[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 122 (Thursday, July 30, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6161-S6165]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROHIBITING FEDERAL FUNDING OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF
AMERICA--MOTION TO PROCEED
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I move to proceed to Calendar No.
169, S. 1881.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
The bill clerk read as follows:
Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 169, S. 1881, a bill to
prohibit Federal funding of Planned Parenthood Federation of
America.
Cloture Motion
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The bill clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
proceed to S. 1881, a bill to prohibit Federal funding of
Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
Mitch McConnell, James M. Inhofe, Rand Paul, Pat Roberts,
Ben Sasse, James Lankford, Joni Ernst, Daniel Coats,
Cory Gardner, Steve Daines, Roger F. Wicker, Johnny
Isakson, Lindsey Graham, Michael B. Enzi, Jerry Moran,
Tim Scott, John Cornyn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
The Highway Bill
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I know the Senator from California, Mrs.
Boxer, and I both want to thank a lot of people who worked very hard.
People don't realize how many people are involved. Quite frankly, a
little bit of guilt always comes to me, because this is my sixth
highway reauthorization bill, and it always ends up that I don't work
as long as all the staff works. They are up many nights until midnight
and many nights all night long.
This was a good bill. It was tough doing it. From this point forward,
we have the opportunity to send it to the House. I have already had
communication with some of the House Members who do want a multiyear
bill. The staffs are working together as we speak to pull it together
so we can pass one and get out of this long string of short-term
extensions. They don't serve any useful purpose.
I wish to mention the names and to get them in the Record of those
people who really put in the long hours. In my office is Alex Herrgott.
He has been with me--we have been together, I guess--over a dozen
years. He is the leader on our side. He put together a great team,
including Shant Boyajian, who is the guy who was the transportation
expert on our end, and he did a great job. We have had others just
about as good as he is in the past, but they all sweat. This guy
doesn't do it. He does it with a smile on his face. We have Chaya
Koffman. She came with incredible experience. We couldn't have done it
without her. It is equally important to thank David Napoliello and
Andrew Dohrman. David and Andrew work for Senator Boxer and are experts
within the office, working on this alongside our staff.
It is kind of interesting because Senator Boxer and I can't get any
further apart philosophically. She is a very proud liberal, and I am a
very proud conservative. We would be fighting like cats and dogs over
these regulations that are putting Americans out of business. But,
today, we think alike, and we are working together. I am so proud of
her staff working with my staff.
Bettina. There is Bettina, and she is probably the No. 1 hard working
person, sitting in the back here on that side, and whom we really
appreciate. Some days I don't appreciate her, but I have all during
this process.
So many others have made contributions to the success today. It is
important to thank on my staff Susan Bodine, for her work on
environmental provisions, and also Jennie Wright and Andrew Neely. I
wish to thank my communications team, including Donelle Harder, Daisy
Letendre, and Kristina Baum. They have to get the message out as to
what we are doing, how significant it is.
People who are witnessing this today are witnessing the most popular
bill of this entire year. We can go back to any of the 50 States, and
they are all going to say the one thing we want is a transportation
system. It is not just that they want this bill. This is what the
Constitution says we are supposed to be doing. Article I, section 8 of
the Constitution says to defend America and provide for roads and
bridges, and that is what we accomplished today.
There are some others outside of our committee I want to thank:
Chairman Hatch, Chairman Thune, Chairman Shelby, and their staffs,
including Chris Campbell, Mark Prater, David Schweitert, Shannon Hines,
and Jen Deci. I want to thank our leader, Mitch McConnell, who really
came through to put this at top priority. Without that priority, we
couldn't have done it. I know Sharon Soderstrom, Hazen Marshall, Neil
Chatterjee, Jonathan Burks, and Brendan Dunn were all involved.
If my colleagues would just permit me, 10 years ago today is the last
time we passed a significant, multiyear bill. I remember standing right
here at this podium, right when this moment came, and it was time to
thank all of these people who worked so hard. All of a sudden the
sirens went off and the buzzers--evacuate, evacuate; bomb, bomb.
Everyone left, but I hadn't made my speech yet. So I stood there and
made it longer than I probably should have. There is nothing more eerie
than standing here in the Chamber when nobody else is here and
everybody else is gone. After a while, I thought that I had better get
out of here.
