells
cardboard boxes.
According to the article, the owner of this business has offered
insurance to his workers for three decades. To get a policy that meets
the new mandates of the President's health care law was going to cost
50 percent more than they had been paying in the past.
The article says, ``About half of small businesses in Colorado are
seeing double-digit premium increases'' because of the law.
Double-digit premium increases are not what Democrats promised from
their health care law, and it is not what the American people wanted.
People wanted something very simple from health care reform. They
wanted better access to quality, affordable care.
Instead, Democrats gave Americans higher costs and unequal treatment.
It is not a fair shot. It is not what American people wanted, what they
needed, and it isn't working.
Americans don't need a law that Democrats voted for without ever
reading it, and it is a law that raises their premiums, a law that
Nancy Pelosi said: Hey, first you have to pass it before you get to
find out what is in it.
Republicans have offered a patient-centered approach that would solve
the biggest problems facing families: the cost of care, access to care,
and ownership of their policies. That means allowing small businesses
to pool resources in order to buy health insurance for their employees.
It means letting people shop for health insurance in other States and
buy what is actually best for them and their families. It means
reforming our medical liability system to give patients fair
compensation for tragic mistakes, while ending junk lawsuits that drive
up health care costs for everyone. It means adequately funding State
high-risk pools that help sick people get insurance without raising
costs for healthier individuals.
These are just a few solutions Republicans have offered, just a few
of the things that we will do to give Americans real health care reform
and a real fair shot--health care reform that gives people the care
they need from a doctor they choose at a lower cost without all the
negative side effects.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. VITTER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 3521
Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I come to the floor to speak about an
issue we should all be concerned about, the State of veterans health
care in our VA hospitals, our VA clinics, our VA system, and around the
country.
I have been concerned about this for some time, working very hard on
getting outpatient clinics built in Louisiana--new ones, expanded ones,
in particular, in Lafayette and Lake Charles.
I am a member of a bipartisan working group on VA backlog issues, and
we have made substantial progress through that bipartisan group. We
have also introduced legislation to deal specifically with that VA
backlog crisis.
As we work on those things, unfortunately, the news out of the VA
gets worse and worse, and the need for real progress on these fronts--
including the community-based clinics I am going to talk about in
Louisiana and elsewhere--that need gets more and more dire.
Think about the recent reports. CNN and others have reported that in
Arizona at least 40 U.S. veterans died--died--waiting for appointments
at the Phoenix VA health care system. Many of these were placed on a
secret waiting list. The secret list was part of an elaborate scheme
designed by the VA managers in Phoenix who were trying to hide the fact
that 1,400 to 1,600 sick veterans were forced to wait months to see a
doctor.
There is an official list that is shared with officials in
Washington. That official list shows that the VA has been providing
timely appointments. The problem is, you don't get on that official
list, in some cases, until you have waited months and months and months
on the secret list that is hidden from Washington, that was hidden from
the world, and that was hidden from outsiders until the news media
broke the story. So 40 of those veterans died waiting for appointments
through this abuse.
In Colorado, USA Today and others reported that clerks at the
Department of Veterans Affairs clinic in Fort Collins were instructed
last year about how to falsify appointment records so it appeared the
small staff of doctors was seeing patients within the agency's goal of
14 days--the exact same abuse, the exact same type of scheme, but
different details. Many of the 6,300 veterans treated at the outpatient
clinic waited months to be seen, but that was hidden through this
scheme.
If the clerical staff had allowed records to reflect that veterans
waited longer than 14 days, they were punished by being placed on the
bad boy list, the report shows. So, again, it is exactly the same fraud
and abuse, the same scheme, designed to hide the real waits that
veterans in these places and in many other places around the country
are subjected to.
We see these horrible abuses. We see these examples with increasing
frequency. It has gotten so bad that the head of the American Legion
and the head of the Concerned Veterans for America on Monday called for
Secretary Shinseki to resign and called for members of his top
leadership to resign with him.
The calls for his resignation came after months of reporting that I
have been talking about--U.S. veterans who have actually died waiting
for care at VA facilities across the country. It came after these
reports about Phoenix. It came after these reports about Colorado.
The heads of these organizations did not rush into a public call for
his resignation. They did not take that lightly. That is virtually and
perhaps completely unprecedented, but they did that on Monday. They
called for the Secretary's resignation. They called for it publicly,
and they called for several of his leadership team to resign with him.
That is how bad it has gotten.
Yet in the midst of this, rather than responding to this crisis in
any way we can, as quickly as we can, we have important matters hung up
on pure politics on the Senate floor. Specifically, I am talking about
my proposal to move forward with 27 community-based clinics around the
country, including the two vital new and expanded community-based
clinics that we need to move on, approve, and build in Louisiana, in
Lafayette and Lake Charles.
These clinics around the country--and particularly the two in
Louisiana, in Lafayette and Lake Charles--have been hung up through one
bureaucratic screw up after another. These should have been built by
now.
First, in terms of our two Louisiana clinics, the VA messed up how
they let out the contract, and that caused them to pull back. It was
their mistake, pure and simple. They have admitted that freely, and it
cost us 1 year in terms of moving forward with those clinics.
After that mistake was corrected--after the loss of 1 year of
waiting--then the CBO decided that they were going to score these
clinics in a completely new way, something they had never done before,
and that caused a ``scoring'' or ``fiscal issue'' with regard to all 27
of the community-based VA clinics around the country that I am talking
about. That further delayed progress.
