Congressional Record, Volume 160 Issue 87 (Thursday, June 5, 2014)

[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 87 (Thursday, June 5, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3454-S3464]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

NOMINATION OF CAROLYN HESSLER-RADELET TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE PEACE CORPS

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kaine). Under the previous order, the
Senate will proceed to the consideration of the following nomination,
which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read the nomination of Carolyn Hessler-Radelet,
of Virginia, to be Director of the Peace Corps.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I will vote to confirm the President's
nominee for Director of the Peace Corps. However, I want explain why I
objected to any unanimous consent request relating to this nomination
in March and why I have withdrawn my objection. I objected because I
was informed by the Peace Corps inspector general that she was having
difficulty accessing records from the agency. The nominee is the acting
director of the agency. The records relate to sexual assaults reported
by Peace Corps volunteers.
The inspector general is entitled to access these records under the
Inspector General Act and the Kate Puzey Act. Both acts reinforce the
principle that agency operations should be monitored by an independent
and objective inspector general. The Kate Puzey Act requires the agency
to better respond to volunteers who report sexual assault and implement
certain protections for victims of sexual assault. To ensure that these
protections are actually implemented, it also requires the inspector
general to conduct ``a case review of a statistically significant
number of cases'' of sexual assaults reported by volunteers.
However, the agency has gone out of its way to interpret the Kate
Puzey Act as conflicting with the Inspector General Act. In fact, the
agency repeatedly stated that certain provisions of the Kate Puzey Act
override the Inspector General Act. That was never the intent of
Congress. But the Peace Corps withheld most of the information that the
inspector general requested from the agency.
Fortunately, the Peace Corps and the inspector general recently
agreed on a memorandum of understanding, MOU. This MOU was agreed to
only after I placed a hold on the Acting Director's nomination, and
only after I sent three letters to the agency about the dispute, along
with several other Members. Under the MOU, the Peace Corps has agreed
to provide the inspector general with more information than before. For
the time being, the inspector general believes that the MOU will allow
her to carry out her oversight duties.
However, the inspector general has made it clear to me that the MOU
has many shortcomings. Most importantly, the Peace Corps still refuses
to acknowledge the inspector general's legal right to access the
records in question. In addition, the MOU can be terminated by either
party at any time. So the inspector general believes that she would be
back at square one if the parties ever disagree in the future on the
amount of information she needs to independently evaluate how the
agency handled a specific case of sexual assault.
Still, the MOU represents progress. So I am voting in favor of this
nomination. The law says that the inspector general is entitled to full
and timely access to the records in question. So I will monitor this
situation closely. And I will count on the nominee to guide the agency
into full compliance with the law.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and
consent to the nomination of Carolyn Hessler-Radelet, of Virginia, to
be Director of the Peace Corps?
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motions to
reconsider are considered made and laid upon the table, and the
President will be immediately notified of the Senate's actions.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.

The Environment

Mr. ENZI. I rise to talk about the new regulations President Obama
proposed this week that are obviously aimed at the coal industry, but
let's be frank, these regulations go far beyond the President's
campaign to put coal out of business. These regulations target energy
to make it less affordable and less abundant. Once again we are seeing
how consumers, students, and low-income families are getting priced

[[Page S3455]]

out of the economy because of government policy. The more the
government dictates and promotes a one-size-fits-all solution, the more
it hits folks in their pocketbooks.
I don't think I have ever met a single person who said they were
anti-environment. I cannot think of a single person who likes dirty
water or polluted skies, but if we listen to my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle, we would assume Republicans have made it their
life's work to kill the planet. It makes for great sound bites and it
can help rally their base; it does not, however, contribute much to the
discussion at hand or make much of a difference.
Actions have consequences and these proposed regulations will have a
real, tangible, measurable impact on the economy at a time when job
creation should be our focus. The truth is coal powers America. Almost
70 percent of all energy produced in this country came from the ground
and most of it was coal.
Even electric cars are powered by coal, but sadly you won't see that
on a bumper sticker. That is what I call an inconvenient truth. If we
were to shut down our coal facilities for even a single day, I think
even my colleagues from the other side of the aisle would quickly be
calling for these plants to be turned back on.
In my State coal is one of our largest employers. It provides high-
paying jobs to our residents, as it does to folks all across the
country. The revenue from energy production even provides scholarships
for our students to get an education. For our State coal is not just an
energy source, it is a livelihood.
The President may want us to run from coal, but I think we should be
running toward it. George Washington Carver developed over 100 products
from peanuts. Think what we could do with coal if we spent more time
and resources developing our most abundant resource instead of trying
to destroy it. American ingenuity would lead to our next energy
revolution. But that is not happening. Instead, a project that the
University of Wyoming and the private sector were working on to produce
cleaner energy from coal was canceled because of the President's
efforts to kill coal. There is no future in selling the products that
would be developed to enhance coal.
We have to trust American ingenuity. No one likes to sit in the dark,
and I imagine most folks like being able to run their air-conditioner
in the summer. States that rely on coal for their power see an average
of 30 percent lower electricity costs than States that use other fuels.
An increase of that size would be noticed by almost everyone regardless
of political affiliation.
We could learn a thing or two from Germany. They are going back to
coal after experimenting with alternative sources. They realized that
coal is readily available and will help them bring down energy prices.
Incidentally, coal is the only energy source you can stockpile for
emergencies.
The plain fact is that this President is proposing a cap-and-tax
proposal that already failed in Congress. My colleagues then realized
that it is an extremely expensive idea, and the increased costs would
be passed along to consumers, who must pay to use more expensive energy
sources. But the fact that Congress rejected this proposal seems to
have encouraged the administration to yet again sidestep Congress and
implement another costly backdoor regulation. Even some of my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle say they are angry about this
tax imposed on the people without approval from their representatives
in Congress.
I have heard comments about how courageous the President is for
finally going after coal. It is not as if the President ever hid his
disdain for energy that comes from the ground. He has been targeting it
with redtape his entire Presidency. These ideas are purely political
and will have a heavy impact on the economy with little or no
measurable impact on the environment.
The Wall Street Journal pointed out in a recent editorial that
``based on the EPA's own carbon accounting, shutting down every single
coal-fired power plant tomorrow and replacing them with zero-carbon
sources would reduce the Earth's temperature by about one-twentieth of
a degree Fahrenheit in a hundred years.''
Let me repeat that. The Wall Street Journal pointed out in a recent
editorial that ``based on the EPA's own carbon accounting, shutting
down every single coal-fired power plant tomorrow and replacing them
with zero-carbon sources would reduce the Earth's temperature by about
one-twentieth of a degree Fahrenheit in a hundred years.''
When government tries to pick winners and losers in any part of the
market, everyone loses. Just look at how great our health care system
is doing.
If we as a body allow the President to get his way on this
regulation, we will be looking at billions in annual economic losses.
Hundreds of thousands of people will lose their jobs. We will burden
our businesses with billions of dollars in costs, all of which will be
passed on to the consumers in the form of double-digit energy price
increases. If you are elderly, a low-income or even middle-class family
or living on a fixed income, are you willing to pay this energy tax
that won't make a dent in CO2 emissions? I can't imagine you
would be. These new regulations will only succeed in making the
pocketbooks lighter and the country darker.
When we have affordable and abundant energy, America stays
competitive with the rest of the world. Low-cost energy could help
create more than 1 million jobs over the next decade, and it could lure
more investment into American manufacturing. The cost of energy is a
big factor in manufacturing. We all say we need to put people back to
work. Driving up costs to consumers and businesses doesn't seem to
benefit anyone.
I hope my colleagues from the other side of the aisle will join me
today and say enough is enough. The President is proposing to leave a
permanent stain on our economy. We should not be putting people out of
work or driving up energy prices.
I hope every American will call on their representatives to oppose
this President's proposal. It is our constituents who keep us
accountable.
The Republican leader has already introduced legislation to stop this
reckless move by the EPA, and I am proud to join him in that effort.
Our bill is simple. It requires that the President prove that this rule
will not cause job losses, that it will not increase energy rates, and
that it will not hurt our country's economic output. We know the
President's regulations will put America at an economic disadvantage,
but I worry we won't get a vote on this commonsense bill--or even done
as an amendment--and that is a real shame because I think a majority of
this body would support the bill and oppose the President's proposal.
I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.

