[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 165 (Thursday, November 5, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7786-S7811]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND VETERANS AFFAIRS AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2016
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the pending business.
The bill clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 2029) making appropriations for military
construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and
for other purposes.
Thereupon, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been
reported from the Committee on Appropriations, with an amendment to
strike all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof the
following:
That the following sums are appropriated, out of any money in
the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for military
construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and
for other purposes, namely:
TITLE I
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Military Construction, Army
For acquisition, construction, installation, and equipment
of temporary or permanent public works, military
installations, facilities, and real property for the Army as
currently authorized by law, including personnel in the Army
Corps of Engineers and other personal services necessary for
the purposes of this appropriation, and for construction and
operation of facilities in support of the functions of the
Commander in Chief, $663,245,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2020: Provided, That, of this amount, not to
exceed $109,245,000 shall be available for study, planning,
design, architect and engineer services, and host nation
support, as authorized by law, unless the Secretary of the
Army determines that additional obligations are necessary for
such purposes and notifies the Committees on Appropriations
of both Houses of Congress of the determination and the
reasons therefor.
Military Construction, Navy and Marine Corps
For acquisition, construction, installation, and equipment
of temporary or permanent public works, naval installations,
facilities, and real property for the Navy and Marine Corps
as currently authorized by law, including personnel in the
Naval Facilities Engineering Command and other personal
services necessary for the purposes of this appropriation,
$1,619,699,000, to remain available until September 30, 2020:
Provided, That, of this amount, not to exceed $91,649,000
shall be available for study, planning, design, and architect
and engineer services, as authorized by law, unless the
Secretary of the Navy determines that additional obligations
are necessary for such purposes and notifies the Committees
on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress of the
determination and the reasons therefor.
Military Construction, Air Force
For acquisition, construction, installation, and equipment
of temporary or permanent public works, military
installations, facilities, and real property for the Air
Force as currently authorized by law, $1,389,185,000, to
remain available until September 30, 2020: Provided, That,
of this amount, not to exceed $89,164,000 shall be available
for study, planning, design, and architect and engineer
services, as authorized by law, unless the Secretary of Air
Force determines that additional obligations are necessary
for such purposes and notifies the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress of the
determination and the reasons therefor.
Military Construction, Defense-Wide
(including transfer of funds)
For acquisition, construction, installation, and equipment
of temporary or permanent public works, installations,
facilities, and real property for activities and agencies of
the Department of Defense (other than the military
departments), as currently authorized by law, $2,290,767,000,
to remain available until September 30, 2020: Provided, That
such amounts of this appropriation as may be determined by
the Secretary of Defense may be transferred to such
appropriations of the Department of Defense available for
military construction or family housing as the Secretary may
designate, to be merged with and to be available for the same
purposes, and for the same time period, as the appropriation
or fund to which transferred: Provided further, That, of the
amount appropriated, not to exceed $160,404,000 shall be
available for study, planning, design, and architect and
engineer services, as authorized by law, unless the Secretary
of Defense determines that additional obligations are
necessary for such purposes and notifies the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress of the
determination and the reasons therefor.
Military Construction, Army National Guard
For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation,
and conversion of facilities for the training and
administration of the Army National Guard, and contributions
therefor, as authorized by chapter 1803 of title 10, United
States Code, and Military Construction Authorization Acts,
$197,237,000, to remain available until September 30, 2020:
Provided, That, of the amount appropriated, not to exceed
$20,337,000 shall be available for study, planning, design,
and architect and engineer services, as authorized by law,
unless the Director of the Army National Guard determines
that additional obligations are necessary for such purposes
and notifies the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses
of Congress of the determination and the reasons therefor.
Military Construction, Air National Guard
For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation,
and conversion of facilities for the training and
administration of the Air National Guard, and contributions
therefor, as authorized by chapter 1803 of title 10, United
States Code, and Military Construction Authorization Acts,
$138,738,000, to remain available until September 30, 2020:
Provided, That, of the amount appropriated, not to exceed
$5,104,000 shall be available for study, planning, design,
and architect and engineer services, as authorized by law,
unless the Director of the Air National Guard determines that
additional obligations are necessary for such purposes and
notifies the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of
Congress of the determination and the reasons therefor.
Military Construction, Army Reserve
For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation,
and conversion of facilities for the training and
administration of the Army Reserve as authorized by chapter
1803 of title 10, United States Code, and Military
Construction Authorization Acts, $113,595,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2020: Provided, That, of the
amount appropriated, not to exceed $9,318,000 shall be
available for study, planning, design, and architect and
engineer services, as authorized by law, unless the Chief of
the Army Reserve determines that additional obligations are
necessary for such purposes and notifies the
[[Page S7787]]
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress of
the determination and the reasons therefor.
Military Construction, Navy Reserve
For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation,
and conversion of facilities for the training and
administration of the reserve components of the Navy and
Marine Corps as authorized by chapter 1803 of title 10,
United States Code, and Military Construction Authorization
Acts, $36,078,000, to remain available until September 30,
2020: Provided, That, of the amount appropriated, not to
exceed $2,208,000 shall be available for study, planning,
design, and architect and engineer services, as authorized by
law, unless the Secretary of the Navy determines that
additional obligations are necessary for such purposes and
notifies the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of
Congress of the determination and the reasons therefor.
Military Construction, Air Force Reserve
For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation,
and conversion of facilities for the training and
administration of the Air Force Reserve as authorized by
chapter 1803 of title 10, United States Code, and Military
Construction Authorization Acts, $65,021,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2020: Provided, That, of the
amount appropriated, not to exceed $13,400,000 shall be
available for study, planning, design, and architect and
engineer services, as authorized by law, unless the Chief of
the Air Force Reserve determines that additional obligations
are necessary for such purposes and notifies the Committees
on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress of the
determination and the reasons therefor.
North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Security Investment Program
For the United States share of the cost of the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program for
the acquisition and construction of military facilities and
installations (including international military headquarters)
and for related expenses for the collective defense of the
North Atlantic Treaty Area as authorized by section 2806 of
title 10, United States Code, and Military Construction
Authorization Acts, $120,000,000, to remain available until
expended.
Family Housing Construction, Army
For expenses of family housing for the Army for
construction, including acquisition, replacement, addition,
expansion, extension, and alteration, as authorized by law,
$99,695,000, to remain available until September 30, 2020.
Family Housing Operation and Maintenance, Army
For expenses of family housing for the Army for operation
and maintenance, including debt payment, leasing, minor
construction, principal and interest charges, and insurance
premiums, as authorized by law, $393,511,000.
Family Housing Construction, Navy and Marine Corps
For expenses of family housing for the Navy and Marine
Corps for construction, including acquisition, replacement,
addition, expansion, extension, and alteration, as authorized
by law, $16,541,000, to remain available until September 30,
2020.
Family Housing Operation and Maintenance, Navy and Marine Corps
For expenses of family housing for the Navy and Marine
Corps for operation and maintenance, including debt payment,
leasing, minor construction, principal and interest charges,
and insurance premiums, as authorized by law, $353,036,000.
Family Housing Construction, Air Force
For expenses of family housing for the Air Force for
construction, including acquisition, replacement, addition,
expansion, extension, and alteration, as authorized by law,
$160,498,000, to remain available until September 30, 2020.
Family Housing Operation and Maintenance, Air Force
For expenses of family housing for the Air Force for
operation and maintenance, including debt payment, leasing,
minor construction, principal and interest charges, and
insurance premiums, as authorized by law, $331,232,000.
Family Housing Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide
For expenses of family housing for the activities and
agencies of the Department of Defense (other than the
military departments) for operation and maintenance, leasing,
and minor construction, as authorized by law, $58,668,000.
Department of Defense Base Closure Account
For deposit into the Department of Defense Base Closure
Account 1990, established by section 2906(a) of the Defense
Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (10 U.S.C. 2687
note), $251,334,000, to remain available until expended.
Administrative Provisions
Sec. 101. None of the funds made available in this title
shall be expended for payments under a cost-plus-a-fixed-fee
contract for construction, where cost estimates exceed
$25,000, to be performed within the United States, except
Alaska, without the specific approval in writing of the
Secretary of Defense setting forth the reasons therefor.
Sec. 102. Funds made available in this title for
construction shall be available for hire of passenger motor
vehicles.
Sec. 103. Funds made available in this title for
construction may be used for advances to the Federal Highway
Administration, Department of Transportation, for the
construction of access roads as authorized by section 210 of
title 23, United States Code, when projects authorized
therein are certified as important to the national defense by
the Secretary of Defense.
Sec. 104. None of the funds made available in this title
may be used to begin construction of new bases in the United
States for which specific appropriations have not been made.
Sec. 105. None of the funds made available in this title
shall be used for purchase of land or land easements in
excess of 100 percent of the value as determined by the Army
Corps of Engineers or the Naval Facilities Engineering
Command, except: (1) where there is a determination of value
by a Federal court; (2) purchases negotiated by the Attorney
General or the designee of the Attorney General; (3) where
the estimated value is less than $25,000; or (4) as otherwise
determined by the Secretary of Defense to be in the public
interest.