As I walked out the front door and down the long steps--they had
already shut off the elevators and all of that; it was dark--I saw a
bulk of a man walking away very slowly. I saw that it was Ted Kennedy.
I said: Ted, we better get out of here; this place might blow up.
He said: Well, these old legs don't work like they used to.
So I said: Here, put your arm around my shoulders. And I put my arm
out to steady him. Someone took our picture. It was in a magazine, and
it said: Who said that Republicans are not compassionate.
I always think of that when I think of these bills. I say to my
friend, Senator Boxer, with whom I have worked so closely during this
time--and I actually enjoyed it: Any time we get a coalition between
your philosophy and my philosophy, it has to be right. It was, and it
is over.
I yield the floor to Senator Boxer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, my friend and I have long worked
together on infrastructure, and we did it this time under very
difficult conditions. I would say to him that with his leadership on
EPW, going to a markup, proving to the rest of the Senate that, in
fact, our committee could work together, we got a 20-to-nothing vote.
As a result of that, and as my friend has often said, our committee is
really responsible for about 70 to 75 percent of the funding. So we
were the key committee, and we proved that we could work together.
It was a little tougher on the other committees. That is when it took
Leader McConnell's leadership, Senator Durbin's leadership, and we came
together.
But I must say that those top staffers from Senator Inhofe's team,
McConnell's team, Boxer's team, including Bettina Poirier, Neil
Chatterjee, and
[[Page S6162]]
Alex Herrgott really--friendships forged--worked on, and it was a
pleasure to work with them. I will never forget this as long as I live.
This has been a highlight of my career, and I have been here a very
long time.
I want to thank Andrew Dohrmann, David Napoliello, Tyler Rushforth,
Jason Albritton, Ted Illston, Mary Kerr, Kate Gilman, Colin McCarthy,
and Kathryn Backer in addition to Bettina, on my team. I want to thank
Ryan Jackson, Shant Boyajian, Susan Bodine, Andrew Neely, and Chaya
Koffman, along with Alex, on the Inhofe team. I want to thank Alyssa
Fisher on the Durbin team. I want to thank Shannon Hines, Jennifer
Deci, and Homer Carlisle on the Banking Committee team. I want to thank
Kim Lipsky so much. What a job she did for Bill Nelson, and her team,
Devon Barnhart and Matt Kelly, and Dave Schweitert on the Thune team.
Notice we said ``team.'' This was about teamwork. This was not about
me, me, me or I, I, I. It was all of us in friendship, in sincerity. We
never surprised each other. When we couldn't do this, something
happened, we would tell each other, and we never left the room until we
figured it out.
I will have more to write about this and say about it because truly
these moments don't happen often around here. In my career this will
stand out as truly spectacular--spectacular--the people who were so
dedicated, and my friendship with my friend is just extraordinary. It
stood the test of time. My new collegiality with Mitch McConnell, which
has not existed until now, this is a miraculous thing that has
happened.
One of the things I have learned in life is it goes so fast and
sometimes you don't mark those special moments. This moment will be
forever marked with me and with my friends.
We now are going to look forward to working with our friends in the
House. We are going to infuse our spirit over there. We are going to
make sure they know we can work together and be friends, and it has
already started, as Alex has stated today.
So we are ready for the next phase, the next step. What is most
important? We are going to make sure we have infrastructure that works
for this Nation; that you and I, Jim, don't have to stand here and show
tragic photos, bridge collapses, and hear terrible stories about
construction workers who can't make it and have to have food stamps,
and businessmen who have literally cried in my office because they have
no certainty, they can't function, and they may have to shut down. This
is not what we want.
We did the right thing for the country. It wasn't about us--we were
the ones who made it happen--it was about America, and I couldn't be
more proud.
With that, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Remembering Reverend Clementa Pinckney
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, before I start my prepared remarks, I did
want to note that today would have been the birthday of Pastor Reverend
Clementa Pinckney, a friend of mine, who was the pastor of Emanuel 9,
the Emanuel Church, the Mother Emanuel Church in Charleston, SC. Today
being his birthday, I thought it would be a good opportunity to share
with the public that we miss him. We thank God for the family and the
amazing roles they have played in South Carolina and around this
country.