D-day

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, a momentous occasion is occurring
tomorrow; that is, the 70th anniversary of D-day. Seventy years ago
tomorrow, as the American people slept in their beds, the greatest
naval invasion in history was underway.
On D-day, June 6, 1944, tens of thousands of American soldiers,
sailors, and airmen joined allies from around the free world to begin
what General Eisenhower called a great crusade--one that sought to free
a continent. They came by amphibious landing craft, and I think my
colleague from Louisiana is going to talk more about that in a moment.
They also came by gliders laden with men and materiel and by parachutes
deployed deep behind enemy lines. At beaches called Omaha and Utah and
at the cliffs of Pointe du Hoc, they struck a mortal blow to the Nazi
regime. Thousands would give their lives that day for that noble cause.
Like many in this Chamber, I have seen the American cemetery over
there with rows of white crosses and Stars of David. They are a stark
reminder of the price those brave heroes paid for all of us. These men
did not go into battle alone. General Eisenhower said to the Allied
Expeditionary Force on the eve of the battle, ``The hopes and prayers
of liberty loving people everywhere march with you.'' Eisenhower was
not exaggerating. As word of the invasion spread through the predawn
hours of Tuesday morning, people gathered all over this country in
churches, synagogues, meeting houses, public places

[[Page S3456]]

large and small, to seek God's blessing on men who were even then in
harm's way.
As the battle raged on that day, President Franklin Roosevelt spoke
to the Nation. He did not choose to address the American people with a
speech; instead, he delivered words of prayer by radio address as the
fate of Europe and, indeed, the entire free world hung in the balance.
It is a very powerful prayer, transcending all faiths. It is a prayer
that tells the story of why America fought and makes evident the
sacrifices we were willing to make to see through to victory with God's
help. It is a prayer that speaks to the horrors of war and the beauty
of peace. It is a prayer that captures--perhaps better than anything
else written since--the magnitude of what happened that day as we hit
the beaches of Normandy.
I hope that prayer will never be forgotten, and that is why Senator
Landrieu and I believe that prayer should be added as part of the World
War II monument pursuant to bipartisan legislation we have been working
on for a few years. I previously cosponsored it with Senator Lieberman
and now with Senator Landrieu. It has gone through the Energy Committee
twice with unanimous votes. It is called the World War II Memorial
Prayer Act of 2013. This legislation also passed the House of
Representatives by a significant vote, 286 to 26.
I would like to recite that prayer now with my colleague from
Louisiana. I would like her to begin this prayer. After nearly 70
years, it still has the power to bring us together as a people and
remind us that while we may have differences at times, there are so
many things that do unite us.
Mr. President, I defer to my colleague from Louisiana.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for sharing this
moment with me on the Senate floor and allowing me to work closely with
him to present this bill to the Senate today. He has worked on this for
several years, and I am pleased to join him for any number of reasons.
One thing I wish to mention before I share the reading of this prayer
with him is that the official World War II museum happens to be located
in New Orleans, LA. It was initiated by the great historian Stephen
Ambrose. It has been promoted by an extraordinarily stellar group of
civic and political leaders in our Nation. Former Senator Stevens and
Senator Inouye joined arms together as brothers in the Senate and
helped us to establish this official museum. It is almost complete.
On the eve of D-day, it is particularly striking that the two of us
would be here to remember this prayer and to say to the country that
this prayer, in our view, should be on the memorial here in DC.
I am also hoping, just as a suggestion, that it will be placed
somewhere significantly in this fabulous, extraordinary, beautifully
designed and beautifully executed museum that tells the story of the
war--not how it was won but why it was fought. Why it was fought is the
most important lesson for our country and the people of the world to
know. Some of that is expressed in this prayer. More of that is
expressed in the museum itself.
The Senator from Ohio would want to know that hundreds of citizens
from New Orleans and Louisiana are actually on their way by boat to
Normandy, and, of course, many of our elected officials, including the
President, will be celebrating the 70th anniversary.
The reason this museum is in New Orleans is because the Higgins boats
were actually built in New Orleans, and it is unusual that such a small
city would have contributed so much. Eisenhower himself said that
without these landing craft, we never could have gotten to the Normandy
beach. They were built by an entrepreneur who had a small factory at
the time that then grew, with 43,000 people employed. Men, women,
African-Americans, and disabled workers were all being paid the same.
There is a remarkable story about the boats themselves that landed at
Normandy, but this effort today is about a memorial prayer that I think
we should remember and be reminded of.
I will begin by reciting this prayer which was given by President
Roosevelt, and he asked the American people on that day to join him in
this prayer.
He said:

Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our nation, this day have
set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our
Republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free
a suffering humanity.
Lead them straight and true; give strength to their arms,
stoutness to their hearts, steadfastness in their faith.
They will need Thy blessings. Their road will be long and
hard. For the enemy is strong. He may hurl back our forces.
Success may not come with rushing speed, but we shall return
again and again; and we know that by Thy grace, and by the
righteousness of our cause, our sons will triumph.
They will be sore tried, by night and by day, without
rest--until the victory is won. The darkness will be rent by
noise and flame. Men's souls will be shaken with the
violences of war.
For these men are lately drawn from the ways of peace. They
fight not for the lust of conquest. They fight to end
conquest. They fight to liberate. They fight to let justice
arise, and tolerance and goodwill among all Thy people. They
yearn but for the end of the battle, for their return to the
haven of home. Some will never return. Embrace these, Father,
and receive them, Thy heroic servants, into Thy kingdom.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, the prayer continues:

And for us at home--fathers, mothers, children, wives,
sisters, and brothers of brave men overseas, whose thoughts
and prayers are ever with them--help us, Almighty God, to
rededicate ourselves in renewed faith in Thee in this hour of
great sacrifice.
Many people have urged that I call the nation into a single
day of special prayer. But because the road is long and the
desire is great, I ask that our people devote themselves in a
continuance of prayer. As we rise to each new day, and again
when each day is spent, let words of prayer be on our lips,
invoking Thy help to our efforts.
Give us strength, too--strength in our daily tasks, to
redouble the contributions we make in the physical and the
material support of our armed forces.
And let our hearts be stout, to wait out the long travail,
to bear sorrows that may come, to impart our courage unto our
sons wheresoever they may be.
And, O Lord, give us faith. Give us faith in Thee; faith in
our sons; faith in each other; faith in our united crusade.
Let not the keenness of our spirit ever be dulled. Let not
the impacts of temporary events, of temporal matters of but
fleeting moment--let not these deter us in our unconquerable
purpose.
With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces
of our enemy. Help us to conquer the apostles of greed and
racial arrogances. Lead us to the saving of our country, and
with our sister nations into a world unity that will spell a
sure peace--a peace invulnerable to the schemings of unworthy
men. And a peace that will let all of men live in freedom,
reaping the just rewards of their honest toil.
Thy will be done, almighty God. Amen.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Amen.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, that was the prayer that Franklin
Roosevelt gave on that fateful day. Of course, many of the men who
fought that day have gone on to their eternal reward, and some of them
will mark tomorrow with quiet remembrances with families and friends.
Senator Landrieu has noted that there will be people from Louisiana
going over to the D-day celebrations--it sounds like some by boat--also
from Ohio and from all over the country. Our President will be there.
Some will go there to retrace their steps and to see where they were on
those beaches. Others will go just to see the cemeteries and remember
their fallen comrades. There is a 93-year-old gentleman from Ohio named
Jim Martin. He will be there too. He will be jumping from an airplane
at 93 years old and parachuting onto the same soil he took back from
the Nazis 70 years ago. On behalf of all of us, I wish Jim Godspeed.
There is very little we can add to the legacy they have created for
themselves, but we can honor it and we can remember it, and that is
what this bipartisan legislation is all about. Again, I crafted it
originally with then-Senator Joe Lieberman and now have joined with
Senator Landrieu to introduce it in this Congress. It directs the
Secretary of the Interior to install in the area of the World War II
Memorial a plaque with the inscription of the prayer we have just read.
Last Congress, the House of Representatives passed this legislation
with an overwhelming vote of 386 to 26, and after a hearing on May 29,
they are moving forward with doing so again. Today, on the eve of this
historic anniversary, it is time for the Senate to lead the way toward
enshrining this