Sec. 106. None of the funds made available in this title
shall be used to: (1) acquire land; (2) provide for site
preparation; or (3) install utilities for any family housing,
except housing for which funds have been made available in
annual Acts making appropriations for military construction.
Sec. 107. None of the funds made available in this title
for minor construction may be used to transfer or relocate
any activity from one base or installation to another,
without prior notification to the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress.
Sec. 108. None of the funds made available in this title
may be used for the procurement of steel for any construction
project or activity for which American steel producers,
fabricators, and manufacturers have been denied the
opportunity to compete for such steel procurement.
Sec. 109. None of the funds available to the Department of
Defense for military construction or family housing during
the current fiscal year may be used to pay real property
taxes in any foreign nation.
Sec. 110. None of the funds made available in this title
may be used to initiate a new installation overseas without
prior notification to the Committees on Appropriations of
both Houses of Congress.
Sec. 111. None of the funds made available in this title
may be obligated for architect and engineer contracts
estimated by the Government to exceed $500,000 for projects
to be accomplished in Japan, in any North Atlantic Treaty
Organization member country, or in countries bordering the
Arabian Gulf, unless such contracts are awarded to United
States firms or United States firms in joint venture with
host nation firms.
Sec. 112. None of the funds made available in this title
for military construction in the United States territories
and possessions in the Pacific and on Kwajalein Atoll, or in
countries bordering the Arabian Gulf, may be used to award
any contract estimated by the Government to exceed $1,000,000
to a foreign contractor: Provided, That this section shall
not be applicable to contract awards for which the lowest
responsive and responsible bid of a United States contractor
exceeds the lowest responsive and responsible bid of a
foreign contractor by greater than 20 percent: Provided
further, That this section shall not apply to contract awards
for military construction on Kwajalein Atoll for which the
lowest responsive and responsible bid is submitted by a
Marshallese contractor.
Sec. 113. The Secretary of Defense shall inform the
appropriate committees of both Houses of Congress, including
the Committees on Appropriations, of plans and scope of any
proposed military exercise involving United States personnel
30 days prior to its occurring, if amounts expended for
construction, either temporary or permanent, are anticipated
to exceed $100,000.
Sec. 114. Not more than 20 percent of the funds made
available in this title which are limited for obligation
during the current fiscal year shall be obligated during the
last 2 months of the fiscal year.
Sec. 115. Funds appropriated to the Department of Defense
for construction in prior years shall be available for
construction authorized for each such military department by
the authorizations enacted into law during the current
session of Congress.
Sec. 116. For military construction or family housing
projects that are being completed with funds otherwise
expired or lapsed for obligation, expired or lapsed funds may
be used to pay the cost of associated supervision,
inspection, overhead, engineering and design on those
projects and on subsequent claims, if any.
Sec. 117. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any
funds made available to a military department or defense
agency for the construction of military projects may be
obligated for a military construction project or contract, or
for any portion of such a project or contract, at any time
before the end of the fourth fiscal year after the fiscal
year for which funds for such project were made available, if
the funds obligated for such project: (1) are obligated from
funds available for military construction projects; and (2)
do not exceed the amount appropriated for such project, plus
any amount by which the cost of such project is increased
pursuant to law.
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 118. Subject to 30 days prior notification, or 14
days for a notification provided in an electronic medium
pursuant to sections 480 and 2883 of title 10, United States
Code, to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of
Congress, such additional amounts as may be determined by the
Secretary of Defense may be transferred to: (1) the
Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund from
amounts appropriated for construction in ``Family Housing''
accounts, to be merged with and to be available for the same
purposes and for the same period of time as amounts
appropriated directly to the Fund; or (2) the Department of
Defense Military
[[Page S7788]]
Unaccompanied Housing Improvement Fund from amounts
appropriated for construction of military unaccompanied
housing in ``Military Construction'' accounts, to be merged
with and to be available for the same purposes and for the
same period of time as amounts appropriated directly to the
Fund: Provided, That appropriations made available to the
Funds shall be available to cover the costs, as defined in
section 502(5) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, of
direct loans or loan guarantees issued by the Department of
Defense pursuant to the provisions of subchapter IV of
chapter 169 of title 10, United States Code, pertaining to
alternative means of acquiring and improving military family
housing, military unaccompanied housing, and supporting
facilities.
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 119. In addition to any other transfer authority
available to the Department of Defense, amounts may be
transferred from the accounts established by sections
2906(a)(1) and 2906A(a)(1) of the Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Act of 1990 (10 U.S.C. 2687 note), to the fund
established by section 1013(d) of the Demonstration Cities
and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 3374) to
pay for expenses associated with the Homeowners Assistance
Program incurred under 42 U.S.C. 3374(a)(1)(A). Any amounts
transferred shall be merged with and be available for the
same purposes and for the same time period as the fund to
which transferred.
Sec. 120. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
funds made available in this title for operation and
maintenance of family housing shall be the exclusive source
of funds for repair and maintenance of all family housing
units, including general or flag officer quarters: Provided,
That not more than $35,000 per unit may be spent annually for
the maintenance and repair of any general or flag officer
quarters without 30 days prior notification, or 14 days for a
notification provided in an electronic medium pursuant to
sections 480 and 2883 of title 10, United States Code, to the
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress,
except that an after-the-fact notification shall be submitted
if the limitation is exceeded solely due to costs associated
with environmental remediation that could not be reasonably
anticipated at the time of the budget submission: Provided
further, That the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)
is to report annually to the Committees on Appropriations of
both Houses of Congress all operation and maintenance
expenditures for each individual general or flag officer
quarters for the prior fiscal year.
Sec. 121. Amounts contained in the Ford Island Improvement
Account established by subsection (h) of section 2814 of
title 10, United States Code, are appropriated and shall be
available until expended for the purposes specified in
subsection (i)(1) of such section or until transferred
pursuant to subsection (i)(3) of such section.
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 122. During the 5-year period after appropriations
available in this Act to the Department of Defense for
military construction and family housing operation and
maintenance and construction have expired for obligation,
upon a determination that such appropriations will not be
necessary for the liquidation of obligations or for making
authorized adjustments to such appropriations for obligations
incurred during the period of availability of such
appropriations, unobligated balances of such appropriations
may be transferred into the appropriation ``Foreign Currency
Fluctuations, Construction, Defense'', to be merged with and
to be available for the same time period and for the same
purposes as the appropriation to which transferred.
Sec. 123. Amounts appropriated or otherwise made available
in an account funded under the headings in this title may be
transferred among projects and activities within the account
in accordance with the reprogramming guidelines for military
construction and family housing construction contained in
Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation
7000.14-R, Volume 3, Chapter 7, of February 2009, as in
effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
Sec. 124. None of the funds made available in this title
may be obligated or expended for planning and design and
construction of projects at Arlington National Cemetery.
Sec. 125. For an additional amount for ``Military
Construction, Army'', $34,500,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2020: Provided, That such funds may only be
obligated to carry out construction projects, in priority
order, identified in the Department of the Army's Unfunded
Priority List for Fiscal Year 2016 submitted to Congress:
Provided further, That such funding is subject to
authorization prior to obligation and expenditure of funds to
carry out construction: Provided further, That, not later
than 30 days after enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
the Army shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations of
both Houses of Congress an expenditure plan for funds
provided under this section.
Sec. 126. For an additional amount for ``Military
Construction, Navy and Marine Corps'', $34,320,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2020: Provided, That such
funds may only be obligated to carry out construction
projects, in priority order, identified in the Department of
the Navy's Unfunded Priority List for fiscal year 2016:
Provided further, That such funding is subject to
authorization prior to obligation and expenditure of funds to
carry out construction: Provided further, That, not later
than 30 days after enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
the Navy shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations of
both Houses of Congress an expenditure plan for funds
provided under this section.
Sec. 127. For an additional amount for ``Military
Construction, Army National Guard'', $51,300,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2020: Provided, That such
funds may only be obligated to carry out construction
projects, in priority order, identified in the Department of
the Army's Unfunded Priority List for Fiscal Year 2016
submitted to Congress: Provided further, That such funding
is subject to authorization prior to obligation and
expenditure of funds to carry out construction: Provided
further, That, not later than 30 days after enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of the Army shall submit to the Committees
on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress an expenditure
plan for funds provided under this section.
Sec. 128. For an additional amount for ``Military
Construction, Army Reserve'', $34,200,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2020: Provided, That such
funds may only be obligated to carry out construction
projects, in priority order, identified in the Department of
the Army's Unfunded Priority List for Fiscal Year 2016
submitted to Congress: Provided further, That such funding
is subject to authorization prior to obligation and
expenditure of funds to carry out construction: Provided
further, That, not later than 30 days after enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of the Army shall submit to the Committees
on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress an expenditure
plan for funds provided under this section.