Certainly, as we tackle issues going forward, I think we should keep
in mind, bear in mind, the civility, the grace, and the compassion we
saw from Reverend Pinckney and the way he tackled issues with such an
important ingredient to keeping our communities together.
I hope as we discuss other challenging issues, we will have an
opportunity to remember that civility, that notion that we are better
together. The desire to build a bridge should be seen and displayed in
the public forum as we discuss issues that sometimes pull at the very
fabric of who we are as a nation.
Safer Officers and Safer Citizens Act of 2015
Mr. President, I rise to offer a solution. I will tell you solutions
are hard to find at times, but today I think I have found a solution
that will help law enforcement officers and our citizens go home
safely. That solution is body-worn cameras to be worn by our law
enforcement officers throughout this country. Just yesterday, in
Cincinnati, we were unfortunately given yet another example of how
important body cameras are when they are worn by law enforcement
officers.
We, those of us who viewed the video, watched in disbelief as the
officer shot the driver in the head. Difficult, difficult video to
watch. Cincinnati officials said in their investigation of the death of
Samuel Dubose, after being shot by the University of Cincinnati police
officer, that body camera footage was invaluable. I want to say that
one more time; that the police chief said, without any question, what
allowed them to find conclusion, to actually arrest the officer, was
the presence of a video that was undeniable.
Unfortunately, we have seen too many of these incidents around the
country. I will tell you that I struggle with this issue sometimes
because I have so many good friends who are officers, who serve the
public every single day with honor, with dignity, and amazing
distinction. I am talking about guys and young ladies who put on the
uniform with pride. I see that pride as I walk through the
neighborhoods as I talk to folks.
So many of our officers serve this Nation, serve their communities so
well, keeping all of us safe, but sometimes, and too often we have seen
recently, the videos suggest we have to take a deeper look. Our
citizens deserve for us to take that deeper look. I think that without
any question a body-worn camera will protect the public, but it will
also protect the officer. That is why I am here today.
I have said a couple of times that if they say a picture is worth a
thousand words, then a video is worth a thousand pictures. Let me say
that one more time. If a picture is worth a thousand words, then a
video is worth a thousand pictures. I believe strongly that an
important piece of the puzzle to help rebuild trust with our law
enforcement officers and the communities they serve is body-worn
cameras.
I say it is only one piece of that very important puzzle because I do
not know that there is a single solution. I have looked for a panacea,
but I do not know if there is a panacea. As a matter of fact, I think
there is not a panacea, but there are many critical steps we must take
to tackle an array of issues confronting the distressed communities and
challenging circumstances, whether it is poverty, criminal justice
reform or, as we have seen on the video, instances of police brutality.
With body cameras, we have seen some amazing studies. At least one
study has confirmed there is a 90-percent drop in complaints against
officers. That is an astounding number, a 90-percent drop in complaints
against officers. The same study shows there is a 60-percent drop in
the use of force by officers. This should be good news for everyone on
every side of the issue--if there are sides of the issue. I would
suggest there are not sides to this issue.
There is not a Republican side, there is not a Democratic side, there
is not a Black side, there is not a White side, there is only a right
side and a wrong side. If we can find ourselves in a position where
officers go home at night to a loving family, arms wide open, and
citizens within the community go home at night to loving families and
warm embraces, that perhaps the body-worn camera by officers will make
this happen more every day someplace in our country.
With those sorts of numbers, how can we not figure out the best way
to get these devices into the hands of our police officers? This does
not even touch on the fact that when we ended up with the video, a very
unfortunate video, on April 4, this year, my hometown, North
Charleston, SC--a video of Walter Scott being shot in the back, it
helped bring clarity to an incredibly painful situation.
That is why, after months of meetings with dozens of police
organizations, civil rights groups, privacy
[[Page S6163]]
groups, and others, yesterday I introduced the Safer Officers and Safer
Citizens Act of 2015. My goal is simple. It is to simply provide local
and State law enforcement agencies with the resources to equip their
officers with body-worn cameras. My legislation creates a dedicated
grant program, fully paid for--I know there are those in the Senate,
such as myself, who like those words ``fully paid for''--to help local
law enforcement agencies purchase body cameras.