[[Page S3457]]

singular moment in the history of our great country.
Senator Landrieu and I intend to call up Calendar No. 339 later this
afternoon, and we hope in doing so we will achieve unanimous consent to
be able to have the Senate proceed to consideration of this
legislation, and then ask unanimous consent for it to be passed by this
body. This is legislation we have worked on carefully. It has gone
through the process of working with the Department of the Interior. We
have ensured that it is consistent not just with the Department of
Interior but also specifically with the Commemorative Works Act. It is
something that, again, has been bipartisan and something that helps to
bring this Congress and this country together during a critical time.
I thank my colleague from Louisiana for working with me. I think it
is an incredibly important opportunity for us, on the eve of the 70th
anniversary, to pass this legislation here in the Senate, thereby doing
something positive for the future by telling them the importance of the
past. This prayer is certainly part of that.
I yield for my colleague from Louisiana.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, let me join my colleague in asking for
unanimous consent for this particular individual bill to pass by
unanimous consent. It would be lovely if we could do this today because
of the timing of our D-day celebration tomorrow. For the information of
our colleagues who have other bills pending that are called lands
bills, we are still working on a smaller package in addition to this.
But we felt that this has such significance and importance and it is so
timely today that it would really be important for us to do this.
So I hope our staffs can clear this on both sides and we can get this
done before close of business today.
I thank the Senator from Ohio.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Louisiana and I
look forward to being back on the floor shortly to propound the
unanimous consent request to pass this legislation and to do so prior
to this momentous 70th anniversary tomorrow.
I yield back my time, and I note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Veterans Care

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I believe every Member of this Senate and
every American understands the very deep debt of gratitude we owe to
the men and women who put their lives on the line to defend this
country. That should not be a political issue. It should not be a
partisan issue. I think all of us have been appalled by what we read
about in Phoenix and in other locations about people manipulating data,
pretending veterans were getting care in a timely manner when that was
not the case.
It is my strong belief, as chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs
Committee, that every veteran in this country is entitled to high-
quality medical care and that they should get that care in a timely
manner. I am going to do everything I can to make that happen.
We live, as everybody knows, in a politically divided country and a
divided Congress. Reaching agreements is not easy and, quite frankly,
does not take place very often in the Senate. Unfortunately, for
whatever reason--without casting blame--it just does not happen. The
American people understand that and are not happy about that. So
reaching a compromise among people who look at the world very
differently is not easy, but in this process, Senator John McCain of
Arizona and I have tried our best to come forward with an agreement. It
is an agreement which I am sure he is not 100 percent happy about and I
can fully assure you I am not 100 percent happy about. I would have
written a very different bill. I thank Senator Harry Reid for his
strong support for this process, and Chuck Schumer, Patty Murray, and
Dick Durbin for pushing this effort forward. I hope we will be back on
the floor to continue the effort to deal with the many unmet needs of
veterans, but right now we have a crisis on our hands and it is
imperative we deal with that crisis.
To my mind, the essence of the crisis is that we have learned in many
parts of this country--not all parts but in many parts of this
country--veterans cannot get the timely care they need. They cannot
walk into a VA facility and within a reasonable period of time get the
treatment they need.
So this bill, in a significant way, begins to address that important
issue. Let me very briefly tell you how it does that.
For a start, there are many locations around the country where we
need new facilities, we need refurbished facilities, we need expanded
facilities. In fact, there are 26 locations in 18 States where that is
the case. This legislation would allow the construction of 26 major
medical facility leases in 18 States around the country. I believe that
will help us in many parts of the country in providing the quality,
timely care our veterans deserve.
In my view, there are areas of the country where we simply do not
have the doctors, the nurses, and the other staff we need to provide
the care our veterans deserve. Many primary care physicians get burned
out by working 12, 14 hours a day. They quit. The turnover rate is too
high. It is my view that the VA, by and large--and this is echoed by
the views of the veterans community itself in independent studies--that
when people get into the VA, the quality of care is good. But I will
tell you, if we do not have the primary care physicians, the other
physicians, the nurses we need to treat veterans, they are not going to
get the care they need.
This legislation will target $500 million in unobligated balances for
the hiring of new VA doctors and nurses. I see that as a significant
step forward.
One of the great embarrassments or shocks that all of us feel is that
within the military we have seen in recent years horrendous accounts of
sexual assault. What this legislation does is say to those women and
men who were sexually assaulted in the military that when they get into
the VA, there is going to be quality care for their needs.
This legislation also touches on a couple of issues that are not
directly related to health care but have overwhelming support in the
House and the Senate.
We have heard from many young veterans who are in college as a result
of the post-9/11 GI bill who right now cannot afford it because they
are not getting instate tuition. This legislation addresses that issue.
I have talked, as I know Senator McCain has, to Gold Star Wives.
These are the women who have lost their husbands in combat who, I think
for not a sensible reason, are unable to take advantage of the post-9/
11 GI bill. They want to get their lives together. They want to be able
to go to college or whatever. This bill addresses that issue.
There is another provision which was strongly supported by Senator
McCain and other Republican leaders--and Senator McCain, I am sure,
will go into it at great length, but essentially what this provision
does is say if someone is 40 miles or farther away from a VA health
care facility--a medical center, a CBOC or whatever it may be--they
will be able to go to the doctor of their choice, under the strict
supervision of the VA.
What this will do is prevent people from, in some cases in very rural
areas--I think this is mostly a bill for people in very rural areas who
now have to travel long distances to get their health care--this will
make their lives easier. This is a 2-year trial project. We will see
how it turns out, but that is in the bill as well.
The last point I wish to make is I do not think there is any
disagreement in the Senate nor among the American people that when we
have incompetent people in the VA or worse--dishonest people in the
VA--they should be removed from their jobs immediately and that the
Secretary of the VA should have the power to get rid of them. I do not
think there is any debate about that.
Where there has been some debate is that in my view those employees
deserve due process. I say that because I

[[Page S3458]]

do not want to see a situation where a new President comes in and for
political reasons fires 400 top executives because they are Democrats
or because they are Republicans or whatever. I do not want to see a
situation where somebody is fired because she is a woman or Black or
Hispanic or maybe gay, and maybe that is the underlying motive and that
person has no course of appeal.
So what we have done is developed a very expedited process in terms
of dismissal. We say if someone is dismissed, they are off the payroll
tomorrow, they are gone, but they are going to have a week to file an
appeal, and the appropriate body will have 3 weeks to rule on their
appeal. I think that makes sense. I think when you think about it, it
does make sense.