(rescissions of funds)
Sec. 129. Of the unobligated balances available from prior
Appropriations Acts (other than appropriations that were
designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement or as
being for Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on
Terrorism pursuant to a concurrent resolution on the budget
or the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985) the following funds are hereby rescinded from the
following accounts and programs in the specified amounts:
``Military Construction, Army'', $85,000,000;
``Military Construction, Air Force'', $86,400,000; and
``Military Construction, Defense-Wide'', $133,000,000.
(rescission of funds)
Sec. 130. Of the unobligated balances made available in
prior appropriations Acts for the fund established in section
1013(d) of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan
Development Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 3374), $65,000,000 are
hereby rescinded.
Sec. 131. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none
of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this
or any other Act may be used to consolidate or relocate any
element of a United States Air Force Rapid Engineer
Deployable Heavy Operational Repair Squadron Engineer (RED
HORSE) outside of the United States until the Secretary of
the Air Force (1) completes an analysis and comparison of the
cost and infrastructure investment required to consolidate or
relocate a RED HORSE squadron outside of the United States
versus within the United States; (2) provides to the
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress
(``the Committees'') a report detailing the findings of the
cost analysis; and (3) certifies in writing to the Committees
that the preferred site for the consolidation or relocation
yields the greatest savings for the Air Force: Provided,
That the term ``United States'' in this section does not
include any territory or possession of the United States.
TITLE II
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Veterans Benefits Administration
compensation and pensions
(including transfer of funds)
For the payment of compensation benefits to or on behalf of
veterans and a pilot program for disability examinations as
authorized by section 107 and chapters 11, 13, 18, 51, 53,
55, and 61 of title 38, United States Code; pension benefits
to or on behalf of veterans as authorized by chapters 15, 51,
53, 55, and 61 of title 38, United States Code; and burial
benefits, the Reinstated Entitlement Program for Survivors,
emergency and other officers' retirement pay, adjusted-
service credits and certificates, payment of premiums due on
commercial life insurance policies guaranteed under the
provisions of title IV of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act
(50 U.S.C. App. 541 et seq.) and for other benefits as
authorized by sections 107, 1312, 1977, and 2106, and
chapters 23, 51, 53, 55, and 61 of title 38, United States
Code, $166,271,436,000, to remain available until expended,
of which $87,146,761,000 shall become available on October 1,
2016: Provided, That not to exceed $15,562,000 of the amount
appropriated for fiscal year 2016 and $16,021,000 of the
amount made available for fiscal year 2017 under this heading
shall be reimbursed to ``General Operating Expenses, Veterans
Benefits Administration'', and ``Information Technology
Systems'' for necessary expenses in implementing the
provisions of chapters 51, 53, and 55 of title 38, United
States Code, the funding source for which is specifically
provided as the ``Compensation and Pensions'' appropriation:
Provided further, That such sums as may be earned on an
actual qualifying patient basis, shall be reimbursed to
``Medical Care Collections Fund'' to augment the funding of
individual medical facilities for nursing home care provided
to pensioners as authorized.
readjustment benefits
For the payment of readjustment and rehabilitation benefits
to or on behalf of veterans as authorized by chapters 21, 30,
31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, 41, 51, 53, 55, and 61 of title 38,
United States Code, $32,088,826,000, to remain available
until expended, of which $16,743,904,000 shall become
available on October 1, 2016: Provided, That expenses for
rehabilitation program services and assistance which the
Secretary is authorized to
[[Page S7789]]
provide under subsection (a) of section 3104 of title 38,
United States Code, other than under paragraphs (1), (2),
(5), and (11) of that subsection, shall be charged to this
account.
veterans insurance and indemnities
For military and naval insurance, national service life
insurance, servicemen's indemnities, service-disabled
veterans insurance, and veterans mortgage life insurance as
authorized by chapters 19 and 21, title 38, United States
Code, $169,080,000, to remain available until expended, of
which $91,920,000 shall become available on October 1, 2016.
veterans housing benefit program fund
For the cost of direct and guaranteed loans, such sums as
may be necessary to carry out the program, as authorized by
subchapters I through III of chapter 37 of title 38, United
States Code: Provided, That such costs, including the cost
of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 502
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided further,
That, during fiscal year 2016, within the resources
available, not to exceed $500,000 in gross obligations for
direct loans are authorized for specially adapted housing
loans.
In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the
direct and guaranteed loan programs, $164,558,000.
vocational rehabilitation loans program account
For the cost of direct loans, $31,000, as authorized by
chapter 31 of title 38, United States Code: Provided, That
such costs, including the cost of modifying such loans, shall
be as defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974: Provided further, That funds made available under
this heading are available to subsidize gross obligations for
the principal amount of direct loans not to exceed
$2,952,381.
In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry
out the direct loan program, $367,000, which may be paid to
the appropriation for ``General Operating Expenses, Veterans
Benefits Administration''.
native american veteran housing loan program account
For administrative expenses to carry out the direct loan
program authorized by subchapter V of chapter 37 of title 38,
United States Code, $1,134,000.
Veterans Health Administration
medical services
For necessary expenses for furnishing, as authorized by
law, inpatient and outpatient care and treatment to
beneficiaries of the Department of Veterans Affairs and
veterans described in section 1705(a) of title 38, United
States Code, including care and treatment in facilities not
under the jurisdiction of the Department, and including
medical supplies and equipment, bioengineering services, food
services, and salaries and expenses of healthcare employees
hired under title 38, United States Code, aid to State homes
as authorized by section 1741 of title 38, United States
Code, assistance and support services for caregivers as
authorized by section 1720G of title 38, United States Code,
loan repayments authorized by section 604 of the Caregivers
and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010 (Public Law
111-163; 124 Stat. 1174; 38 U.S.C. 7681 note), and hospital
care and medical services authorized by section 1787 of title
38, United States Code; $1,134,197,000, which shall be in
addition to funds previously appropriated under this heading
that become available on October 1, 2015; and, in addition,
$51,673,000,000, plus reimbursements, shall become available
on October 1, 2016, and shall remain available until
September 30, 2017: Provided, That, of the amount made
available on October 1, 2016, under this heading,
$1,400,000,000 shall remain available until September 30,
2018: Provided further, That, notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall
establish a priority for the provision of medical treatment
for veterans who have service-connected disabilities, lower
income, or have special needs: Provided further, That,
notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs shall give priority funding for the
provision of basic medical benefits to veterans in enrollment
priority groups 1 through 6: Provided further, That,
notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs may authorize the dispensing of prescription
drugs from Veterans Health Administration facilities to
enrolled veterans with privately written prescriptions based
on requirements established by the Secretary: Provided
further, That the implementation of the program described in
the previous proviso shall incur no additional cost to the
Department of Veterans Affairs: Provided further, That, of
the amount made available on October 1, 2016, under this
heading, not less than $900,000,000 shall be available for
highly effective Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) clinical treatments
including clinical treatments with modern medications that
have significantly higher cure rates than older medications,
are easier to prescribe, and have fewer and milder side
effects.
medical support and compliance
For necessary expenses in the administration of the
medical, hospital, nursing home, domiciliary, construction,
supply, and research activities, as authorized by law;
administrative expenses in support of capital policy
activities; and administrative and legal expenses of the
Department for collecting and recovering amounts owed the
Department as authorized under chapter 17 of title 38, United
States Code, and the Federal Medical Care Recovery Act (42
U.S.C. 2651 et seq.), $6,524,000,000, plus reimbursements,
shall become available on October 1, 2016, and shall remain
available until September 30, 2017: Provided, That, of the
amount made available on October 1, 2016, under this heading,
$100,000,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2018.
medical facilities
For necessary expenses for the maintenance and operation of
hospitals, nursing homes, domiciliary facilities, and other
necessary facilities of the Veterans Health Administration;
for administrative expenses in support of planning, design,
project management, real property acquisition and
disposition, construction, and renovation of any facility
under the jurisdiction or for the use of the Department; for
oversight, engineering, and architectural activities not
charged to project costs; for repairing, altering, improving,
or providing facilities in the several hospitals and homes
under the jurisdiction of the Department, not otherwise
provided for, either by contract or by the hire of temporary
employees and purchase of materials; for leases of
facilities; and for laundry services, $5,074,000,000, plus
reimbursements, shall become available on October 1, 2016,
and shall remain available until September 30, 2017:
Provided, That, of the amount made available on October 1,
2016, under this heading, $250,000,000 shall remain available
until September 30, 2018.
medical and prosthetic research
For necessary expenses in carrying out programs of medical
and prosthetic research and development as authorized by
chapter 73 of title 38, United States Code, $621,813,000,
plus reimbursements, shall remain available until September
30, 2017.
National Cemetery Administration
For necessary expenses of the National Cemetery
Administration for operations and maintenance, not otherwise
provided for, including uniforms or allowances therefor;
cemeterial expenses as authorized by law; purchase of one
passenger motor vehicle for use in cemeterial operations;
hire of passenger motor vehicles; and repair, alteration or
improvement of facilities under the jurisdiction of the
National Cemetery Administration, $266,220,000, of which not
to exceed $26,600,000 shall remain available until September
30, 2017.