I am opposed, very opposed, to any notion that we should federalize
in any way, shape or form local law enforcement. I believe local law
enforcement should be in charge of local law enforcement and State law
enforcement should be in charge of State law enforcement. But if we can
provide some tools, some resources, to make sure the situation I
described earlier from a positive standpoint of an officer going home
to their house and members of the community going home to their houses
after having an interaction, if there is a solution and/or an
opportunity to see that happen more often, we should go there.
My grant program would provide $100 million over the next 5 fiscal
years: $100 million each year, 2016 through 2021, and only requires a
simple 25-percent match. It certainly suggests that we will give
preferences to departments that are applying for grants. They will need
to have their own policies in place regarding data retention, privacy
requirements, and other areas because I believe local and State
departments, as I have said, can best determine their own procedures
around the body cameras.
As States and localities around the country implement body-worn
camera programs, I believe this is the best way we can help--not take
over but provide that seed capital, the resources to start a brand-new
conversation all over the country about how many lives have been saved,
how many folks get to go home.
I will say this on some other points. I had the privilege of speaking
at the graduation of who I call my brother, who is the son of my
mentor, John Moniz, who helped change my life when I was a kid on the
wrong course for a long time--I had the privilege of speaking at Brian
Moniz's graduation from the police academy just 2 years ago, July 18--a
couple of years ago. He is an amazing young man who wants to serve his
community. His brother Philip is also a fellow sheriff's deputy.
So when I think about the words I am speaking today, I don't think
about it in legislative terms, I think about it in terms of real places
and real people, such as my brothers and others who want to serve the
country. But I also think about it in terms of real people who have
suffered through those violent interactions.
I am thankful that cosponsors such as Senator Lindsey Graham of South
Carolina and Cory Booker of New Jersey have joined me in making sure we
start the conversation that I hope to continue with Senator Grassley on
this important topic.
I ask that we all remember the words of Mrs. Judy Scott, the mother
of Walter Scott, who lost her son in my hometown of North Charleston. I
have had the chance to speak to her on a number of occasions since the
incident. She has taught me a lot. She has taught me the power of
forgiveness. Very quickly afterward she showed no animus toward the
officer. She was praying for the officer. She forgave the officer. But
her request to me was a very simple request. It was simply that no more
mothers have to unnecessarily bury their sons the way she did. That is
a very simple request.
I think my body camera legislation will help us achieve that goal. I
believe this legislation will protect citizens and law enforcement
officers. It will bridge the gap that seems to be growing in some
communities around the country. It will provide resources without
taking over local law enforcement. I believe this is critically
important, and the sooner we get there, the better off our Nation will
be.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Trans-Pacific Partnership
Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, as we speak, there are American trade
negotiators in Hawaii from the Pacific Rim and South America
negotiating the final terms of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP.
I rise today to speak about an element of those negotiations which I
find troubling and which I believe, if it goes on its current path,
will produce a gross injustice that will be harmful to American job
creators and could potentially threaten the passage or ratification of
the TPP.
I understand that the current proposal of the Trans-Pacific
Partnership calls for discriminatory treatment of tobacco--specifically
singling out an entire industry. It is an industry that is vitally
important to my home State of North Carolina. Tobacco continues to be
vitally important among North Carolinian agricultural exports, and the
only path to sustaining this industry is to preserve the place for the
American leaf in the world. The industry supports more than 22,000 jobs
in North Carolina, my home State.
I rise today to defend farmers, manufacturers, and exporters from
discriminatory treatment in our trade agreements. Today it happens to
be tobacco, but I will do this for any crop for as long as I am in the
Senate. I am well aware that many States aren't touched by tobacco
farming or tobacco product manufacturing, but this is not just about
tobacco; this is about American values and fairness.
I believe free trade is good, and a balanced free trade benefits all
parties. For those who think free trade is bad for America, I don't
agree. When America and Americans compete on a level playing field, we
win the vast majority of the time. It is what we do.