Finally, after these two major delays, leaders in the House got
together on a bipartisan basis--and I want to commend my Louisiana
colleagues in the House, in particular led by Congressman Boustany and
others--to fix this scoring issue. They put together a reform bill and
they got it approved by the House overwhelmingly, with one dissenting
vote. In today's environment, resolutions to honor Mother Teresa don't
pass the House of Representatives with only one dissenting vote, but
they did that.
So it came over here, and I worked to address some small issues and
objections that existed on the Senate side through a perfecting
amendment which I have at the desk. I worked very hard for weeks to
clear up those objections so we could move forward with this
noncontroversial measure. Because of that, we have the unanimous
support of the Senate--not one single objection to moving forward with
these 27 community-based VA clinics around the
[[Page S2757]]
country. There is not one single objection related to the substance of
that proposal--not one.
The only objection now has been from the distinguished Senator from
Vermont who objects to moving forward with this focused proposal
because the Senate does not agree unanimously or near unanimously with
his much larger bill that encompasses dozens of VA issues. Again, I
have pledged to and I will work with the Senator on those broader
issues. I have been working hard on those issues, including these
clinics, including being an active member of the bipartisan working
group on the VA backlog issue. I will continue to work on that. But the
fact remains his larger bill has substantial opposition. There are
around 46 Senators--excuse me, around 44 Senators who oppose that
larger bill.
In the meantime, I think we should agree on what we can agree on. We
should make progress on what we can make progress on, starting with
these 27 clinics. Veterans have been dying around the country because
of these ridiculous waits and the fraud and abuse involved in hiding
these waits. These 27 community-based clinics will directly help
address veterans who are waiting for months and months in some cases,
waiting for medical treatment. It will directly alleviate that issue in
the communities in 18 States where these clinics will be located. There
is a significant number of communities in a significant number of
States. So let's agree on what we can agree on. Let's make that
significant progress. Let's keep talking and working on the rest.
Last November Senator Sanders seemed to agree with that principle and
that way of moving forward. In talking about another Veterans' Affairs
piece of legislation, he said, on November 19 of last year, ``I'm happy
to tell you that I think that was a concern of his.''--talking about
another of our colleagues--``We got that UC'ed last night.''--unanimous
consent--``So we moved that pretty quickly, and I want to try to do
those things. Where we have agreement, let's move it.''
To repeat from that quote: `` . . . I want to try to do those things.
Where we have agreement, let's move it.''
That is all I am asking for. We are not going to agree on everything
immediately, but we can agree on important things right today, right
this hour, right this minute. We do agree on 27 important community-
based clinics in 18 States around the country, including 2 in
Louisiana--Lafayette and Lake Charles, LA--that Senator Landrieu and I
represent.
I want to try to do those things where we have agreement. Let's move
it. And that can start right this minute in a productive, positive way
with these 27 community-based clinics around the country. So let's
agree on what we can agree on. Let's move on this important clinic
issue.
Leaders of national groups--American Legion, American Vets, DAV,
Paralyzed Veterans of America, and others--think the same. That is why
they wrote a letter on June 10 of last year--June 10 of 2013--saying
these community-based clinics are important. Let's come together, work
together, and move specifically on these community-based clinics. They
are important.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter of
June 10 to which I just referred.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
June 10, 2013.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Senate Majority Leader, Washington, DC.
Hon. John A. Boehner,
Speaker of the House, Washington, DC.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Senate Minority Leader, Washington, DC
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
House Minority Leader, Washington, DC.
Dear Leaders of Congress: We write you, as leaders of
Congress, to urge you to work together to prevent a looming
problem that over the next several years may harm the health
of more than 340,000 wounded, injured and ill veterans in 22
states who will be in need of care provided by the Department
of Veterans Affairs (VA). Without your intervention, these
veterans are in jeopardy of losing that important health
resource.
Since the 1990s, Congress has helped improve VA health care
access and patient satisfaction by authorizing and funding
nearly 900 VA community-based outpatient clinics. These are
important facilities for local, convenient, and cost-
effective primary care for millions of veterans.
Unfortunately, a policy shift by the Congressional Budget
Office (CBO); in 2012 has effectively halted Congressional
authorization of leases for such new clinics. Also, as old
leases expire and need reauthorization in future years, this
CBO decision jeopardizes existing VA-leased health, research
and other facilities.
Last year, CBO announced it would redefine 15 VA-proposed
leases as ``capital'' leases and would treat them as current-
year mandatory obligations, costing more than $1 billion
altogether over a 20-year period. In order to advance these
leases to approval, House budget rules would have forced an
offset to equal the cost of these leases with an unrealistic
Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 reduction in mandatory veterans'
programs. Since no such accommodation could be made in a
single year, and VA had not addressed such an offset in its
FY 2013 budget, the proposed lease authorizations were
dropped from the authorizing bill. These 15 proposed
community facilities are now in limbo, and veterans are not
being served.
This unexpected challenge will not resolve itself absent
action by House and Senate leadership to ensure Congress
continues to authorize leases of local VA community-based
outpatient clinics and other VA facilities when such
approvals are needed. Also the VA warns that over time
numerous existing leases will be expiring. Lack of
reauthorization could result in closures of current clinics.
Newly proposed clinics without lease authorization cannot be
activated. Costs of veterans' VA care will be rising while
they face longer travel and more waiting for needed
treatment, or they may be forced to go without treatment.
Committee leaders with jurisdiction over the VA have
pledged to solve this problem, but no resolution has emerged
since CBO's determination, made nine months ago. Without
leadership intervention, these promised clinics and more in
the future cannot be activated or will be shut down, and
wounded, injured and ill veterans in need will be denied VA
health care.