Departmental Administration
general administration
(including transfer of funds)
For necessary operating expenses of the Department of
Veterans Affairs, not otherwise provided for, including
administrative expenses in support of Department-Wide capital
planning, management and policy activities, uniforms, or
allowances therefor; not to exceed $25,000 for official
reception and representation expenses; hire of passenger
motor vehicles; and reimbursement of the General Services
Administration for security guard services, $311,591,000, of
which not to exceed $10,000,000 shall remain available until
September 30, 2017: Provided, That funds provided under this
heading may be transferred to ``General Operating Expenses,
Veterans Benefits Administration''.
board of veterans appeals
For necessary operating expenses of the Board of Veterans
Appeals, $107,884,000, of which not to exceed $10,788,000
shall remain available until September 30, 2017.
general operating expenses, veterans benefits administration
For necessary operating expenses of the Veterans Benefits
Administration, not otherwise provided for, including hire of
passenger motor vehicles, reimbursement of the General
Services Administration for security guard services, and
reimbursement of the Department of Defense for the cost of
overseas employee mail, $2,697,734,000: Provided, That
expenses for services and assistance authorized under
paragraphs (1), (2), (5), and (11) of section 3104(a) of
title 38, United States Code, that the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs determines are necessary to enable entitled veterans:
(1) to the maximum extent feasible, to become employable and
to obtain and maintain suitable employment; or (2) to achieve
maximum independence in daily living, shall be charged to
this account: Provided further, That, of the funds made
available under this heading, not to exceed $160,000,000
shall remain available until September 30, 2017.
information technology systems
For necessary expenses for information technology systems
and telecommunications support, including developmental
information systems and operational information systems; for
pay and associated costs; and for the capital asset
acquisition of information technology systems, including
management and related contractual costs of said
acquisitions, including contractual costs associated with
operations authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United
States Code, $4,106,363,000, plus reimbursements: Provided,
That $1,115,757,000 shall be for pay and associated costs, of
which not to exceed $34,800,000 shall remain available until
September 30, 2017: Provided further, That $2,512,863,000
shall be for operations and maintenance, of which not to
exceed $175,000,000 shall remain available until September
30, 2017: Provided further, That $477,743,000 shall be for
information technology systems development, modernization,
and enhancement, and shall remain available until September
30, 2017: Provided further, That amounts made available for
information technology systems development, modernization,
and enhancement may not be obligated or expended until the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs or the Chief Information
Officer of the Department of Veterans Affairs submits to the
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress a
certification of the amounts, in parts or in full, to be
obligated and expended for each development project:
Provided further, That amounts made available for salaries
and expenses, operations and maintenance, and information
technology systems development, modernization, and
[[Page S7790]]
enhancement may be transferred among the three subaccounts
after the Secretary of Veterans Affairs requests from the
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress the
authority to make the transfer and an approval is issued:
Provided further, That amounts made available for the
``Information Technology Systems'' account for development,
modernization, and enhancement may be transferred among
projects or to newly defined projects: Provided further,
That no project may be increased or decreased by more than
$1,000,000 of cost prior to submitting a request to the
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress to
make the transfer and an approval is issued, or absent a
response, a period of 30 days has elapsed: Provided further,
That funds under this heading may be used by the Interagency
Program Office through the Department of Veterans Affairs to
develop a standard data reference terminology model:
Provided further, That, of the funds made available for
information technology systems development, modernization,
and enhancement for VistA Evolution, not more than 25 percent
may be obligated or expended until the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs submits to the Committees on Appropriations of both
Houses of Congress, and such Committees approve, a report
that describes: (1) the status of and changes to the VistA
Evolution program plan dated March 24, 2014 (hereinafter
referred to as the ``Plan''), the VistA 4 product roadmap
dated February 26, 2015 (``Roadmap''), and the VistA 4
Incremental Life Cycle Cost Estimate, dated October 26, 2014;
(2) any changes to the scope or functionality of projects
within the VistA Evolution program as established in the
Plan; (3) actual program costs incurred to date; (4) progress
in meeting the schedule milestones that have been established
in the Plan; (5) a Project Management Accountability System
(PMAS) Dashboard Progress report that identifies each VistA
Evolution project being tracked through PMAS, what
functionality it is intended to provide, and what evaluation
scores it has received throughout development; (6) the
definition being used for interoperability between the
electronic health record systems of the Department of Defense
and the Department of Veterans Affairs, the metrics to
measure the extent of interoperability, the milestones and
timeline associated with achieving interoperability, and the
baseline measurements associated with interoperability; (7)
progress toward developing and implementing all components
and levels of interoperability, including semantic
interoperability; (8) the change management tools in place to
facilitate the implementation of VistA Evolution and
interoperability; and (9) any changes to the governance
structure for the VistA Evolution program and its chain of
decisionmaking authority: Provided further, That the funds
made available under this heading for information technology
systems development, modernization, and enhancement, shall be
for the projects, and in the amounts, specified under this
heading in the report accompanying this Act.
office of inspector general
For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General,
to include information technology, in carrying out the
provisions of the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C.
App.), $126,766,000, of which $12,676,000 shall remain
available until September 30, 2017.
construction, major projects
For constructing, altering, extending, and improving any of
the facilities, including parking projects, under the
jurisdiction or for the use of the Department of Veterans
Affairs, or for any of the purposes set forth in sections
316, 2404, 2406 and chapter 81 of title 38, United States
Code, not otherwise provided for, including planning,
architectural and engineering services, construction
management services, maintenance or guarantee period services
costs associated with equipment guarantees provided under the
project, services of claims analysts, offsite utility and
storm drainage system construction costs, and site
acquisition, where the estimated cost of a project is more
than the amount set forth in section 8104(a)(3)(A) of title
38, United States Code, or where funds for a project were
made available in a previous major project appropriation,
$1,027,064,000, of which $967,064,000 shall remain available
until September 30, 2020, and of which $60,000,000 shall
remain available until expended: Provided, That except for
advance planning activities, including needs assessments
which may or may not lead to capital investments, and other
capital asset management related activities, including
portfolio development and management activities, and
investment strategy studies funded through the advance
planning fund and the planning and design activities funded
through the design fund, including needs assessments which
may or may not lead to capital investments, and salaries and
associated costs of the resident engineers who oversee those
capital investments funded through this account, and funds
provided for the purchase of land for the National Cemetery
Administration through the land acquisition line item, none
of the funds made available under this heading shall be used
for any project which has not been approved by the Congress
in the budgetary process: Provided further, That funds made
available under this heading for fiscal year 2016, for each
approved project shall be obligated: (1) by the awarding of a
construction documents contract by September 30, 2016; and
(2) by the awarding of a construction contract by September
30, 2017: Provided further, That the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs shall promptly submit to the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress a written report on
any approved major construction project for which obligations
are not incurred within the time limitations established
above: Provided further, That, of the amount made available
on October 1, 2016, under this heading, $490,700,000 for
Veterans Health Administration major construction projects
shall not be available until the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs:
(1) Enters into an agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, to serve as the design and construction agent for
Veterans Health Administration projects with a Total
Estimated Cost of $250,000,000 or above.
(2) That such an agreement will designate the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers as the design and construction agent to
serve as--
(A) the overall construction project manager, with a
dedicated project delivery team including engineers, medical
facility designers, and professional project managers;
(B) the facility design manager, with a dedicated design
manager and technical support;
(C) the design agent, with standardized and rigorous
facility designs;
(D) the architect/engineer designer; and
(E) the overall construction agent, with a dedicated
construction and technical team during pre-construction,
construction, and commissioning phases.
(3) Certifies in writing that such an agreement is in
effect and will prevent subsequent major construction project
cost overruns, provides a copy of the agreement entered into
(and any required supplementary information) to the
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress, and
a period of 60 days has elapsed.
construction, minor projects
For constructing, altering, extending, and improving any of
the facilities, including parking projects, under the
jurisdiction or for the use of the Department of Veterans
Affairs, including planning and assessments of needs which
may lead to capital investments, architectural and
engineering services, maintenance or guarantee period
services costs associated with equipment guarantees provided
under the project, services of claims analysts, offsite
utility and storm drainage system construction costs, and
site acquisition, or for any of the purposes set forth in
sections 316, 2404, 2406 and chapter 81 of title 38, United
States Code, not otherwise provided for, where the estimated
cost of a project is equal to or less than the amount set
forth in section 8104(a)(3)(A) of title 38, United States
Code, $378,080,000, to remain available until September 30,
2020, along with unobligated balances of previous
``Construction, Minor Projects'' appropriations which are
hereby made available for any project where the estimated
cost is equal to or less than the amount set forth in such
section: Provided, That funds made available under this
heading shall be for: (1) repairs to any of the nonmedical
facilities under the jurisdiction or for the use of the
Department which are necessary because of loss or damage
caused by any natural disaster or catastrophe; and (2)
temporary measures necessary to prevent or to minimize
further loss by such causes.
grants for construction of state extended care facilities
For grants to assist States to acquire or construct State
nursing home and domiciliary facilities and to remodel,
modify, or alter existing hospital, nursing home, and
domiciliary facilities in State homes, for furnishing care to
veterans as authorized by sections 8131 through 8137 of title
38, United States Code, $100,000,000, to remain available
until expended.
grants for construction of veterans cemeteries
For grants to assist States and tribal organizations in
establishing, expanding, or improving veterans cemeteries as
authorized by section 2408 of title 38, United States Code,
$46,000,000, to remain available until expended.