But the United States, over the years, has tried to do more with
these agreements than just haggle for market access and tariff
productions. Over the past 30 years, the United States has commonly
negotiated what is called the investor-state dispute settlement--or
ISDS--language in a number of international agreements. The ISDS
provisions are fairly simple. They give someone who believes their
trade agreement rights have been violated by another government trading
partner the ability to bring a claim against that government before an
international arbitration panel.
All kinds of offenses can be addressed through the ISDS process--
protecting American-owned businesses by requiring our trading partners
to meet minimum standards of treatment under international law;
protecting American-owned businesses from having their property taken
away without payment or adequate compensation; and protecting American-
owned businesses from discriminatory, unfair, or arbitrary treatment.
That is a fundamental protection. If these sound like American ideals,
it is because they are. American ingenuity, combined with these values
and ideals, has produced the world's greatest economy, the American
economy.
Regions of the world that do not share the same views of due process,
equality under the law, and protection of private property rights would
do well to follow our model. It will make them a better trading
partner, and it will help their economies thrive.
Yet, even the U.S. negotiators apparently want to be selective in
applying these ideals, and that is really the root of the concern I
have with the discussions going on now in Hawaii. We cannot afford to
be selective when it comes to fairness. Our negotiators have concluded
that while some investors are entitled to equal treatment under the
law, others aren't. It is odd to me that this would be the posture of
any nation, but it is particularly troubling that this is the current
posture of the negotiators who were responsible for negotiating the
Trans-Pacific Partnership.
It is ironic that the ideal of equal treatment and due process is
being peddled with our trading partners as equal treatment and due
process for everyone but some members of the minority. So let's say, my
fellow Senators, that you are not from a State that is harmed by the
current negotiations. You may feel comfortable that this could never
happen to you, to a sector in your State's economy, but I believe you
should be worried. The current proposal on the TPP creates an entirely
new precedent, a precedent that will no doubt become the norm for
future trade agreements where the negotiators get to pick and choose
winners and losers and American businesses and American industries will
suffer as a result. Once we
[[Page S6164]]
allow an entire sector to be treated unfairly in trade agreements, the
question is, Who is next?
I hold a sincere belief that unfair treatment for one agricultural
commodity significantly heightens the risk that more unfair treatment
for another commodity lurks right around the corner.
I have not spoken with a single organization, agricultural or
otherwise, that believes this sets a good precedent--quite the
contrary. I encourage my colleagues to speak to their State's
agricultural community and simply ask them what they think about
setting this kind of standard.
To my fellow Senators--and, incidentally, I should say for those of
you in the Gallery, we are working today; we are just outside of the
Gallery. I know this is kind of like showing up at the zoo and one of
your favorite animals being off of an exhibit. But they are out
working; they will be back at about 1:45.
To get back to the script, if you believe that this unfair treatment
is OK because it is about tobacco and that it is a fair outcome, I
think you ought to think again because I will remind you--and our
fellow Senators need to understand this--that Congress has spoken on
this issue. We exist to make sure we take care of the voice that may
not be heard, the minority who may be cast aside because of some agenda
or because of it just being an easy negotiating tactic.
But in this particular case, Congress has spoken loudly. I will
remind my Members that Congress has said opportunities for U.S.
agricultural exports must be ``substantially equivalent to
opportunities afforded foreign exports in U.S. markets.'' Now, with
this trade agreement, if you have a trading partner agree with the
behavior or decisions made in the United States, they are going to be
subject to due process. But this trade agreement would actually allow
our trading partners to not allow us to be held to that same standard
in their country of jurisdiction and not go to international
arbitration. Congress has stated that dispute settlement mechanisms
must be available across the board, not selectively.
I also voted to give the President trade promotion authority to allow
trade agreements like the TPP to move through Congress in a quick,
orderly, and responsible process. That is the process we are going
through right now. I did not vote to give our negotiators the freedom
to indiscriminately choose when fairness should be applied and when it
shouldn't be applied. The Congress has already spoken. I hope you will
at least share the expectation that our negotiations carry out our
will.
I applaud the efforts of the U.S. negotiators. I know it is difficult
work, and I congratulate them for getting closer to completing the
Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. I hope, however, that they will
consider the risk of losing support for the Senate to ratify the
agreement.