The CBO's policy must be reversed or otherwise addressed in
consultation with VA and the Office of Management and Budget.
We ask that you take action that results in Congressional
authorization of the 15 clinics still in limbo since 2012,
the additional ones proposed earlier this year in VA's budget
for FY 2014, and in general to find the means to allow VA's
leased facilities to continue to provide flexible, low-cost
VA care to wounded, injured and ill veterans. The current
situation is unacceptable and must be remedied.
We appreciate your support for America's veterans and look
forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Peter S. Gaytan,
Executive Director, The American Legion.
Barry A. Jesinoski,
Executive Director, Washington Headquarters Disabled
American Veterans.
Robert E. Wallace,
Executive Director, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United
States.
Stewart M. Hickey,
National Executive Director, AMVETS.
Homer S. Townsend, Jr.,
Executive Director, Paralyzed Veterans of America.
Mr. VITTER. These groups agree with what Senator Sanders said last
year and they agree with what I am saying today: Let us come together
and move on those things we can agree on, and they specifically wrote
the Senate leadership about these community-based clinics.
That leads to my unanimous consent request, which is to adopt this
spirit of agreeing where we agree, getting things accomplished whenever
and wherever we can, and continuing to work on the rest.
I ask unanimous consent the Veterans' Affairs Committee be discharged
from further consideration of H.R. 3521 and the Senate proceed to its
immediate consideration; that my amendment, which is at the desk, be
agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed
and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. SANDERS. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, let me touch on a few of the points of
my distinguished colleague from Louisiana.
First of all, regarding the allegations against the VA in Phoenix, as
we know, these are very serious allegations, and it is absolutely
appropriate the inspector general do a thorough and independent
investigation of those allegations. As I am sure my colleague from
Louisiana knows, the leadership at Phoenix has rejected those
allegations, saying those are not true. The Secretary of VA has done
what I believe,
[[Page S2758]]
and I would hope my friend from Louisiana believes, is the right thing
to do, which is to do an independent investigation.
I am not a lawyer, but I did learn enough in school to know you don't
find somebody guilty without assessing the evidence. And frankly, just
because CNN says something doesn't always make it the case. So what we
need is a serious independent investigation into the very serious
allegations about Phoenix and any other facility within the VA. I have
said I will hold hearings immediately--more than one hearing, if
necessary--to get to the truth of the matter regarding the VA situation
in Phoenix.
I would also tell my friend that when we talk about the VA, when we
talk about health care in general--and I am sure he would agree with
me--as a nation we have a whole lot of serious problems, don't we? We
have about 30 million people today who have no health insurance at all.
Harvard University estimates about 45,000 people die each year because
they do not get to a doctor when they should, because we are the only
country in the industrialized world that doesn't guarantee health care
to all people.
There was a study that came out recently that indicates that some
200,000 to 400,000 patients a year die in hospitals in America because
of medical errors, in ways that could have been prevented--200,000 to
400,000 people a year. So, yes, as chairman of the Senate Veterans
Committee, I am going to do everything we can do, along with my
colleagues, in a bipartisan way to make sure the veterans of this
country get all of the health care they need, and get the best quality
they can.
This is a very serious issue, and with an independent investigation
taking place in Phoenix now, we are going to get to the truth of that.
When we talk about the VA, as I am sure my colleague from Louisiana
knows, in fiscal year 2013, the VA provided 89.7 million outpatient
visits, and the VA has 236,000 health care appointments every single
day. Today, over 200,000 veterans in 151 medical centers in 900
community-based outreach clinics all over this country are walking into
the VA to get health care. I assure my colleague from Louisiana that
every single day there are problems within the VA. When there are over
200,000 people walking in, there are going to be problems. But I also
assure my friend there are problems in every other medical facility in
America today as well.
I just mentioned the very frightening situation that, according to a
very significant study, we are experiencing between 200,000 and 400,000
patients dying from what are preventable deaths because of hospital
errors all over America. My point about saying that is to say, let's
put the VA within a broader context. If you want to criticize the VA,
fine, I am there with you. You got problems, I will work with you. But
let's not paint a broad brush.
The VA has 151 medical centers, they have 300,000-plus employees--
many of them veterans themselves--and in my view, and in the view of
the veterans community--the veterans associations--the Veterans'
Administration is providing high quality care to the veterans across
this country.
It is not just me. My colleague from Louisiana may have recently read
that an independent customer service survey, done by the American
Customer Satisfaction Index--these are people who assess how people
feel about medical facilities around the country--found that in 2013 an
overall satisfaction rating for the VA was 84 percent for inpatient
care and 82 percent for outpatient care, which in some respects was
higher than for the hospital industry in general.
For the past 10 years, the American Consumer Satisfaction Index has
found a high degree of loyalty to VA among veterans of over 90 percent.
I would suspect my colleague from Louisiana finds--as I have found when
I talk to veterans in Vermont--and he asks them, as I am sure he does,
what do you think about VA health care, veterans will say: You know
what. It is pretty good health care. Is it perfect? No. Are there
problems? Yes. In general, they think it is pretty good health care.
Mr. VITTER. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state his inquiry.
Mr. VITTER. I have a pending unanimous consent request and I would
like to inquire how I proceed to have a ruling on that and, hopefully,
have it passed through the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the
Senator from Louisiana?
Mr. SANDERS. What I am going to do, Madam President, is I am going to
object, and I am going to ask for a unanimous consent request on
legislation that I have offered, and I want to say a word about that.