There are a few other important provisions. It is important, in my
view, for the Nation to take advantage of the expertise that is out
there in the private sector. How do we develop information technology
for people accessing the VA? We want to do that. We have a commission
that would help us do that. We have another Presidential commission
that will help us with construction, which has been an ongoing problem
in the VA.
That is a brief overview of what is in the legislation. Does it solve
all of the problems facing our veterans? Absolutely not. Should we come
back and continue to deal with this issue? Absolutely. But I think,
given the crises we have right now, this is an important step forward.
I thank Senator McCain. Senator McCain's views on many issues are not
my views. We look at the world differently, but that is what democracy
is about. Our job was to sit down and work out the best agreement. We
did. I think from day one Senator McCain showed absolute good faith in
this, a desire to reach a compromise. I hope he feels I did the same.
We are where we are today.
So with that I yield the floor for Senator McCain and thank him very
much for his efforts.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Presiding Officer.
I would like to say to the Senator from Vermont that I respect a
great deal the work he has done on this legislation. I respect his
commitment and his leadership of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. I
respect the fact that Bernie Sanders is known as a fighter, and it has
been a pleasure to do combat with him.
But I also would like to say that at the end of the day with strongly
held views on different aspects of this issue, we were able to come
together in a way that will help to relieve this terrible tragedy that
seems to have befallen our Nation's veterans. It started in Phoenix,
AZ, as my colleagues know, but it has spread all over the country. It
begins with the terrible story of perhaps 40 veterans having literally
died for lack of care.
I do not need to go through all of the different problems that have
surfaced in the ensuing days since that began, but there should be no
doubt in anyone's mind that we should accept the word of the inspector
general who said these are systemic problems. This is not a scheduling
problem. These are systemic problems that need to be addressed.
Our hope--as we concluded this legislation--was that perhaps we could
put some of our other differences aside that have beset this body and
move forward and address this legislation as quickly as possible and
begin to repair the damage because we have, for all intents and
purposes, in some ways betrayed the brave men and women who were
willing to go out and sacrifice for the well-being and freedom of the
rest of us.
So, again, I say to Senator Sanders, I appreciate his leadership and
I appreciate the fact that we both had to make some very tough
compromises, but I have found in my experience that when tough
compromises are made, usually that is a sign of bipartisanship and a
sign that it is a good piece of legislation. I know that is not the
popular thing to say nowadays in today's political environment, but I
do not believe, if compromises had not been made, that we would be
bringing to the floor of the Senate--and working with the House's
chairman Jeff Miller over there--that we would be doing what we are
introducing today.
I would also like to say a word about two other individuals; that is,
Senator Burr, the ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee,
whom I admire enormously--he has worked tirelessly on behalf of the
veterans and he is a most respected member of our conference--and of
course our most unique treasure, Dr. Tom Coburn, who had been my
nominee to take over the Veterans' Administration, which almost
destroyed a long and beautiful friendship, but Dr. Coburn is the
conscience of our conference. He is the person whom we look up to and
admire the most for his integrity, for his honesty, his intelligence. I
thank both Senator Burr and Dr. Coburn for their enormous work. In some
ways, I am sort of the spokesperson, when they did a great majority of
the work.
As Senator Sanders pointed out, I would like to just cover several
aspects of this legislation and try to explain a little bit why some of
these provisions are there.
Of course, a top priority for me for many years has been to give the
veteran a choice. We ought to give the veteran a choice--the same
choice as people who are Medicare recipients, those who have TRICARE;
that is, the military health care program--where if they are outside of
40 miles from the nearest VA facility, if there is a wait time which is
unacceptable, then they should be able to go to the health care
provider right near their home, not have to get in a van and ride for 2
or 3 hours for routine medical care.
I also want to emphasize what I hope my colleagues understand, that
this is in no way a comment on the Veterans' Administration--I will
leave that to others and other judgments--because there are things done
in the veterans health care system that only the veterans health care
system can handle: PTSD, traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury,
prosthesis, war wounds, that only the VA can do. None of this that we
are saying in any way denigrates or does anything that is
uncomplimentary to the outstanding men and women who work in this
system. We are proud of their work. It is the system that needs to be
fixed. So I do not want anybody who is associated with the Veterans'
Administration to believe we are criticizing them.

We are talking about a system that must be fixed. It is urgent that
it be fixed. Every single day that goes by a veteran is deprived of the
care he or she has earned serving this country is wrong. That is why I
urge my colleagues: If you have amendments, if you think you can make
this bill better, we welcome it. We would be glad to discuss with you
amendments to this legislation. We would be glad, if you know how to
make it better.
But in the meantime, can we sort of pledge that we are committed to
seeing this thing all the way through? I would urge my colleagues to do
that. Again, I know I speak for Senator Sanders when I say: If you have
a way to make this bill, this legislation, better, come on in. But
let's not get hung up on certain other aspects of our differences that
have characterized what most people would view as gridlock in this
body.
I urge my colleagues to look at this compromise. It is a compromise.
If you think you can make it better, we welcome your input. But also,
we would like to have your commitment to seeing this through to the
President's desk. I know that over on the other side of the Capitol
they are working hard on this issue too.
So we bring up, as I mentioned, veterans should have that card. That
veteran should be able to go to a facility of his or her choice.
Accountability. Senator Rubio and others, Congressman Miller and
others, have introduced legislation. Senator Sanders has improved on
it. This calls for the immediate firing--an immediate firing if there
is evidence of work that is not in keeping with the standards we expect
of our employees.
During that period, under appeal, that person will not receive a
salary. That person will have some due process: 7 days to appeal to the
Merit Systems Protection Board and there are 21 days for that Merit
Systems Protection Board to render a final decision. Yes, we should
have, as many of our colleagues want, accountability. But that
accountability also in this proposal allows for due process for someone
to at least have their case heard.

[[Page S3459]]