In closing, I would offer this to anyone who believes my sticking up
for tobacco or for equal treatment and American values is shortsighted:
I want you to know that I would do this for any commodity, any
category, and any industry. I hope our trade negotiators will work hard
to ensure that American values are upheld in the final agreement they
bring before Congress, and that goes for language in the entire
agreement, even that which appears in the annexes and the footnotes.
I, for one--and I think many of my colleagues--am concerned with the
current status of the trade negotiations in this particular area. There
are a number of good things in it. This needs to be worked out. And I
will not support and I will work hard against any trade agreement that
departs from our core values.
Veterans Health Care
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I wish to address the status of VA health
care and the Department's current budget shortfall.
I am grudgingly supporting the bill before this body to extend
highway funding for 3 months and to provide budget transfer authority
to VA because, without it, highway contracts in Vermont and all across
the country will be halted and VA will be unable to provide health care
services to our veterans. These initiatives are too important not to
support, but I want to be on record as saying this is a very dangerous
path to be treading down--playing politics with the VA's funding. It is
disingenuous and is a disservice to the brave men and women who have
served our country.
On July 31, 2014, 1 year ago tomorrow, the Senate passed the Veterans
Access, Choice, and Accountability Act to address the crisis at the
Department of Veterans Affairs. As chairman of the Veterans' Affairs
Committee, one of my top priorities during the negotiation of that
legislation was to ensure VA had the resources needed to prevent a
similar crisis in the future.
I believed then--and I believe now--that, overall, the Department of
Veterans Affairs provides high-quality health care; health care that
veterans consistently give high satisfaction scores. But the crisis at
VA last year was real--too many veterans were waiting far too long for
care. And some VA employees were manipulating data to make it appear
these wait times did not exist.
At the time, we took serious, important steps to address the crisis.
We gave the Department tools to hold staff accountable, provided
funding for veterans who had trouble accessing care at VA to get that
care in the private sector, and gave VA resources to ramp up capacity--
to hire health care providers and make improvements to the agency's
crumbling infrastructure. The bill we passed last year was to ensure
that a similar crisis wouldn't happen again.
But here we are, 1 year later, facing another crisis in VA health
care. But this crisis is different. This is a funding crisis. A crisis
Congress could have prevented.
Given the increased demand for care and volume of veteran patients, I
hoped Congress would have understood the need at VA and provided the
funding needed by the Department. But that hasn't happened. Instead,
this Republican-led Congress underfunded VA by $1 billion in their
budget resolution. And they have continued the bad policies of the
Budget Control Act, subjecting VA to funding caps that hamstring the
Department's ability to provide needed care.
And let me be clear about something here: these caps are arbitrary
spending cuts and have nothing to with how much money VA actually needs
to operate. And, despite common misconception, VA is subject to these
caps just like every other Federal Department. I believe we must lift
these caps. Lift them so VA has the money it needs to take care of
veterans, period.
And if we are unwilling to lift the budget caps, we should at least
be providing this funding through an emergency appropriation. We should
be acknowledging that the caps mean we are coming up short--that
Congress has insufficiently funded VA, tying their hands so they are
left unable to pay for the health care services veterans want and need.
But instead, we are considering transferring money from one bucket at
VA to another. The bill we are considering today will move money from
the Choice Program to the general operating budget. Congress created
the Veterans Choice Program to address a specific problem. And we
provided $10 billion to fix that problem. And now, instead of lifting
the budget caps or providing emergency funding for VA, we are just
going to use the Choice Program as a piggy bank. We are simply robbing
Peter to pay Paul. This approach is a short-term fix, keeping VA's
doors open for the next 60 days. But is does nothing to address the
long-term budget shortfall VA will face next year, and the year after
that. And I worry, if we fail to act responsibly now, we'll be right
back here in 2016 and again in 2017, when we will no longer have the
luxury of being able to raid billions from the Choice Program, and our
veterans will be no better off.
Not only is this method of funding VA irresponsible, my Republican
colleagues are using this funding crisis to jam bad policies down our
throats without careful consideration or a real debate. With just days
to go before we adjourn for the August recess, and with our colleagues
from the House having already skipped town, we are being backed into a
corner--told the only way to get VA the money they need is to pass a
bad piece of legislation filled with unrelated policies.