Administrative Provisions
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 201. Any appropriation for fiscal year 2016 for
``Compensation and Pensions'', ``Readjustment Benefits'', and
``Veterans Insurance and Indemnities'' may be transferred as
necessary to any other of the mentioned appropriations:
Provided, That, before a transfer may take place, the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall request from the
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress the
authority to make the transfer and such Committees issue an
approval, or absent a response, a period of 30 days has
elapsed.
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 202. Amounts made available for the Department of
Veterans Affairs for fiscal year 2016, in this Act or any
other Act, under the ``Medical Services'', ``Medical support
and compliance'', and ``Medical Facilities'' accounts may be
transferred among the accounts: Provided, That any transfers
between the ``Medical Services'' and ``Medical Support and
Compliance'' accounts of 1 percent or less of the total
amount appropriated to the account in this or any other Act
may take place subject to notification from the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs to the Committees on Appropriations of both
Houses of Congress of the amount and purpose of the transfer:
Provided further, That any transfers between the ``Medical
Services'' and ``Medical Support and Compliance'' accounts in
excess of 1 percent, or exceeding the cumulative 1 percent
for the fiscal year, may take place only after the Secretary
requests from the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses
of Congress the authority to make the transfer and an
approval is issued: Provided further, That any transfers to
or from the ``Medical Facilities'' account may take place
only after the Secretary requests from the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress the authority to
make the transfer and an approval is issued.
Sec. 203. Appropriations available in this title for
salaries and expenses shall be available for services
authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code;
hire of passenger motor vehicles; lease of a facility or land
or both; and
[[Page S7791]]
uniforms or allowances therefore, as authorized by sections
5901 through 5902 of title 5, United States Code.
Sec. 204. No appropriations in this title (except the
appropriations for ``Construction, Major Projects'', and
``Construction, Minor Projects'') shall be available for the
purchase of any site for or toward the construction of any
new hospital or home.
Sec. 205. No appropriations in this title shall be
available for hospitalization or examination of any persons
(except beneficiaries entitled to such hospitalization or
examination under the laws providing such benefits to
veterans, and persons receiving such treatment under sections
7901 through 7904 of title 5, United States Code, or the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance
Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.)), unless reimbursement of the
cost of such hospitalization or examination is made to the
``Medical Services'' account at such rates as may be fixed by
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
Sec. 206. Appropriations available in this title for
``Compensation and pensions'', ``Readjustment benefits'', and
``Veterans insurance and indemnities'' shall be available for
payment of prior year accrued obligations required to be
recorded by law against the corresponding prior year accounts
within the last quarter of fiscal year 2015.
Sec. 207. Appropriations available in this title shall be
available to pay prior year obligations of corresponding
prior year appropriations accounts resulting from sections
3328(a), 3334, and 3712(a) of title 31, United States Code,
except that if such obligations are from trust fund accounts
they shall be payable only from ``Compensation and
Pensions''.
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 208. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
during fiscal year 2016, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
shall, from the National Service Life Insurance Fund under
section 1920 of title 38, United States Code, the Veterans'
Special Life Insurance Fund under section 1923 of title 38,
United States Code, and the United States Government Life
Insurance Fund under section 1955 of title 38, United States
Code, reimburse the ``General operating expenses, Veterans
Benefits Administration'' and ``Information Technology
Systems'' accounts for the cost of administration of the
insurance programs financed through those accounts:
Provided, That reimbursement shall be made only from the
surplus earnings accumulated in such an insurance program
during fiscal year 2016 that are available for dividends in
that program after claims have been paid and actuarially
determined reserves have been set aside: Provided further,
That, if the cost of administration of such an insurance
program exceeds the amount of surplus earnings accumulated in
that program, reimbursement shall be made only to the extent
of such surplus earnings: Provided further, That the
Secretary shall determine the cost of administration for
fiscal year 2016 which is properly allocable to the provision
of each such insurance program and to the provision of any
total disability income insurance included in that insurance
program.
Sec. 209. Amounts deducted from enhanced-use lease
proceeds to reimburse an account for expenses incurred by
that account during a prior fiscal year for providing
enhanced-use lease services, may be obligated during the
fiscal year in which the proceeds are received.
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 210. Funds available in this title or funds for
salaries and other administrative expenses shall also be
available to reimburse the Office of Resolution Management of
the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Office of
Employment Discrimination Complaint Adjudication under
section 319 of title 38, United States Code, for all services
provided at rates which will recover actual costs but not to
exceed $43,700,000 for the Office of Resolution Management
and $3,400,000 for the Office of Employment Discrimination
Complaint Adjudication: Provided, That payments may be made
in advance for services to be furnished based on estimated
costs: Provided further, That amounts received shall be
credited to the ``General Administration'' and ``Information
Technology Systems'' accounts for use by the office that
provided the service.
(transfer of funds)
Sec. 211. Of the amounts made available to the Department
of Veterans Affairs for fiscal year 2016 for the Office of
Rural Health under the heading ``Medical Services'',
including any advance appropriation for fiscal year 2016
provided in prior appropriation Acts, up to $20,000,000 may
be transferred to and merged with funds appropriated under
the heading ``Grants for Construction of State Extended Care
Facilities''.
Sec. 212. No funds of the Department of Veterans Affairs
shall be available for hospital care, nursing home care, or
medical services provided to any person under chapter 17 of
title 38, United States Code, for a non-service-connected
disability described in section 1729(a)(2) of such title,
unless that person has disclosed to the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs, in such form as the Secretary may require, current,
accurate third-party reimbursement information for purposes
of section 1729 of such title: Provided, That the Secretary
may recover, in the same manner as any other debt due the
United States, the reasonable charges for such care or
services from any person who does not make such disclosure as
required: Provided further, That any amounts so recovered
for care or services provided in a prior fiscal year may be
obligated by the Secretary during the fiscal year in which
amounts are received.
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 213. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
proceeds or revenues derived from enhanced-use leasing
activities (including disposal) may be deposited into the
``Construction, Major Projects'' and ``Construction, Minor
Projects'' accounts and be used for construction (including
site acquisition and disposition), alterations, and
improvements of any medical facility under the jurisdiction
or for the use of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Such
sums as realized are in addition to the amount provided for
in ``Construction, Major Projects'' and ``Construction, Minor
Projects''.
Sec. 214. Amounts made available under ``Medical
Services'' are available--
(1) for furnishing recreational facilities, supplies, and
equipment; and
(2) for funeral expenses, burial expenses, and other
expenses incidental to funerals and burials for beneficiaries
receiving care in the Department.
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 215. Such sums as may be deposited to the Medical
Care Collections Fund pursuant to section 1729A of title 38,
United States Code, may be transferred to ``Medical
Services'', to remain available until expended for the
purposes of that account: Provided, That, for fiscal year
2016, up to $27,000,000 deposited in the Department of
Veterans Affairs Medical Care Collections Fund shall be
transferred to ``Information Technology Systems'', to remain
available until expended, for development of the Medical Care
Collections Fund electronic data exchange provider and payer
system.
Sec. 216. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs may enter into
agreements with Indian tribes and tribal organizations which
are party to the Alaska Native Health Compact with the Indian
Health Service, and Indian tribes and tribal organizations
serving rural Alaska which have entered into contracts with
the Indian Health Service under the Indian Self Determination
and Educational Assistance Act, to provide healthcare,
including behavioral health and dental care. The Secretary
shall require participating veterans and facilities to comply
with all appropriate rules and regulations, as established by
the Secretary. The term ``rural Alaska'' shall mean those
lands sited within the external boundaries of the Alaska
Native regions specified in sections 7(a)(1)-(4) and (7)-(12)
of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, as amended (43
U.S.C. 1606), and those lands within the Alaska Native
regions specified in sections 7(a)(5) and 7(a)(6) of the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, as amended (43 U.S.C.
1606), which are not within the boundaries of the
municipality of Anchorage, the Fairbanks North Star Borough,
the Kenai Peninsula Borough or the Matanuska Susitna Borough.
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 217. Such sums as may be deposited to the Department
of Veterans Affairs Capital Asset Fund pursuant to section
8118 of title 38, United States Code, may be transferred to
the ``Construction, Major Projects'' and ``Construction,
Minor Projects'' accounts, to remain available until expended
for the purposes of these accounts.
Sec. 218. None of the funds made available in this title
may be used to implement any policy prohibiting the Directors
of the Veterans Integrated Services Networks from conducting
outreach or marketing to enroll new veterans within their
respective Networks.