There is expedited hiring authority for VA doctors and nurses, and
additional authority to hire new providers. There are unobligated funds
out there. We are going to use unobligated funds to hire more doctors
and nurses where they are needed. But I would also point out, in some
cases doctors and nurses have to work harder where they are. Also,
there are now pending, over the years, administration requests for 26
major facility leases to be entered into.
This has been the President's request. This has been a bipartisan
agreement on the need for these facilities. I believe we should proceed
with it. I would also point out to my colleagues, this legislation has
some expenses. But the major expense is to move forward with the
construction of these major medical facilities all over America. In the
view of all, it is necessary.
This improves the access to health care for individuals who are the
victims of military sexual assault. Sexual assault is probably one of
the most vexing issues we face in the military today outside of combat.
We do not know exactly what causes some of this. We do know many times
it is because of a lack of discipline. But there is no doubt this is a
problem in the military that needs to be addressed; otherwise, mothers
and fathers will be not agreeable--in fact reluctant--to have their
sons and daughters serve in the military unless we address this issue
of sexual assault.
There are many efforts going on, in the Defense authorization bill,
in the military, many other areas where we are working on this issue.
But I think this provision in the bill will be very helpful in
attempting to address that issue.
A commission needs to be appointed on scheduling and care. We know
one of the problems is scheduling, and this whole issue of phantom
lists and waiting lists that disappeared. We have to get to the bottom
of it. I think the smartest people in America could help us on that.
There is another commission on capital planning. What are the needs of
our veterans?
One of the things we do know is we have an aging veteran population
from World War II, those who are, God bless them, still with us, Korea
and Vietnam. That is an aging veterans population and requires a
different kind of care than those of Iraq and Afghanistan. To be frank,
a lot of that is geriatric care. To be frank, geriatric care is very
expensive. But we have to understand who this population is and what
their needs are, just as we have to understand the Iraqi and
Afghanistan war veterans and what their needs are.
Very frankly, our planning so far has not been very impressive to me.
We need to have--this is a pure Senator Sanders initiative--a GI bill
tuition, eligibility for surviving spouses of those who died in the
line of duty. It seems to me that is only fair. And a provision also
that in-State tuition will be provided for all veterans at public
colleges and universities.
Again, finally I want to say thank you to Senator Sanders. I also
want to say to my colleagues again: This is not a perfect document. We
are ready to see any changes that we would consider, and perhaps
germane amendments. But I would also hope we could focus our attention
on the bill and the efforts to help our veterans, as opposed to other
issues which seem to be with us on a daily basis.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Warren). The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I thank Senator McCain again. I think
his remarks were right on in terms of describing what is in this
legislation. I support his appeal.
Look, everybody has an issue. Every time a bill comes up, I have my
pet concerns that I could bring forth amendments on, Senator McCain has
his. But what we are appealing to right now is if you have a way to
improve this bill for our veterans, bring forth that amendment. But
please, please, do not bring forward extraneous amendments. Let's focus
on the needs of veterans. Let's not make them political footballs. I
hope very much we can proceed in that direction.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I rise to offer a few words about the
colloquy that just was completed. I often find, when I am on the floor
or presiding, that I feel sorry for the spectators in the Chamber.
Either they are seeing the body not work as well as it should or
sometimes they are watching a lot of silence, depending on when they
are here. But I have been in the chair for the last hour. I think the
spectators have been treated to what the Senate does when we do our
best. First Senators Portman and Landrieu put a bill on the floor
dealing with a commemoration in connection with the 70th anniversary of
D-day, which is tomorrow. It was a bill they are seeking unanimous
consent for. It was a very worthy one.
But, second, I know many of us, all of us in the Chamber, have been
very discouraged about the recent revelations and challenges within the
VA. Many of us feared earlier this week that what we would get in this
discussion were competing proposals or bills that would be partisan,
where each side would fall short of doing what they wanted, and the
veterans would not receive the kind of relief they should get.
What we have seen, with Senator Sanders and Senator McCain putting
this bill on the floor just now, is exactly how this should work for
the veterans, but in the legislative process more generally. So I am
pleased to congratulate my colleagues for taking two different
approaches to this veterans challenge and working it out so a
bipartisan bill can be offered. I think we owe it to the veterans, and
especially in light of these recent challenges, to show a unified face
in trying to fix these problems. I look forward to working with my
colleagues to do so.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I too want to join my colleague from
Virginia in adding accolades to our Senators from Vermont and Arizona
in putting together this proposal. I would like to make a few points
here. First, the veterans should come first. These are people whom we
sent overseas to risk their lives for us. When they come back injured,
nothing should stand in the way of us giving them the best medical care
possible.
Senators McCain and Sanders, of different political philosophies--if
they each had to write their own bill would write different bills--came
together, not for their ideology's sake, not for political advantage,
but for the good of these veterans. That is the highest duty we have
here.
The second point I would make is this: In a body that has been
wracked by partisanship, I was hoping and praying that that
partisanship would not stand in the way of us helping our veterans.
Because of this good work of Vermont and Arizona's Senators, that has
happened. That has happened. We are not home yet. We hope no one will
be so selfish that they feel their own amendment or amendments have to
be voted on if they are extraneous, because that could blow up the
deal. We all know how fragile, even for our veterans, bipartisan
agreements are in this body. This is a higher calling.
I talked at length over the last several days with Senator Sanders. I
know how heartfelt this is for him. As he said: If he wrote his own
bill, he would have done a lot more. But each of us writing a bill and
giving a speech about it is not going to help a single veteran. The way
this body works is, we have to come together. There is no one on the
other side of the aisle, perhaps no one in this Chamber, who better
respects what veterans have gone through than Senator McCain after what
he went through himself as a prisoner of war. He was just the right
person for the chairman of our Veterans Committee, Bernie Sanders, to
reach out to. Because they both cared so much about veterans, they came
together. It is now up to the rest of us, the other 98, to do the same,
to come together, to pass this bill quickly. This does not mean this
will be the last thing we will do for veterans. This is an issue we are
going to have to revisit, given the sickness we have in parts of the
Veterans Administration, given the long waiting lists, given the fact
that while most veterans get very good care in our VA, not every
veteran does. Our goal is to have every veteran get good care in our
VA.
Hopefully this bill will pass. Hopefully maybe this will set a
precedent that we can work together on important issues; we can each
submerge some of our heartfelt feelings that it has to be our way and
reach compromise with the other side. That is

[[Page S3460]]

what Senator Sanders has done. That is what Senator McCain has done. I
salute them for their patriotism, their good sense, and, frankly, their
courage.
I yield the floor and 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.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

EPA Regulations

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I come this afternoon to speak about
the regulations proposed by the administration on Monday relating to
the Environmental Protection Agency. This time the agency's target is a
30-percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from existing
powerplants by the year 2030.
The regulation that has been announced, which has been the subject of
a great deal of conversation this week, should not be confused with EPA
rules for cooling water intake or for proposed powerplants or for
cross-state air pollution or for boilers or for ozone or for
incinerators or for regional haze or for fuel economy or for the waters
of the United States or for renewable fuels or for cement kilns or for
coal ash or for effluent limitations or for any other number of
regulatory actions that the agency has taken or is expected to take.
This rule--and there have been so many of them, it almost feels like
this should be EPA's rule of the week or rule of the month--is a
unilateral effort to bypass Congress and to force into place policies
that we in Congress have not approved. The goal is to push our electric
supply away from coal and, I think, ultimately, away from natural gas
as soon as possible.
As the ranking member on the energy committee, I can attest that
energy is always the flip side of the environmental debate. If we have
a discussion about energy, we always have a discussion about the
environment.
I believe we should advance policies that make our energy abundant,
affordable, clean, diverse, and secure. To that end, our environmental
goals must be balanced with our energy needs.
Because of this, I have for years expressed concern that EPA's
relentless onslaught will harm the affordability and the reliability of
our electric supply. In fact, I even released a white paper on this
matter earlier this year. We still do not have an accurate accounting
of the cumulative costs associated with all of these EPA rules that I
just gave in the laundry list, but we do know not to trust their math
because EPA has dramatically underestimated the powerplant retirements
in very recent past.