[[Page S6165]]
Last week, during a markup of legislation in the Veterans' Affairs
Committee, Chairman Isakson stated multiple times that he wanted new
policies to go through regular order, to be considered by the committee
in a legislative hearing before being voted on by committee members and
certainly before being voted on by the full Senate. He also stated
numerous times that we should not be passing legislation without paying
for it.
The Congressional Budget Office score of the bill appears to show the
legislation is paid for. However, the reality is there are $1.2 billion
in lost revenues included in the VA title of the bill that are being
swept under the rug. These enormous, unnecessary costs are being
covered up by offsets intended to pay for transfers from the general
fund to the highway trust fund. These are not savings or revenue that
will actually pay for the lost revenues in the VA title. They are
savings and revenue intended to make much-needed repairs to roads and
bridges. And I fully support those funds being used the way they were
intended. But what I do not support is that we are turning a blind eye
to $1.2 billion in costs in the VA title of this bill that have nothing
at all to do with the funding shortfall at VA. So what are these
policies that are so important that they should not be considered
through regular order and take money out of critical transportation
infrastructure projects?
They are anti-veteran, anti-small business provisions that threaten
to strip veterans of their access to affordable health care and treat
them as second-class citizens in the workplace while putting new
administrative burdens on small business owners.
If Members really believe these unrelated policies are necessary, we
should spend time on them. We should use the committee process that
Senator Isakson talked about just last week in the Veterans' Affairs
Committee markup to consider them through regular order. We should
debate them on the Senate floor. But we should not link these
politically motivated provisions to must-pass legislation to provide
critical health care services to millions of veterans who need it.
It used to be the case that Congress kept veterans above politics.
Despite fierce debate over going to war, we all agreed that when
servicemembers came home from war, we would take care of them.
It is sad to say, that is no longer the case. Today, powerful
political contributors like the Koch brothers are using veterans to
push forward anti-worker, anti-union legislation under the guise of
caring for veterans. They want to strip away the rights and protections
of workers and will use any means necessary to accomplish those goals,
even if it means using VA employees who serve veterans every day--and
many of whom are veterans themselves--as the target.
Congress should stand up and be honest with the American people about
the reason for the VA budget crisis--that members of this Chamber would
rather stand here trying to score political points. They would rather
use veterans as pawns to promote their anti-worker, anti-union, anti-
health care agenda, even if it means closing hospitals and local
clinics.
Let us not do that, instead let us say to the brave men and women who
have served our country in uniform that we will put aside our
differences and give VA the funding they need. Just as our veterans
promised to fight for our country, we promised to take care of them
when they came home. They fulfilled their promise to us. It is time for
us to fulfil our promise to them.
Mr. TILLIS. 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. BLUMENTHAL. 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. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, in a couple of minutes we will be
voting on a bill that includes a transfer of $3.4 billion within
accounts of the Veterans' Administration to make possible, literally
enable VA to continue providing health care for millions of veterans
across the United States. We are in this situation because of, quite
frankly, gross ineptitude in planning that can be characterized only as
management malpractice.
This crisis emphasizes the importance of accountability, and I thank
the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, Senator Isakson, for
his leadership in addressing the shortfall and also in his cooperation
in meeting the crisis and accountability of management that the VA
continues to face.
This crisis must stop. Congress cannot be expected to continue to
bail out the VA because of mismanagement and management malpractice.
In the longer term, there is a need for fundamental reform. There are
some good ideas in this bill. I have supported many of them. I thank
Senator Tester for his leadership as well in framing a proposal that
addresses these issues.
But make no mistake. This bill is only one small step toward the
reform that I have been advocating and will continue to champion, and
hope to continue to work on specifics to advance, as the ranking member
of the Veterans' Affairs Committee.
Again, I thank my colleagues and our chairman.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate has a previous order at this time.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. ISAKSON. I thank the ranking member for his comments.
This is the first step for reform in the VA. We are beginning to move
in the right direction.
I urge a ``yes'' vote.
____________________