I want to ask a question of my friend from Louisiana. My colleague
from Louisiana has indicated he wants to work with us. I think I heard
that in his statement today, and I applaud that. I am not quite sure he
has done that yet, but I look forward to working with him and his
staff. I would invite my colleague from Louisiana to come to my office
at a mutually convenient time to see how in fact we can work together.
Will my colleague from Louisiana take me up on that offer, I ask
through the Chair?
Mr. VITTER. Reclaiming my time, or reclaiming the floor, since my
unanimous consent request----
Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I just asked a brief question of my
friend from Louisiana.
Mr. VITTER. Madam President, a point of parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I had a unanimous consent request. It
has been objected to. May I reclaim the floor and reclaim my time? In
doing so, I will be happy to respond to the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The request has not yet formally been objected
to.
Mr. VITTER. I would again ask unanimous consent that the Veterans'
Affairs Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3521
and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that my
amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to; that the bill, as
amended, be read a third time and passed; and that the motion to
reconsider be laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. SANDERS. I do object. And I am going to----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. VITTER. If I may reclaim the floor and reclaim my time, I would
like to respond.
I think it is really unfortunate. As we all agreed to today and in
previous appearances on the floor, there is absolutely no objection on
the merits of this proposal. The only objection from the distinguished
Senator from Vermont is that a far larger bill, which does have
significant opposition--around 44 Members, almost half of the Senate--
people have concerns about that. So if he can't play the game exactly
his way, he is going to take his ball and go home, and he is going to
block 27 community-based clinics on which there is no substantive
objection, on which the leaders of national veterans organizations have
pleaded with leaders of the Senate and House to act in a bipartisan
way.
I am particularly concerned that today what I hear is an even higher
bar that we are going to have to meet to act on these clinics that are
not objected to on their merits.
Previously the Senator from Vermont talked about his far broader
bill. Today he talked about all of health care. Apparently I am going
to have to agree with Senator Sanders about all of health care reform
before we can move forward on these 27 community-based clinics on which
there is no substantive objection.
The Senator from Vermont said he will do everything he can to deal
with these issues. Well, we can do something right here, right now, to
deal with these issues. It is not solving every problem in the world.
It is not solving every problem in health care. It is not solving every
problem in the VA. But it is doing something real and meaningful and
substantial in 27 communities and 18 States. We can move forward with
these community-based clinics. We can try to do those things on which
we have agreement. Let's move it. We can do that. That is all I am
asking. And I think it is really counterproductive to
[[Page S2759]]
take the view that until we agree about all of the VA or about all of
health care or whatever, we are not going to do any of that. I think
that is really sad and counterproductive.
I will keep coming to the floor. I will keep working on this vital
issue. I will keep working on other vital issues. I will keep talking
to the Senator from Vermont about his broader bill. But I have to say
that these scandals in Phoenix and elsewhere don't alleviate my
concerns; they only heighten my concerns about a broader bill that is
going to push many more patients, overnight, into a system that is
obviously broken.
So I will continue working and talking about it all. I will continue
working in the bipartisan working group on the VA backlog. But let's do
what we can do now. Let's start with one step and then two and then
five, and then maybe we can start to jog and then we can start to run.
I think that is the productive path forward.
I urge my colleague to reconsider and let us move forward with these
important clinics.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, unfortunately, I didn't quite hear that
the Senator from Louisiana wanted to work with us. So I will have my
office call his office and see if we can sit down with our staffs and
find out what the Senator's concerns are about the legislation.
It is not Bernie Sanders' legislation. It is not the Veterans'
Committee's legislation. This is legislation supported by the American
Legion, the Disabled American Veterans, the Veterans of Foreign Wars,
the Vietnam Veterans of America, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of
America, and virtually every other veterans organization in America.
In preparation for the discussion I look forward to having with my
colleague from Louisiana, this is not changing the world. This is not
legislation that is going to solve every problem in the world. But it
does do a whole lot to improve the lives of millions of veterans and
their families who are hurting, and I think it is appropriate that we
do that. I want my colleague from Louisiana to be thinking about these
issues and to come into the office and tell me: No, Senator Sanders. I
disagree.
Does he disagree with restoration of full COLA for military retirees?
As he knows, for current people in the military and new people who are
coming in, they are going to get less of a COLA than longstanding
members of the military. Maybe he disagrees; maybe he doesn't. Let's
talk about it.
Does he believe the veterans community--people who go into the VA--
should be entitled to dental care? I don't know about Louisiana, but in
Vermont that is a very serious issue. All over this country veterans
are dealing with rotting teeth, and they can't get that care in VA
facilities right now.
There is widespread support for advanced appropriations for the VA. I
think virtually all the veterans organizations understand that the VA
could do a better job if they had advanced appropriations. I support
it. Many people support it. I don't know if my colleague from Louisiana
supports it. Let's work together, and I will find out.
The next time we come down to the floor and go through this exercise,
we can tell the people what we agree with and what we don't agree with.
On ending the benefits backlog, the truth is that the current VA
Administration--General Shinseki and others--inherited a paper system.
Can you believe that? In the year 2009 the VA benefits system was on
paper--maybe the last remaining system of its size in the world to
still be on paper and not digital. What people at the VA have done--
General Shinseki and others--is they transformed that system from paper
to electronic records. Guess what. The backlog is going down. But that
is not good enough for me. We have language in this bill which will
make sure the backlog continues to go down.