Sec. 219. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall submit
to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of
Congress a quarterly report on the financial status of the
Veterans Health Administration.
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 220. Amounts made available under the ``Medical
Services'', ``Medical Support and Compliance'', ``Medical
Facilities'', ``General Operating Expenses, Veterans Benefits
Administration'', ``General Administration'', and ``National
Cemetery Administration'' accounts for fiscal year 2016 may
be transferred to or from the ``Information Technology
Systems'' account: Provided, That, before a transfer may
take place, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall request
from the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of
Congress the authority to make the transfer and an approval
is issued.
Sec. 221. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act or any other Act for the Department of
Veterans Affairs may be used in a manner that is inconsistent
with: (1) section 842 of the Transportation, Treasury,
Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, the District of
Columbia, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006
(Public Law 109-115; 119 Stat. 2506); or (2) section
8110(a)(5) of title 38, United States Code.
Sec. 222. Of the amounts made available to the Department
of Veterans Affairs for fiscal year 2016, in this Act or any
other Act, under the ``Medical Facilities'' account for
nonrecurring maintenance, not more than 20 percent of the
funds made available shall be obligated during the last 2
months of that fiscal year: Provided, That the Secretary may
waive this requirement after providing written notice to the
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress.
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 223. Of the amounts appropriated to the Department of
Veterans Affairs for fiscal year 2016 for ``Medical
Services'', ``Medical Support and Compliance'', ``Medical
Facilities'', ``Construction, Minor Projects'', and
``Information Technology Systems'', up to $266,303,000, plus
reimbursements, may be transferred to the Joint Department of
Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility
Demonstration Fund, established by section 1704 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010
(Public Law 111-84; 123 Stat. 3571) and may be used for
operation of the facilities designated as combined Federal
medical facilities as described
[[Page S7792]]
by section 706 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417;
122 Stat. 4500): Provided, That additional funds may be
transferred from accounts designated in this section to the
Joint Department of Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs
Medical Facility Demonstration Fund upon written notification
by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress: Provided further,
That section 223 of Title II of Division I of Public Law 113-
235 is repealed.
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 224. Of the amounts appropriated to the Department of
Veterans Affairs which become available on October 1, 2016,
for ``Medical Services'', ``Medical Support and Compliance'',
and ``Medical Facilities'', up to $265,675,000, plus
reimbursements, may be transferred to the Joint Department of
Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility
Demonstration Fund, established by section 1704 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010
(Public Law 111-84; 123 Stat. 3571) and may be used for
operation of the facilities designated as combined Federal
medical facilities as described by section 706 of the Duncan
Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2009 (Public Law 110-417; 122 Stat. 4500): Provided, That
additional funds may be transferred from accounts designated
in this section to the Joint Department of Defense-Department
of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration Fund upon
written notification by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to
the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress.
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 225. Such sums as may be deposited to the Medical
Care Collections Fund pursuant to section 1729A of title 38,
United States Code, for healthcare provided at facilities
designated as combined Federal medical facilities as
described by section 706 of the Duncan Hunter National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law
110-417; 122 Stat. 4500) shall also be available: (1) for
transfer to the Joint Department of Defense-Department of
Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration Fund,
established by section 1704 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84;
123 Stat. 3571); and (2) for operations of the facilities
designated as combined Federal medical facilities as
described by section 706 of the Duncan Hunter National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law
110-417; 122 Stat. 4500).
(transfer of funds)
Sec. 226. Of the amounts available in this title for
``Medical Services'', ``Medical Support and Compliance'', and
``Medical Facilities'', a minimum of $15,000,000 shall be
transferred to the DOD-VA Health Care Sharing Incentive Fund,
as authorized by section 8111(d) of title 38, United States
Code, to remain available until expended, for any purpose
authorized by section 8111 of title 38, United States Code.
(including rescissions of funds)
Sec. 227. (a) Of the funds appropriated in division I of
Public Law 113-235, the following amounts which become
available on October 1, 2015, are hereby rescinded from the
following accounts in the amounts specified:
(1) ``Department of Veterans Affairs, Medical Services'',
$1,400,000,000.
(2) ``Department of Veterans Affairs, Medical Support and
Compliance'', $150,000,000.
(3) ``Department of Veterans Affairs, Medical Facilities'',
$250,000,000.
(b) In addition to amounts provided elsewhere in this Act,
an additional amount is appropriated to the following
accounts in the amounts specified to remain available until
September 30, 2017:
(1) ``Department of Veterans Affairs, Medical Services'',
$1,400,000,000.
(2) ``Department of Veterans Affairs, Medical Support and
Compliance'', $100,000,000.
(3) ``Department of Veterans Affairs, Medical Facilities'',
$250,000,000.
Sec. 228. The Secretary of the Department of Veterans
Affairs shall notify the Committees on Appropriations of both
Houses of Congress of all bid savings in major construction
projects that total at least $5,000,000, or 5 percent of the
programmed amount of the project, whichever is less:
Provided, That such notification shall occur within 14 days
of a contract identifying the programmed amount: Provided
further, That the Secretary shall notify the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress 14 days prior to
the obligation of such bid savings and shall describe the
anticipated use of such savings.
Sec. 229. The scope of work for a project included in
``Construction, Major Projects'' may not be increased above
the scope specified for that project in the original
justification data provided to the Congress as part of the
request for appropriations.
Sec. 230. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall submit
to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of
Congress a quarterly report that contains the following
information from each Veterans Benefits Administration
Regional Office: (1) the average time to complete a
disability compensation claim; (2) the number of claims
pending more than 125 days; (3) error rates; (4) the number
of claims personnel; (5) any corrective action taken within
the quarter to address poor performance; (6) training
programs undertaken; and (7) the number and results of
Quality Review Team audits: Provided, That each quarterly
report shall be submitted no later than 30 days after the end
of the respective quarter.
Sec. 231. Of the funds provided to the Department of
Veterans Affairs for fiscal year 2016 for ``Medical
Services'' and ``Medical Support and Compliance'', a maximum
of $5,000,000 may be obligated from the ``Medical Services''
account and a maximum of $154,596,000 may be obligated from
the ``Medical Support and Compliance'' account for the VistA
Evolution and electronic health record interoperability
projects: Provided, That funds in addition to these amounts
may be obligated for the VistA Evolution and electronic
health record interoperability projects upon written
notification by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to the
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress.
Sec. 232. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall provide
written notification to the Committees on Appropriations of
both Houses of Congress 15 days prior to organizational
changes which result in the transfer of 25 or more full-time
equivalents from one organizational unit of the Department of
Veterans Affairs to another.
Sec. 233. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall provide
on a quarterly basis to the Committees on Appropriations of
both Houses of Congress notification of any single national
outreach and awareness marketing campaign in which
obligations exceed $2,000,000.
Sec. 234. Not more than $4,400,000 of the funds provided
in this Act under the heading ``Department of Veterans
Affairs--Departmental Administration--General
Administration'' may be used for the Office of Congressional
and Legislative Affairs.
Sec. 235. None of the funds available to the Department of
Veterans Affairs, in this or any other Act, may be used to
replace the current system by which the Veterans Integrated
Service Networks select and contract for diabetes monitoring
supplies and equipment.
(rescissions of funds)
Sec. 236. Of the discretionary funds made available in
title II of division I of Public Law 113-235 for the
Department of Veterans Affairs for fiscal year 2016,
$198,000,000 are rescinded from ``Medical Services'',
$42,000,000 are rescinded from ``Medical Support and
Compliance'', and $15,000,000 are rescinded from ``Medical
Facilities''.
(rescissions of funds)
Sec. 237. (a) There is hereby rescinded an aggregate amount
of $55,000,000 from the total budget authority provided for
fiscal year 2016 for discretionary accounts of the Department
of Veterans Affairs in--
(1) this Act; or
(2) any advance appropriation for fiscal year 2016 in prior
appropriation Acts.
(b) The Secretary shall submit to the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress a report specifying
the account and amount of each rescission not later than 30
days following enactment of this Act.
(rescission of funds)
Sec. 238. Of the unobligated balances available within the
``DOD-VA Health Care Sharing Incentive Fund'', $50,000,000
are hereby rescinded.
(rescissions of funds)
Sec. 239. Of the discretionary funds made available in
title II of division I of Public Law 113-235 for the
Department of Veterans Affairs for fiscal year 2015,
$1,052,000 are rescinded from ``General Administration'', and
$5,000,000 are rescinded from ``Construction, Minor
Projects''.
(rescissions of funds)
Sec. 240. (a) There is hereby rescinded an aggregate amount
of $90,293,000 from prior year unobligated balances available
within discretionary accounts of the Department of Veterans
Affairs;
(b) No funds may be rescinded from amounts provided under
the following headings:
(1) ``Medical Services'';
(2) ``Medical and Prosthetic Research'';
(3) ``National Cemetery Administration'';
(4) ``Board of Veterans Appeals'';
(5) ``General Operating Expenses, Veterans Benefits
Administration'';
(6) ``Office of Inspector General'';
(7) ``Grants for Construction of State Extended Care
Facilities''; and
(8) ``Grants for Construction of Veterans Cemeteries''.