I will give you some examples. For the mercury and air toxic rules,
EPA estimated only 4.7 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity retirements by
the year 2015. But then we see the contrast. The labor unions forecast
that MATS alone would result in 55 gigawatts of coal plant retirements
and the loss of some 250,000 jobs. Government experts have determined
that approximately 10 to 20 percent of existing coal capacity could be
retired by the middle of the next decade. This is a calculation that
really dwarfs EPA's number and one that doesn't include the potential
impact of the latest proposal.
Now, I know that the EPA has an important job to do, and I appreciate
that, but I also recognize that it does not and cannot regulate in a
vacuum. Baseload coal and the ancillary services that it provides
account for almost 40 percent of our power. In many instances the EPA's
regulations will render generating units uneconomic, with compliance
requiring retrofitting, the use of best available technology, and
downtime for installation. So I am concerned--greatly concerned--that
the EPA's rules, particularly when you combine them with one another,
will result in a grid that is less stable and less reliable. The
cumulative effect of federal regulations on baseload capacity
resources, whether they are coal or nuclear, which produce electricity
on demand has to be looked at. We have to examine and appreciate the
cumulative effect of this loss of production and not discount or ignore
it.
Many this past winter got a taste of what life in Alaska is like in
the wintertime when we experienced the polar vortex here in the lower
48. The polar vortex caused 50,000 megawatts of powerplant outages. For
one key system 89 percent of the coal capacity that is scheduled for
retirement next year because of an EPA rule was called upon to meet the
rising demand.
So again, just think about that.
We had a tough winter. We had coal-fueled facilities that were able
to step up and provide for that increased demand--89 percent of that
capacity was utilized during this polar vortex. That is fine. But what
happens when those facilities are now offline, when they are in
retirement, when you do not have that backup?
The question we really need to be asking is, What happens when that
capacity is gone? Hoping for a mild winter isn't a viable strategy. You
cannot have a hope-and-prayer energy policy, hoping that the weather is
not going to be so bad. Our Nation relies on installed dispatchable
power generation during extreme weather, which is why we need to ensure
grid reliability through a diversity of baseload capacity.
Today it is unclear how many plants will retrofit to comply with
various EPA regulations--including this most recent one--as opposed to
making a decision to just shut down. It is uncertain if there will be
enough time--to say nothing of sufficient capital available for
investment--to build these new facilities or other forms of generation
needed to ensure the continued reliability of the grid.
I have been talking about grid reliability for a long while now, and
I think it speaks to our system that while we may have been pushed to
the edge of getting nervous, we have been able to meet that reliability
requirement Americans have just come to expect. They want to know that
when they want to have the lights on or keep cool or keep warm, there
is that availability. Reliability is key here. I am even more troubled
that the EPA, which has conceded that a single rule may result in what
they have called a ``localized effect,'' has not sought from our grid
regulators, FERC and NERC, an analysis of the cumulative impact its
rules may have. Understanding the impacts of these rules by checking in
with our grid regulators, FERC and NERC, as part of a formal process is
an important part of what needs to go on. Yet we are not seeing that
follow-through. Instead, EPA appears to be morphing into an industrial
planning agency for the energy sector. That is not what they are
designed to do. This latest rulemaking makes it even more important for
FERC and the Department of Energy to step up, to really go toe-to-toe
here with EPA to protect the reliability and the affordability of our
power supply.
The current chairwoman of FERC, while she has not called for a formal
official role for the commission--as many of us would like--is
certainly up to the task in my view. But with that situation at play
right now within the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, it appears
that the White House doesn't want to keep the acting chair in charge.
Its nominee to serve as chairman is both short on energy experience and
largely unaware of the electricity reliability implications of EPA's
rules.
In response to a hearing question about grid reliability from Senator
Manchin, the nominee conceded that he ``has not been following the
decisional process at EPA closely enough to know.''
I find that response not only disturbing, but I think it raises the
question of whether anyone within the administration is actually
following the EPA process closely enough to know what will happen to
our electric grid. I can tell you that I don't think the EPA knows the
impact for my State of Alaska. The Agency readily admits that its
proposal ``fails to account for the expected costs and benefits for
areas outside of the contiguous United States.''
Alaska is one-fifth the size of the country, and we are part of the
country. But the EPA, in advancing these proposed regulations, admits
that ``we don't know.'' We don't know the cost-benefit for Alaska. We
don't know the cost-benefit for Hawaii. That does not mean that my
State is exempt from this rule as some reports have led Alaskans to
believe. Instead, without the

[[Page S3461]]

benefit of any analysis, EPA has directed Alaska to reduce our
emissions by 26 percent and this while EPA ignores--totally ignores--
the likely inflationary costs and increases inherent in requiring the
revamping of so much power production likely within a single decade.
The EPA has recommended that States work together, work together to
figure out how we are going to make these cuts. But again, when you are
not part of the contiguous United States, it is a little more difficult
for us in Alaska and our neighbors to the south in Hawaii if we are not
part of an interstate electricity grid. Alaska is really in many ways
on its own. Because of our constant need for Federal approvals or at
best Federal cooperation that is too often slow to come, we are not
even able to develop our clean hydropower.

Some may ask: Well, I understand that you have about 25 percent of
your power in the State of Alaska coming from hydro. That is correct.
But because of other Federal policies--whether it is the roadless rule
or other policies--we are truly hamstrung in our ability to build out
more hydro. Based on more than 50 years of delay or broken Federal
promises, there is no guarantee that we will be able to develop fully
our abundant natural gas or even our vast renewable resource potential.
We have challenges and we acknowledge them. We are working on those
challenges. We are working diligently because there is nobody who wants
to get reliable, affordable, clean diverse energy supplies to our State
more honestly and earnestly than myself. But it is challenging. So as
we work towards that transition, we need that flexibility. We need that
time.
Now the EPA has suggested a series of strategies for reducing
greenhouse gas emissions. But of the five powerplants in Alaska that
are directly impacted by this proposed rule, four are natural-gas-fired
plants, and they are located near each other and Anchorage. So in the
whole State of Alaska there are only five plants that are impacted by
this regulation. Everything else is small enough or doesn't sell its
power. So of the five, four of them are already natural gas. The fifth
already has clean coal technology. The proposed strategies of switching
to natural gas, dispatch changes or retiring plants are really just
unworkable given the configuration we have in my State. Given that we
live in this polar vortex every winter--everywhere is polar vortex in
Alaska--many of our houses are well insulated to protect from the cold.
So efficiency programs will provide comparatively small gains.
Having said that, I know that we can and must do more when it comes
to efficiencies, and I will continue to push on that because that is an
area where I think we can make a difference. But trying to get to this
26-percent reduction is a challenge. I am still canvassing my State,
but it will be difficult for Alaska to reach our 26-percent emissions
reduction without serious economic impact.
Electricity is already more expensive in Alaska than in most of the
rest of the Nation. We have to reduce these prices, not engage in
policies that will raise those prices even higher. In the lower 48
States, on average, an American family spends a little over 4 percent
of their household budget towards their energy--keeping the lights on
and keeping the house warm or cool--depending on the season. In many
parts of my State of Alaska we have households that pay between 40 and
50 percent of their household budget to stay warm and to keep the
lights on. So I am looking at this very, very critically. While I want
to ensure that our air is clean, that we are working to reduce health
risks, we don't have any room in Alaska to increase our energy costs.
We have to be working aggressively with one another to reduce those
costs.
So I look at the proposal that has come out from the EPA this week,
and I am very concerned about how a State such as mine will achieve the
level that the EPA has imposed on it without extraordinary increases to
cost.
Some have labeled this recent EPA proposed regulation ObamaCare 2.0,
and in many ways it is. The administration insists that there will be
no cost increases associated with this rule. All we are missing here is
an awful Web site and a pledge that if you like your current
electricity bill, you can keep it. The President promises the
electricity bills will shrink, but I am not buying that. The Wall
Street Journal has rightly labeled this a huge tax on the poor and the
middle class, and no one understands what will happen if States perhaps
refuse to move forward with their own plans. Again, you have to ask the
question: Does anybody really think that the EPA has the ability to
impose its Federal will while simultaneously keeping the lights on and
keeping power affordable to all 50 States?
Despite negative economic growth last quarter and despite far better
approaches pending in Congress to promote energy efficiency and energy
innovation, such as an energy efficiency bill that my colleague from
Ohio has been working doggedly to try to advance--a measure that I
think is smart and sound and built on good policy--to not only help
States like mine but all across the country, we do have some good
proposals out there. We have initiatives we can move forward. But
instead the President has decided to push ahead and to propose sweeping
new regulations on our still weak economy.
We must keep costs and reliability in mind as regulatory mandates
push more and more baseload coal plants offline. FERC must be the
unambiguous champion of reliability with a formal and a documented role
with respect to EPA's rulemaking process. Powerful regulatory laws must
be judicially administered, and only Congress--not the EPA--should
decide such consequential changes for our energy supply, our economy,
and our people. I think anything less is unacceptable and could very
well yield significant negative consequences for a wide variety of
American families and our businesses.