There is an issue I am sure my colleague from Louisiana is very
familiar with: instate tuition. There are veterans from Louisiana who
may want to go to school in Vermont or veterans from Vermont who may
want to go to school in Louisiana, but they can't get instate tuition.
It is a serious problem, and we address it. What does my colleague from
Louisiana feel about that issue?
Then there is extending health care access for recently separated
veterans. As he knows, we have legislation now that extends free health
care to all those who served in Iraq and Afghanistan for 5 years. I
think it should be extended for 10 years. Does he agree or does he not
agree? The veterans community feels very strongly about that issue.
We have high unemployment rates for returning veterans. We want to do
something to expand employment opportunities.
We have the issue of sexual assault--a very serious issue, as we all
know--and we want to make sure the VA is providing excellent-quality
care to those victims of sexual assault.
We have, in my mind, a really tragic problem. The good news is that a
few years ago Congress did the right thing and said to the post-9/11
veterans, those men and women who came home seriously injured: We are
going to pass a caregivers act to give support to your wives or your
sisters or your brothers who are providing often 24/7 care for you--
every single day, long hours--at great stress. We are going to help
you.
But what we didn't do is reach back to the Vietnam-era veterans, the
Korean war veterans, even World War II veterans. There are families
today in which a 70-year-old woman is taking care of her husband who
lost his legs in Vietnam, and day after day, year after year she is
getting virtually no support from the government.
This legislation has the strong support of the Paralyzed Veterans of
America and many other organizations that say we can't ignore those
people. I don't know what my friend from Louisiana feels about this.
Let's talk about it.
Here is the bottom line. The bottom line is, as I have said many
times, I do support the provision the Senator from Louisiana speaks
about. We do need these facilities. But we need a lot more. We need
cooperation and people coming together.
I believe the Senator from Louisiana said there were 44 people who
voted in opposition. He is right. He forgot to mention that there were
56 who voted for this bill, with the support of every veterans
organization in America. One person was absent who would have voted for
it, so 57 voted for it and 44 voted against it. Unfortunately, in the
rules of the Senate, when we have a Republican filibuster, we do need
60 votes. I am looking for three more Republican votes. One of those
votes I would very much appreciate receiving is from the Senator from
Louisiana. That would make me two votes shy. And we think we are making
some progress with some other Republicans who understand that we must
address the serious needs facing the veterans community.
I again extend my request to the Senator from Louisiana to work with
me. But pending that, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed
to Calendar No. 297, S. 1950, with the Sanders amendment, which is at
the desk and is the text of S. 1982, the Comprehensive Veterans Health
and Benefits and Military Retirement Pay Restoration Act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Senator from
Louisiana.
Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I object on behalf of myself and 43
other Senators.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. VITTER. If not for any other reason but because of the
substantive concerns with the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I hear what my colleague from Louisiana
says. I hear that he objects to passing legislation which has the
support of virtually every veterans organization in the country that
represents many millions of veterans. I hear him objecting to
legislation which has the support of 57 Members of the U.S. Senate. I
hear him objecting to what I believe is legislation which has the
support of the vast majority of the American people, who do believe we
should do right by our veterans. It is very easy to send people off to
war; it is a lot harder to take care of them when they come home.
[[Page S2760]]
I would simply say that I look forward to sitting down with my
colleague from Louisiana and other Republican colleagues--and we are
doing that right now but specifically with my colleague from Louisiana,
Senator Vitter--and seeing where we can agree and how we can create
some significant legislation to address the very serious problems
facing the veterans community.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. VITTER. Madam President, just to briefly repeat, I did object on
behalf of myself and 43 other Senators about major provisions in this
bill. I am happy to talk about it. I am happy to work on it. I am happy
to work with Senator Burr, who is the ranking member on the committee,
who has been communicating all these concerns to Senator Sanders and
his staff. But I think that is very different from objecting to a
focused community-based clinic bill that has no objection on the
merits.
I just think it is a shame not to try to do those things where we
have agreement--let's move forward--not to move forward. That would be
moving forward in a substantial way. That would quickly improve the
lives of veterans in 27 communities and in 18 States, including
Lafayette and Lake Charles--communities that certainly Senator Landrieu
and I very much care about and very much want to have their VA issues
addressed in this way.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I simply reiterate my hope that Senator
Vitter would sit down with me, his staff would sit down with my staff,
and we can work out our differences. I have always been willing to
compromise and make changes in the legislation.
But for the veterans of this country who have suffered so much and
who have been hurt so much, we owe them so much, and we have to do
right by them.
Madam President, 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. WARNER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Public Service Recognition Week
Honoring Heidi King, Chuck Bolen, and Brian Stout
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, this week we celebrate Public Service
Recognition Week to honor public servants at all levels of government
for their admirable patriotism and contributions to our country.
We often forget that these public servants at all levels of
government go to work every day with the sole mission to make this
country a better and safer place to live. Day by day, they go about
their work, often receiving little recognition for the great work they
do.
Since 2010, I have come to the Senate floor on occasions to honor
exemplary Federal employees--a tradition that was begun by my friend
Senator Ted Kaufman.
Amongst the list of Federal employees we have honored across the
country are some who serve here on this Senate floor.
Today I want to celebrate Public Service Recognition Week by taking
this opportunity to recognize three federally employed Virginians who
are doing exemplary work behind the scenes to make our government more
effective and keep our fellow citizens safe.
Normally, we would have their photos here in the Chamber, but since
we have three, we are going to recognize them all with this single
poster. Again, these are exemplary Federal employees.
The first is Heidi King, who served as the Director of the Patient
Safety Program Office at the Department of Defense and currently leads
the DOD's Partnership for Patients.
While at DOD, she helped develop a patient safety program which helps
medical professionals eliminate preventable medical errors.
Breakdowns in communication between doctors, nurses, and special care
providers are historically the cause of many tragic medical events such
as surgical errors, prescription mistakes, and hospital-acquired
infections.
To combat this, Heidi coordinated with the Department of Health and
Human Services to bring together more than 100 independent experts in
the medical field. These experts developed a comprehensive training
program for medical professionals to learn about the factors within
their control that commonly contribute to errors.
In 2008, DOD implemented Heidi's program in combat support units in
Iraq. As a result, communication errors decreased 65 percent,
medication and transfusion errors decreased 85 percent, and the rate of
bloodstream infections from catheters also dropped dramatically. Heidi
should be proud of her work, which is directly responsible for the
health of many brave soldiers.
In an effort to spread these best practices, the safety program has
established 11 training centers across the country, where more than
6,200 medical professionals have participated to become master trainers
and instructors. They then return to their health care systems to lead
implementation of the program.
This is the kind of commonsense, cost-effective, yet also lifesaving
program that does not get much recognition but is an example of a
Federal employee going above and beyond the call of duty to help her
fellow Americans and actually help the bottom line.
I would also like to recognize two TSA employees for their heroic
actions that helped save a passenger's life.
While posted at Washington National Airport last month, TSA employee
Chuck Bolen was told that a passenger was in need of immediate
assistance.
As soon as Bolen saw the passenger slumped in the chair, he knew he
did not have a lot of time and was prepared to do whatever was
necessary to keep the passenger alive.
As the man's condition declined rapidly, Bolen sprinted to grab the
nearest AED machine. With help from his colleague Brian Stout, a marine
infantry sergeant who did three combat tours in Iraq and now works for
TSA, they worked together to apply the AED machine. After a single
attempt, the machine advised to begin CPR. Bolen initiated chest
compressions and continued administering the lifesaving action, even
after first responders arrived on the scene.
Thankfully, their quick collaborative actions paid off. While in the
ambulance on the way to the hospital, the man's heart started and
stopped several times, but today he is alive and recovering from triple
bypass surgery.
I hope my colleagues will join me in honoring Heidi King, Chuck
Bolen, and Brian Stout--truly great Virginians but also great civil
servants--and all those who serve at the Department of Defense and the
TSA for their hard work and dedication to our Nation.
While today we have highlighted three, as I mentioned at the outset,
over the last 5 years I have come many times and have highlighted folks
from across Virginia and across the country. As I mentioned, as well,
there are people serving right now on this Senate floor who have
received this kind of attention for their quiet dedication to duty and
making the Senate a more functioning institution.
As we constantly come to the floor and debate the challenges of our
budget and other issues, I think it is very important--while we may
differ about which programs we support and what functions our
government should take on--we never underestimate the enormous value
our Federal employees contribute on a regular basis to the safety,
security, and, quite honestly, the function of our national government.
I hope all my colleagues will join me in recognizing the efforts of
public servants across the country during Public Service Recognition
Week and thank them for the very important work they do every day.
With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schatz). The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. STABENOW. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Student Debt
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to talk about an issue that
impacts tens of millions of people across
[[Page S2761]]
the country and hangs over our entire economy, and that is student
debt.
Borrowers have accumulated over $1.2 trillion in student debt. Think
about that for a minute. That is more than people owe on their credit
cards. Talk about a drag for not only the individual, for their family,
but for the entire economy.
Students in my home State of Michigan are among the most heavily
indebted in the country when they graduate. Frankly, we want them to
get degrees, not debt, when they graduate.
Nearly two-thirds of students in Michigan who graduated in 2012 had
student loan debt, with each student averaging nearly $29,000. So they
walk outside the door--congratulations--take off the cap and gown and
get a $29,000 bill.
This growing mountain of debt represents a threat to our economy and
to the dreams of millions of Americans.
Today too many people are saddled with decades of debt just because
they want a fair shot to go to college and to get ahead in life.
Instead of saving for a house, buying a car or just buying gas or
groceries, millions of people are simply paying student loan payments
month after month, year after year, decade after decade.
I hear from many of my constituents about how they are being crushed
by the burden of student debt. I have seen it in my own extended
family. They write about having $50,000 or $100,000 of debt. If you are
going to medical school, if you are in specialty areas as a grad
student, they have $200,000 or more in debt.
Some of the reforms we have already put in place help some borrowers
by limiting the payments on their Federal loans relative to their
incomes. That is a good thing, but this is not enough, and it doesn't
do anything to help people who have private loans--oftentimes on top of
the loans through the Federal Government. Some of these private loans
carry interest rates like credit cards and are literally driving people
into bankruptcy.
I have constituents who use words such as ``crippling'' or
``catastrophic.'' They talk about anxiety attacks.
One person wrote that because of the high interest rates on his
private loans, ``it is getting to the point where [he] cannot eat
because of [his] student loan payments.''
Another constituent, Thomas, wrote to me that each of his three
children has a combination of Federal and private loans totaling
$75,000 to $110,000--each.
What Thomas wrote to me really sums up the student debt crisis we are
facing and that families across the country are facing:
Loans are designed to give students a chance to go to
college and to obtain high-income jobs. Somehow the interest
they pay has become just another wound for college grads that
have a tough time finding jobs. . . . It will leave grads
with a high risk of default, not being able to pay for their
dreams and not being able to fund their retirement accounts
for many years.