I thank the Presiding Officer for her attention and the opportunity
to discuss a very important issue for our entire country.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Markey). The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I commend my colleague from Alaska, who
is the ranking member, and thank her for her hard work. She mentioned
the energy efficiency bill. I know she strongly supports that bill, and
I hope it will come back to the floor. It is a more logical way to get
at some of these issues.
I come to the floor to follow up on the conversation I had earlier
with Senator Landrieu. She and I announced earlier this afternoon that
we were going to offer unanimous consent in the Senate on bipartisan
and noncontroversial legislation. I had hoped Senator Landrieu would
come back to the floor, but apparently she can't, so I will offer this
on behalf of both of us.

Directing the Secretary of the Interior to Install a World War II
Memorial Plaque

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, as if in
legislative session, that the Senate proceed to the immediate
consideration of Calendar No. 339, S. 1044.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 1044) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to
install in the area of the World War II Memorial in the
District of Columbia a suitable plaque or an inscription with
the words that President Franklin D. Roosevelt prayed with
the United States on D-day, June 6, 1944.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be
read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered
made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (S. 1044) was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading,
was read the third time, and passed, as follows:

S. 1044

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``World War II Memorial Prayer
Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. PLACEMENT OF PLAQUE OR INSCRIPTION AT WORLD WAR II
MEMORIAL.

The Secretary of the Interior--
(1) shall install in the area of the World War II Memorial
in the District of Columbia a suitable plaque or an
inscription with the words that President Franklin D.
Roosevelt

[[Page S3462]]

prayed with the United States on June 6, 1944, the morning of
D-Day;
(2) shall design, procure, prepare, and install the plaque
or inscription referred to in paragraph (1); and
(3) may not use Federal funds to prepare or install the
plaque or inscription referred to in paragraph (1), but may
accept and expend private contributions for this purpose.

SEC. 3. COMMEMORATIVE WORKS ACT.

Chapter 89 of title 40, United States Code (commonly known
as the ``Commemorative Works Act''), shall apply to the
design and placement of the plaque within the area of the
World War II Memorial.

D-day

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, the clerk just read part of the
description of this legislation, and I thank this body on both sides of
the aisle for working with us.
Tomorrow we mark a momentous occasion. It is the 70th anniversary of
D-day. It is a day, of course, that will go down in history as one of
the greatest naval invasions in the history of our country but also a
day when we lost many brave American soldiers and one where the country
came together to pray for them and give them the strength they would
need not just on that D-day but to go through Europe to ultimately
vanquish the Nazis and liberate that continent.
On that day, 70 years ago tomorrow, Franklin D. Roosevelt decided not
to give a speech at the White House but instead to give a prayer for
the troops and for the Nation. This body has just passed legislation to
make that prayer a part of the World War II Memorial. That prayer will
help to give it some additional context and interpretation at a
critical time. The prayer helps us look at our history and shows how
our country came together at a critical time. It is a very powerful
prayer. My dad was a World War II veteran, and I always found it to be
one of the most moving prayers in our Nation's history.
I will mention a couple of aspects of this prayer. President
Roosevelt explained--I thought in very powerful words--why America
fought. When talking about the troops, he said:

They will be sore tried, by night and by day, without
rest--until the victory is won. The darkness will be rent by
noise and flame. Men's souls will be shaken with the
violences of war.
For these men are lately drawn from the ways of peace. They
fight not for the lust of conquest. They fight to end
conquest. They fight to liberate. They fight to let justice
arise, and tolerance and goodwill among all Thy people. They
yearn but for the end of battle, for their return to the
haven of home.

That is why we fight.
Again, I think that prayer is an important part of our history but
also an important message for us even today.
The prayer also includes a number of other very powerful messages
that brought the Nation together in a single day for prayer and
thanksgiving. It asks for God's help in a number of ways, and one that
I think is particularly poignant is where it asks God to give us the
ability to deepen our faith.
It says:

And, O Lord, give us faith. Give us faith in Thee, faith in
our sons; faith in each other . . .

Again, I appreciate the work of Senator Landrieu and, before her,
Senator Lieberman, who was the original cosponsor with me on this
legislation.
I thank my friends from Ohio, the Christian Alliance, and others who
have brought this to my attention over the years.
I thank my colleagues in the House, who passed this legislation last
year with a resounding vote. I hope they will take up this legislation
and pass it again in the House this year so we can indeed move to have
this inscription placed in the World War II Memorial in order to remind
us of a day in our Nation's history where our country did come together
and where we, as Americans--not as conquerors but as liberators--
provided for the liberation of a continent and established this
precedent for our country that with God so much is possible.
I yield back my time and note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Veterans Care

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, there is good news for America's veterans
this afternoon. Senator McCain and Senator Sanders, the chairman of the
Veterans' Affairs Committee, have apparently come to a tentative
agreement on what we should do to deal with some of the serious
problems at the Veterans' Administration.
We know a couple of things. First of all, we know that health care in
the veterans hospitals, in the VA system, in the community-based
clinics in places such as Akron and Canton and Youngstown and
Springfield and Mansfield and the care in the big hospitals, such as
Wade Park and Dayton, is superb and there is overwhelming support among
veterans for the care they have earned and deserve and are getting. The
problem is getting access to that care in a number of cases. Too many
veterans have waited too long, been forced to wait too long to get the
medical care and the medical treatment they need.

That is a product, frankly, of a historically underfunded VA. We know
a decade ago, when the President a decade ago--more than a decade ago--
and the Senate and the House took the country to war the Veterans'
Administration funding was put pretty flat. There was no real
preparation by the Congress, by the President--then President Bush--and
by the VA to scale up veterans' capacity, the VA capacity, veterans'
health care--not enough nurses, not enough doctors, not enough health
care personnel, not enough capacity at the VA health care system to
take care of the surging numbers of soldiers coming home, sailors
coming home, marines coming home, air men and women coming home.
We also know at the same time what happened with Agent Orange, and
the Agent Orange presumptive eligibility. As Vietnam veterans were
beginning to get sicker, were beginning to show more and more symptoms,
the government made the right decision, Congress made the right
decision, if a soldier had boots on the ground, they were eligible. If
a soldier had an illness defined by the law that was connected to Agent
Orange, then they were presumed to be eligible. They didn't have to go
back and prove they were actually exposed at a certain place at a
certain time in Vietnam. All of those were good things, as our country,
our government, our VA, embraced war, men and women, to get the VA care
they earned.
The bad news was Congress and the President didn't prepare for it a
decade ago as this surge of new people, the veterans coming home,
veterans living here for a number of years after doing their service,
that they could get the health care they needed. That is the reason we
have had these long delays.
There are certainly issues of leadership within the VA. There are
issues of administrators not doing their jobs. They should be held
accountable. They should pay a price for that--sometimes termination,
certainly disciplinary action if shown to have failed to live up to
their responsibilities ethically and efficiently and correctly and
responsibly.
It is clear this new agreement will take us forward. It will mean a
couple of things. One, it means those administrators, those VA
officials who didn't do their jobs, will be held accountable. Secondly,
and most importantly, it will mean veterans who have had long delays or
who live in rural areas and simply can't get the coverage, can't get to
the VA clinic, the community-based outpatient clinic or the VA
hospital, the VA center, if they can't get that health care treatment
today, or soon, they can go to a private hospital, they can go to a
community-based health clinic and get the coverage, get the care they
need at no cost to the veteran.
The third thing is, to make up for the neglect of a decade ago that
we have tried to remedy by almost doubling the VA budget over the last
5 years to take care of all these people who are now in the system who
have suffered much more serious illness and disability than the
veterans of a generation ago who might have died on the battlefield
from these same injuries, that we scale up the training of doctors and
nurses in these VA facilities.
There has been an agreement reached among a group of us on the
veterans committee and both parties that we will fund a number of new
facilities around the country as we train more

[[Page S3463]]

doctors and nurses and other health care personnel--physical
therapists, occupational therapists, and others.
At a time of not particularly good news for veterans over the last
few weeks and really over the last few months, this is good news. This
will make for a better VA. We know the VA is a huge health care system,
with 85 million veteran visits, patient visits to the VA over the last
year and 8 million different veterans have used the VA over the last 12
months. We have to make sure we do our jobs as Senators and Members of
Congress and in the White House to take care of our veterans. For those
who served us, it is time we served our veterans.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.