That is crazy. That is just not right, and that is not how it should
work in our country. That is certainly not what we think of when we
think of striving for the American dream. Whether it is the Federal
Government or the big banks, we should not be making a profit off the
backs of students, and that is exactly what is happening.
That is why I am so proud to be fighting alongside Senator Warren and
my other colleagues to address this very urgent and growing problem.
Senator Warren and I fought last year to stop students from getting
stuck with a raw deal. Now we are back at it again this year, and we
are going to keep fighting until we can solve this problem.
Horace Mann once called education ``the great equalizer'' in our
society. Everyone who wants to work hard and go to college in order to
simply have a fair shot in life should not be denied that opportunity.
It shouldn't be the great equalizer on debt. It has to be the great
equalizer on opportunity.
These folks are willing to play by the rules, work hard, and pay back
their loans on time. We have to make sure that the system isn't rigged
against them.
The legislation we have introduced will not only help millions of
Americans, it will also boost our economy by allowing borrowers to
spend their money on a home, a car or just the needs of their families
instead of interest payments. Nobody should have to put off getting
married or starting a family just because of student loans.
We are not just talking only about young people, this bill helps
students of all ages: students in their twenties, thirties, and
beyond--young professionals and parents who have stepped up to help
their children. In fact, the student loan debt has gotten so out of
hand that senior citizens in the country owe tens of billions of
dollars on student loans.
Our bill will help millions of responsible borrowers of all ages in
every State across the country. The Bank On Students Emergency Loan
Refinancing Act is a reasonable commonsense and fiscally responsible
way to address the student loan crisis.
This is simply about giving those who want to go to college a fair
shot to get ahead, making sure that those who already borrowed to get
an education are not being unfairly weighed down by debt just so the
government or the big banks can turn a profit.
I thank Senator Warren for her leadership on this vital issue. This
is about allowing all of those who currently have student loan debt to
be able to refinance--to be able to refinance at a rate actually that
was voted on, 3.68 percent, by colleagues on both sides 1 year ago. It
is not a number that is picked out of the a hat. It will allow people
to exchange an 11 percent or 12 percent on a private loan or a 6
percent, 7 percent or 8 percent interest rate on a public loan for
something that is affordable, that will allow them to take those extra
precious dollars, invest in their future, and the country's future.
That is what this is about. It is very simple, and it is paid for by
what has been commonly called the Buffett rule, which basically says
those who have benefited by the blessings of this country and those who
are the wealthiest among us would contribute a little bit more to make
sure that everybody has a fair shot at getting ahead.
We can't afford for America to be a big-shot economy. We have to make
sure that everyone has a fair shot to make it. Nobody is asking for a
handout; they are asking to work hard. They are asking to know that the
system is not rigged against them.
They are asking to know that they are going to be able to go to
college, get out of college, pay back their student loans at a
reasonable, fair rate, buy a house, get married, have a career, have
children, and go on to have the American dream. That is what this is
about. This needs to get passed as quickly as possible so people know
they are going to have the opportunity to get ahead in America.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. 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. REID. Mr. President, more than a year ago Senators Shaheen and
Portman worked on an energy efficiency bill--a good bill. That was more
than a year ago. That bill was, as I have indicated, good, but during
the past many months, through the energy committee and the work of Ron
Wyden and others, that bill was improved greatly. Ron Wyden was
chairman of that committee at the time, and they did so many good
things with that piece of legislation. We had six cosponsors--three
Democrats and three Republicans.
This bill would create 200,000 jobs, and it would help our Nation's
energy proficiency significantly.
So I moved to proceed to the bill in September, this past September--
and we have been through this a number of times, but I will repeat it
very quickly. We were held up from doing that for a number of reasons,
not the least of which was the junior Senator from Louisiana wanting to
take away the health care for our staffs. That threw a few roadblocks
in the way. So without going into detail, we never got that done.
But Senators Shaheen and Portman, as I have indicated, did not give
up. They worked hard to incorporate 10
[[Page S2762]]
separate bipartisan amendments into this bill. So the bill was good
last September, but it is terrific now.
As a result of that, we improved the number of people who were
willing to support this legislation. We went from 3 and 3 to 7 and 7--
14 cosponsors of this bill. On the Republican side are Senators
Portman, Ayotte, Collins, Hoeven, Isakson, Murkowski, and Wicker. On
the Democratic side are Senators Shaheen, Bennet, Coons, Franken,
Landrieu, Manchin, and Warren. There is a good mix of Senators on both
sides. So we worked very hard to finalize a more bipartisan bill. I
worked with them. I didn't give up. We continued to try to move
forward. We did that, as we did with childcare recently. It was in
March, actually. I have looked for every bipartisan bill we could come
to the floor on. We did it with the childcare bill, as I said, and we
should do it on this bill. That was my anticipation. And we were able
to do it, I thought.
So this Shaheen-Portman bill is a very fine bill. I reached out to
Republican Senators. To be honest, I didn't reach out to them; they
reached out to me. They wanted to work to get this passed. Originally,
the arrangement was, let's just pass this bill as it is.
Right before the Easter recess, I was asked: How about a sense-of-
the-Senate resolution on Keystone?
I said: I don't want to do that. We already have an agreement.
Anyway, we relented and said OK. So I came back after the Easter
recess, and that agreement we had, well, they said: Let's change it. We
no longer want a sense-of-the-Senate resolution; we want a vote on a
freestanding piece of legislation.
I said: We have an agreement.