D-day Anniversary

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the 70th anniversary
of the heroic landings of D-day.
The incredible bravery exhibited on June 6 of 1944, in the first
phase of Operation Overlord to liberate Western Europe from the
clutches of Nazi Germany, is one of the defining moments of modern
history.
The images of American GIs landing at Omaha Beach, Utah Beach, and
Pointe du Hoc have come to represent not only the great sacrifices made
during World War II, but the enduring cause of freedom for which the
United States still stands.
I have had the humbling experience of visiting the American cemetery
at Normandy that honors those who fell during the invasion. As I walked
the peaceful fields of brilliant white headstones in perfect formation,
it was hard to imagine the terrifying landscape that greeted those
American and allied soldiers, many of them not yet 20 years old, when
they lowered the ramps of their landing craft in the shallows off of
Normandy. Yet they understood the importance of their mission, and they
held fast against one of the greatest evils the world has ever faced,
and they prevailed.
The men and women who answered the call to serve in World War II and
those who supported them on the home front are often revered as the
``greatest generation,'' and deservedly so. They gave up their lives
and their livelihoods and endured separation from their loved ones and
fought in unspeakable conditions.
From the beaches of Normandy to the islands of the Pacific, where my
father served as a Navy pilot, the United States and allied forces
fought for freedom and for the dignity of mankind, and we owe them a
tremendous debt of gratitude.
As we honor the memory of those who served before us, we honor their
legacy by upholding the values for which they fought.
We are here today because of the immense burdens our men and women in
uniform have carried on our behalf. May we never forget their
sacrifices or the solemn responsibility we have to all of those who
have answered the call to serve.
Mr. 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. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Tribute to Navajo Code Talker Chester Nez

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, my State of New Mexico has a
great tradition of military service. When the Nation has called, New
Mexico has always answered. Today I wanted to say a few words to
remember Chester Nez, the last of the original 29 Navajo code talkers
of World War II.
Mr. Nez passed away Wednesday morning in Albuquerque, NM. We are
forever indebted to him and his fellow warriors. They turned the Navajo
language into an unbelievable code, using the language they were
forbidden to speak in school, as a weapon to defend our freedoms in
war, freedoms they themselves did not always enjoy. This is a great
story of courage, of love of country, of tremendous sacrifice. In
battle after battle in ferocious combat, the Navajo code saved
countless lives and helped secure the allied victory. In 2001, the
original code talkers received the Congressional Gold Medal, the
highest honor the Congress can give.
Our former colleague, Senator Jeff Bingaman, fought hard for this. I
was pleased to push for it in the House. It was richly deserved and
long overdue. Mr. Nez was there for the ceremony, and the Presiding
Officer, who was in the House with me, may remember we had that
ceremony in the Capitol Rotunda. It was a great and uplifting day to
finally see the Navajo code talkers receive their medals.
I said then what I continue to feel now: Their service can never be
forgotten and can never be diminished. Chester Nez was modest in his
own life but proud of the code talkers and proud of the Navajo
traditions. In his later years, he visited schools and colleges all
across the Nation to tell the story of those Navajo code talkers.
In his memoir, written with Judith Avila, he said:

I recommended myself that my Navajo people had always been
warriors, protectors. In that there was honor. I would
concentrate on being a warrior, on protecting my homeland.

As we mark Chester's passing, we honor his memory with a renewed
dedication to preserve our Native languages, to keep alive the story of
our code talkers, the heroic story of the Navajo, and also of other
Native American tribes, their codes and their commitment forever
unbroken.
Today we say goodbye to this great hero, this humble man who served
our country with such devotion. We say goodbye with sadness but also
with appreciation for a debt that can never be fully repaid, for
courage that will forever inspire, and for a life that truly made a
difference.
Chester, you made a real difference in our lives. I would just say to
Chester's family, we send them our heartfelt condolences.
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. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call
be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Heitkamp). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Farewell to Pages

Mr. REID. As we leave for the week, I wanted to say something on the
record regarding the pages. They are going to graduate tomorrow morning
at 10 a.m. I look forward to these graduations every year. These are
fine young men and women who come here and spend a semester of school
with us.
This is a tradition we have been doing for a long time. Two of my
grandchildren were pages, and even though my family has been involved
in government through me for all these many years, they were never
exposed to it like coming here and being pages. It really changed their
lives, and I am sure some of these young men and women's lives have
been changed also.
I can remember when I was about their age and I went to Boys State
and the friends I made at that weeklong program--friends I still have.
These young men and women--friends they make here, they will have for
the rest of their lives.
These boys and girls are not the summer pages. We have two classes of
summer pages, and they are here for a month, and that is it. These
young men and women are here for a semester, and the school is hard. It
is not some kind of a lark back in Washington. They studied hard. We
look for good students, and that is what we get. They get up early in
the morning, they go to school, and they come here and try to learn
more about government. They really get to know us, personalities. Some
of us are nicer to them than others. They recognize that.
I congratulate these pages because they are an integral part of what
goes on around here. They really do things that are hard. We don't ask
them to write dissertations, at least here in the Senate; for the
school, they do that. But they run bills around the Capitol Complex,
and they help us on some of the more mundane things we take for
granted.
I really look forward to meeting them. I try to meet all the pages
every year. Sometimes I don't get to meet all of the Republican pages,
but I try. I want them to know that even though they won't hear from
every one of us,

[[Page S3464]]

we all very much appreciate what they do.
Today is their last day here, as I mentioned. I thank them for their
service, and I hope their slight glance into the government will be
something that will cause them to be involved in government.
As for young men and women, the Presiding Officer in this body has
had a great political career. She has held a number of statewide
offices in the State of North Dakota. In all of what we do in life,
there are disappointments that come. She would have been the Governor
of the State of North Dakota, but she was stricken with breast cancer,
which, I understand, messed up her campaign. But she came back and as a
real underdog decided to run for the Senate, and she won. She has made
a tremendous difference in this body. I hope each of you can look
around here and see people, such as the Presiding Officer, whom you
would like to be like someday.
When I first came to this body--I say to these young women
especially--Barbara Mikulski was a Senator from Maryland. I came with
her to the Senate, and she was the woman. That was it. And now, I
couldn't help but smile earlier this week because a number of women--
seven or eight women--had congregated here, and one of the Senators
said to me--a female Senator said: Look, many of us wore turquoise
today. And it was so bright and the clothes looked so vibrant and added
so much to this body.
So it used to be boys, that the Senators we had here, with rare
exception, were men, but that is not the way it is anymore. And I can
speak from experience--the Senate is a much better place because of the
input of women. Men and women are different. They have different views
and outlooks on life. As a result of that, this is a much better place.
I can remember a number of years ago when I looked here on the
floor--I was whip at that time, taking care of the floor--it was
stunning to me, on the military construction bill, appropriations bill,
two women were running it. Kay Bailey Hutchison, a Republican from
Texas, was the ranking member, and Dianne Feinstein from California was
the chair of that committee, determining billions of dollars for
construction of military facilities around the world. So things have
changed a great deal. You have been part of watching this great change
take place, young men and women. Thank you for your service here, and I
hope someday some of you will be serving in this august body.

____________________