Anyway, I relented and we had that proposal. So we had that all
worked out. Then we were told there needs to be five more amendments.
So, as I have said before, this has been very hard to do, this shell
game. It can be described in other ways, but it has been very difficult
to pin down the Republicans for anything more than a day or two because
they keep changing their minds.
So here we are, and my offer is this: If Shaheen-Portman passes, with
the seven Republican cosponsors, we will have a freestanding vote
forthwith on Keystone, with whatever time is fair. I have put 3 hours
in the proposal I will make in just a minute, but it doesn't matter--
whatever time they want for a freestanding vote on Keystone, which they
have been wanting to have for a long time.
You get the picture, Mr. President. That is what I think should
happen. It is a good bill, but it is so much better than it was a year
ago. It is a great bill now, not a good bill.
So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be
determined by me after consulting with Senator McConnell, the Senate
proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 368, S. 2262; that there
be no amendments, points of order, or motions in order to the bill
other than budget points of order and applicable motions to waive; that
there be up to 3 hours of debate on the bill equally divided between
the two leaders or their designees; that upon the use or yielding back
of time, the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill; that the
bill be subject to a 60 affirmative-vote threshold; that if the bill is
passed, the Senate proceed to Calendar No. 371, S. 2280, at a time to
be determined by me after consultation with the Republican leader but
no later than Thursday, May 22, 2014--and I will just enter the comment
here that if they want it earlier, they can have it, but that is the
date I have suggested--that there be no amendments, points of order or
motions in order to the bill other than budget points of order and the
applicable motions to waive; that there be up to, again, 3 hours of
debate on the bill equally divided between the two leaders or their
designees; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate
proceed to vote on passage of the bill; that the bill be subject to a
60 affirmative-vote threshold.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, it has
been my position since late last week that it would be appropriate for
the minority--not having had but eight rollcall votes since July--to
have five amendments of our choosing on this bill, and therefore I am
going to propose a counter consent request at this time.
I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate
consideration of Calendar No. 368, S. 2262; that the only amendments in
order be five amendments to be offered by myself or my designee related
to energy policy, with the first amendment being my amendment No. 2982
on saving coal jobs, and with a 60-vote threshold on adoption of each
amendment; that following the disposition of these amendments, the bill
be read a third time and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of the
bill, as amended, if amended.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I incorporate
by reference the statement I made earlier today on this bill and
reluctantly object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard to the request of the
Republican leader.
Is there objection to the original request?
Mr. McCONNELL. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Republican leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, earlier this morning I noted that the
majority leader has refused for 7 years to allow a serious debate on
energy in this Chamber. I said he has tried to stifle the voice of the
American people again this current week as well, at a time when so many
middle-class Americans are suffering from high energy costs, lost jobs,
and stagnant wages in the Obama economy; at a time when global crises
clarify not just the need but the opportunity for America to establish
a greater energy presence overseas that would grow more jobs here at
home; at a time when eastern Kentuckians are suffering a depression,
made so much worse by this administration's elitist war on coal.
Well, Republicans are going to keep fighting. Even if Senate
Democrats would rather pander to the far left and shut down debate,
Republicans are going to keep fighting for the middle class. That is
why we had hoped to offer forward-leaning amendments today which aim
not just to increase energy security but also to improve national
security and economic security for our middle class.
One amendment I had hoped to be able to offer would approve
construction of the Keystone Pipeline, which everyone knows will create
thousands of jobs right away.
One amendment would expedite the export of American energy to our
global allies, which would create more of the jobs we need right here
in the United States.
One amendment would have prevented the administration from moving
forward with its plans to impose a national carbon tax through the back
door, even though Congress already rejected the idea several years ago
and even though we know it would devastate an already suffering middle
class.
There is another amendment too, one I had planned to offer
personally, along with the junior Senator from Louisiana and the senior
Senator from North Dakota. It would halt the administration from moving
forward with new regulations on coal-fired powerplants until the
technology required to comply with the regulations is commercially
viable, which it currently is not.
The Obama administration's extreme regulations would hammer existing
coal facilities too, taking the ax to even more American coal jobs in
the midst of an awful economy. These coal regulations are especially
unfair to the people of my State. We know they would hit Kentuckians
who are already suffering--constituents of mine who just want to put
food on the table and feed their families. Congress needs to do
something to help. That is why I would have offered that amendment
today.
I remind my colleagues that the amendment we had hoped to offer is
almost identical to legislation offered by the Democratic senior
Senator from West Virginia that already passed the House of
Representatives on a bipartisan basis. So there is no excuse not to
pass it here. We hope the Senator from West Virginia and his Democratic
colleagues will stand with us to do just that.
[[Page S2763]]
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I will be very brief.
My friend talks about the left-leaning Senators. Three of the
Democratic Senators who sponsored this legislation could be called
anything but leaning left: Landrieu, Manchin, and Warner. That brings a
smile to anyone's face.
It is a fiction that we haven't had votes to debate energy policy. We
have had trouble having bills because of the obstruction of the
Republicans. But we voted on the Keystone matter before we did the
budget debate where we had over 100 votes. That was last year. So we
debated Keystone last year, we had a vote on it, and we are willing to
have another vote on it.
It is my understanding we are now going to enter into debate on
whatever people want to talk about for the next hour, and I understand
we are going to have a series of votes at 3:45 p.m.
I ask unanimous consent that all remaining time postcloture on the
motion to proceed be yielded back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The question is on agreeing to the motion to proceed.
The motion was agreed to.
____________________