(c) No amounts may be rescinded from amounts that were
designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement
pursuant to the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget or the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as
amended.
(d) The Secretary shall submit to the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress a report specifying
the account and amount of each rescission not later than 30
days following enactment of this Act.
Sec. 241. Section 2302(a)(2)(A)(viii) of title 5, United
States Code, is amended by inserting ``or under title 38''
after ``of this title''.
Sec. 242. The Department of Veterans Affairs is authorized
to administer financial assistance grants and enter into
cooperative agreements with organizations, utilizing a
competitive selection process, to train and employ homeless
and at-risk veterans in natural resource conservation
management.
Sec. 243. Section 312 of title 38, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(c)(1) Whenever the Inspector General, in carrying out
the duties and responsibilities established under the
Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.), issues a work
product that makes a recommendation or otherwise suggests
corrective action, the Inspector General shall--
``(A) submit the work product to--
``(i) the Secretary;
``(ii) the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, the Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Committee
on Appropriations of the Senate;
``(iii) the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, the Committee
on Oversight and Government Reform, and the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives;
``(iv) if the work product was initiated upon request by an
individual or entity other than
[[Page S7793]]
the Inspector General, that individual or entity; and
``(v) any Member of Congress upon request; and
``(B) the Inspector General shall submit all final work
products to--
``(i) if the work product was initiated upon request by an
individual or entity other than the Inspector General, that
individual or entity; and
``(ii) any Member of Congress upon request; and
``(C) not later than 3 days after the work product is
submitted in final form to the Secretary, post the work
product on the Internet website of the Inspector General.
``(2) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to
authorize the public disclosure of information that is
specifically prohibited from disclosure by any other
provision of law.''.
Sec. 244. None of the funds provided in this Act may be
used to pay the salary of any individual who (a) was the
Executive Director of the Office of Acquisition, Logistics
and Construction, and (b) who retired from Federal service in
the midst of an investigation, initiated by the Department of
Veterans Affairs, into delays and cost overruns associated
with the design and construction of the new medical center in
Aurora, Colorado.
Sec. 245. Of the amounts appropriated or otherwise made
available to the Department of Veterans Affairs for the
``Medical Services'' account for fiscal year 2016 in this Act
of any other Act, not less than $10,000,000 shall be used to
hire additional caregiver support coordinators to support the
programs of assistance and support for caregivers of veterans
under section 1720G of title 38, United States Code.
Sec. 246. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available to the Department of Veterans Affairs in this Act
may be used in a manner that would--
(1) interfere with the ability of a veteran to participate
in a State-approved medicinal marijuana program;
(2) deny any services from the Department to a veteran who
is participating in such a program; or
(3) limit or interfere with the ability of a health care
provider of the Department to make appropriate
recommendations, fill out forms, or take steps to comply with
such a program.
TITLE III
RELATED AGENCIES
American Battle Monuments Commission
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, of the
American Battle Monuments Commission, including the
acquisition of land or interest in land in foreign countries;
purchases and repair of uniforms for caretakers of national
cemeteries and monuments outside of the United States and its
territories and possessions; rent of office and garage space
in foreign countries; purchase (one-for-one replacement basis
only) and hire of passenger motor vehicles; not to exceed
$7,500 for official reception and representation expenses;
and insurance of official motor vehicles in foreign
countries, when required by law of such countries,
$75,100,000, to remain available until expended.
foreign currency fluctuations account
For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, of the
American Battle Monuments Commission, such sums as may be
necessary, to remain available until expended, for purposes
authorized by section 2109 of title 36, United States Code.
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses for the operation of the United
States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims as authorized by
sections 7251 through 7298 of title 38, United States Code,
$32,141,000: Provided, That $2,500,000 shall be available
for the purpose of providing financial assistance as
described, and in accordance with the process and reporting
procedures set forth, under this heading in Public Law 102-
229.
Department of Defense--Civil
Cemeterial Expenses, Army
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses for maintenance, operation, and
improvement of Arlington National Cemetery and Soldiers' and
Airmen's Home National Cemetery, including the purchase or
lease of passenger motor vehicles for replacement on a one-
for-one basis only, and not to exceed $1,000 for official
reception and representation expenses, $70,800,000, of which
not to exceed $28,000,000 shall remain available until
September 30, 2018. In addition, such sums as may be
necessary for parking maintenance, repairs and replacement,
to be derived from the ``Lease of Department of Defense Real
Property for Defense Agencies'' account.
Armed Forces Retirement Home
trust fund
For expenses necessary for the Armed Forces Retirement Home
to operate and maintain the Armed Forces Retirement Home--
Washington, District of Columbia, and the Armed Forces
Retirement Home--Gulfport, Mississippi, to be paid from funds
available in the Armed Forces Retirement Home Trust Fund,
$64,300,000, of which $1,000,000 shall remain available until
expended for construction and renovation of the physical
plants at the Armed Forces Retirement Home--Washington,
District of Columbia, and the Armed Forces Retirement Home--
Gulfport, Mississippi.
Administrative Provisions
Sec. 301. Funds appropriated in this Act under the heading
``Department of Defense--Civil, Cemeterial Expenses, Army'',
may be provided to Arlington County, Virginia, for the
relocation of the federally owned water main at Arlington
National Cemetery, making additional land available for
ground burials.
Sec. 302. Amounts deposited during the current fiscal year
to the special account established under 10 U.S.C. 4727 are
appropriated and shall be available until expended to support
activities at the Army National Military Cemeteries.
TITLE IV
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 401. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current
fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
Sec. 402. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used for any program, project, or activity, when it is
made known to the Federal entity or official to which the
funds are made available that the program, project, or
activity is not in compliance with any Federal law relating
to risk assessment, the protection of private property
rights, or unfunded mandates.
Sec. 403. Such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year
2016 for pay raises for programs funded by this Act shall be
absorbed within the levels appropriated in this Act.
Sec. 404. No part of any funds appropriated in this Act
shall be used by an agency of the executive branch, other
than for normal and recognized executive-legislative
relationships, for publicity or propaganda purposes, and for
the preparation, distribution, or use of any kit, pamphlet,
booklet, publication, radio, television, or film presentation
designed to support or defeat legislation pending before
Congress, except in presentation to Congress itself.
Sec. 405. All departments and agencies funded under this
Act are encouraged, within the limits of the existing
statutory authorities and funding, to expand their use of
``E-Commerce'' technologies and procedures in the conduct of
their business practices and public service activities.
Sec. 406. Unless stated otherwise, all reports and
notifications required by this Act shall be submitted to the
Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans Affairs,
and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations of
the House of Representatives and the Subcommittee on Military
Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies of
the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate.
Sec. 407. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be transferred to any department, agency, or instrumentality
of the United States Government except pursuant to a transfer
made by, or transfer authority provided in, this or any other
appropriations Act.
Sec. 408. (a) Any agency receiving funds made available in
this Act, shall, subject to subsections (b) and (c), post on
the public Web site of that agency any report required to be
submitted by the Congress in this or any other Act, upon the
determination by the head of the agency that it shall serve
the national interest.
(b) Subsection (a) shall not apply to a report if--
(1) the public posting of the report compromises national
security; or
(2) the report contains confidential or proprietary
information.
(c) The head of the agency posting such report shall do so
only after such report has been made available to the
requesting Committee or Committees of Congress for no less
than 45 days.
Sec. 409. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act
may be used to maintain or establish a computer network
unless such network blocks the viewing, downloading, and
exchanging of pornography.
(b) Nothing in subsection (a) shall limit the use of funds
necessary for any Federal, State, tribal, or local law
enforcement agency or any other entity carrying out criminal
investigations, prosecution, or adjudication activities.
Sec. 410. (a) In General.--None of the funds appropriated
or otherwise made available to the Department of Defense in
this Act may be used to construct, renovate, or expand any
facility in the United States, its territories, or
possessions to house any individual detained at United States
Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for the purposes of
detention or imprisonment in the custody or under the control
of the Department of Defense.
(b) The prohibition in subsection (a) shall not apply to
any modification of facilities at United States Naval
Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
(c) An individual described in this subsection is any
individual who, as of June 24, 2009, is located at United
States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and who--
(1) is not a citizen of the United States or a member of
the Armed Forces of the United States; and
(2) is--
(A) in the custody or under the effective control of the
Department of Defense; or
(B) otherwise under detention at United States Naval
Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
This Act may be cited as the ``Military Construction,
Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,
2016''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Amendment No. 2763
(Purpose: In the nature of a substitute)
Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, I call up my substitute amendment, a
bipartisan bill for VA-MILCON.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Kirk] proposes an amendment
numbered 2763.
Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
[[Page S7794]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
Amendment No. 2764 to Amendment No. 2763
Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, I call up my first-degree amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Kirk] proposes an amendment
numbered 2764 to amendment No. 2763.
Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To clarify the term ``congressional defense committees'')
At the appropriate place in title IV, insert the following:
Sec._. For the purposes of this Act, the term
``congressional defense committees'' means the Committees on
Armed Services of the House of Representatives and the
Senate, the Subcommittee on Military Construction and
Veterans Affairs of the Committee on Appropriations of the
Senate, and the Subcommittee on Military Construction and
Veterans Affairs of the Committee on Appropriations of the
House of Representatives.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Supporting Our Troops
Mr. McCONNELL. Well, amazingly enough, our colleagues across the
aisle just voted to proceed to an individual appropriations bill. We
have been trying to do this for months. Finally, they have approved
going to an appropriations bill. This should not be breaking news,
goodness gracious, but it is newsworthy because of what has been going
on around here for the last 2 or 3 months. Democrats have repeatedly
blocked the Senate from even debating individual appropriations bills.
They never had a good excuse, of course, and the excuses kept changing
as each previous excuse got debunked, but nevertheless they kept it up
month after month after month. Well, finally that seems to have changed
today. Maybe we can assume that this is the end of the filibuster
summer, in November, a partisan season of obstructionist Democratic
filibustering in which they have blockaded government funding bills
entirely--all of them. Nearly every one of those bills was bipartisan.
Our Democratic friends, as they voted for them in committee, would
send out press releases praising the bills, and then when they got out
here on the floor, they all blocked them. They said no to funding for
bridges and infrastructure. They said no to funding for energy
conservation and clean water. They said no to funding for absolutely
anything at all, especially for our troops.
You know, it is particularly jarring when you consider some of the
things written recently by President Obama's own Defense Secretary in
an op-ed entitled ``U.S. Military Needs Budget Certainty in Uncertain
Times.'' Here is what this Obama administration Cabinet Secretary said:
While Washington struggles to get its house in order, the
challenges around the world continue. China continues its
dubious and destabilizing land-reclamation activities in the
South China Sea. Islamic State continues its barbarous
campaign. Russia continues to violate the sovereignty of
Ukraine and pour gasoline on the Syrian conflict. In this
uncertain security environment, the U.S. military needs to be
agile and dynamic.
This is the Defense Secretary of the President's administration.
What it has now is a straitjacket. At the Defense
Department, we are forced to make hasty reductions when
choices should be considered carefully and strategically.
This is President Obama's Defense Secretary talking about the
necessity for these bills that are being blocked by his own party.
Here is the way he continues in his op-ed. He said:
I appeal to Congress to act on a long-term budget deal--
We did that--
that will let the American troops and their families know we
have the commitment and the resources to see them succeed,
and send a global message that the United States will
continue to plan and build for the finest fighting force the
world has ever known.
This is the Secretary of Defense in the Democratic administration.
Sounds like he is lecturing the guys on the other side here who are the
obstacle.
In spite of these pleas from the Secretary of Defense, we are still
unable to get on a defense appropriations bill. One Member of the other
side said that funding our troops was wasting the Senate's time--
wasting the Senate's time.
We have seen them all filibustered repeatedly. They just did so again
this morning. At a time when a vast number of threats face our country,
as Secretary Ash Carter alluded to, our colleagues across the aisle
actually voted to filibuster the bill that funds our troops and our
military one more time. Democrats filibustered for months on end to
hold hostage the men and women who voluntarily put themselves in harm's
way, for reasons that shifted constantly and had little to do with our
troops.
Mr. CORNYN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. McCONNELL. I will.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would ask the distinguished majority
leader whether he finds it ironic--and perhaps he has a better word
than ``ironic'' to describe the situation we find ourselves in--that
three separate times the Democrats have filibustered the funding that
provides the resources to our troops to fight our Nation's battles and
keep us safe, but then a few short days before Veterans Day, they
decide to allow us to finally get on a veterans and military
construction bill. I would hope it is not because they had second
thoughts about going home on Wednesday and giving patriotic speeches
about their support for our troops and military but then realizing what
a spot they have put themselves in. I wonder if the majority leader
shares my view that that is at least ironic, and perhaps ``cynical''
would be a more appropriate description.
Mr. McCONNELL. Yes, I would say to my colleague from Texas, they were
afraid to feel the heat next Wednesday on Veterans Day, having stopped
a veterans appropriations bill. Frankly, I hope they still feel a
little heat on stopping the Defense bill because the vast number of
veterans in our country don't just care about their own well-being
after they served, they care about the well-being of those who are
still serving.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for one additional
question?
Mr. McCONNELL. I will.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would ask the majority leader, having
been through what we have been through here in just this last week in
establishing spending caps for this year and next in this bipartisan
and bicameral Budget Act, if he can think of any possible rationale for
the Democrats filibustering the Defense appropriations bill, when, in
fact, those spending caps are subject to a law which the President has
now signed into law, and which were the subject of this bipartisan,
bicameral agreement that passed just last week.
Mr. McCONNELL. Well, you know, as each obstacle has been removed, as
each reason for filibustering these bills earlier is removed, they come
up with a new one. We obviously last week agreed on how much we were
going to spend, so the question of spending has been removed. The
302(b) allocations were completed yesterday. Our friends on the other
side said they were happy with them. They are running out of excuses,
but the end result is the same: They are still not allowing us to go
forward on the Defense bill.
I would say to my friend and colleague from Texas that I heard these
conspiracy theories that we had some trick to play here. I made it
clear not only to my counterpart the Democratic leader but to other
Democratic Senators that there is no nefarious scheme. We thought, all
objections having been removed, the appropriate thing to do would be to
try--by pursuing regular order, try to pass some of the appropriations
bills, given the limited amount of time we have left. Yet they kept on
doing the same thing with the exception of the veterans bill. It is a
mystery.
The level of dysfunction the other side seems to be promoting is bad
for the institution and bad for the country.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
[[Page S7795]]
Mr. CORNYN. If the Senator will yield for a question, I ask the
distinguished majority leader if it is still true that in order to
accomplish this delusional scheme that our friends across the aisle
have somehow dreamed up as a way to block this funding for our troops,
even if that were true--which it is not, as you have pointed out--isn't
it still true for an appropriations bill to become law it requires the
signature of the President of the United States? So it would literally
be impossible to do what they have dreamed up in their delusional state
when they are accusing us of this sort of a scheme and plan, which is
absolutely false.
Mr. McCONNELL. Yes, my friend from Texas is entirely right. There
would be no way--consistent with the Constitution that James Madison
wrote--that they would in the end not have some considerable sway over
how this episode ends.
What I think it says, more than anything, is how committed to
dysfunction our friends on the other side are--dysfunction for the sake
of dysfunction. The American people are sick and tired of that. They
want to see us do our work like adults, serious adults taking the
responsibility we have been given by our constituents to do our very
best for this country.
This is the same party on the other side that I remember lecturing
everyone else about the dangers of the filibuster. Apparently they
weren't very serious because it is obviously their new best friend now.
This is the same party we remember bashing legislative ``hostage-
taking,'' but apparently they weren't serious about that either because
they basically have become experts.
Look, the Democrats may never be able to fully remove the stain of
this filibuster summer gridlock gambit from their party's reputation,
but they can work with us now to finally start turning the page.
I ask my friends on the other side: When are we going to get back to
normal if not now? When, if not now, when we have agreed to all of the
contentious parts of the appropriations process. Every excuse has been
wiped away. We have settled our own budget agreement. We have agreed on
topline budget numbers. We have settled on subcommittee allocations,
and we have just proceeded to an individual appropriations bill at long
last.
It is time for the appropriations process to finally be allowed to
move forward, time for the Senate to finally be able to get back to
regular order. It is time for each of us to get back to work, not just
because it is the right thing for our country, not just because it is
the right thing for the brave men and women who are voluntarily putting
themselves in harm's way, but it is the best way for Senators of both
parties to have the most say in the process, for the American people to
be best represented, with their Members debating each appropriations
bill on the floor with the opportunity for amendments to be offered.
A lot of work went into developing these appropriations bills--the
occupant of the chair is on that committee. Most passed the committee
with bipartisan support. That was certainly true of the Defense
appropriations bill. It passed out of the Appropriations Committee 27
to 3. It was similarly true of the appropriations bill that funds
veterans, which passed the committee with bipartisan support. That is
the bill we just voted to proceed to.
It would support veterans by funding the health care and the benefits
they rely on. It would support military families by funding the
housing, schools, and health care facilities that serve them. It would
provide support for women's health, for medical research, for veterans
suffering from traumatic brain injury. It would do a lot of good in
many of our home States too. In my State it would provide funding for
design work at a new VA medical center in Louisville, a special
operations headquarters at Fort Campbell, and an educational facility
at Fort Knox.
The bill would do right by our veterans. We should pass it. With
continued cooperation, we can pass it by Veterans Day. Then the
appropriations process can continue after we pass this bill. It is
obvious why we started with a Defense appropriations bill first. While
this morning's filibuster was deeply regrettable, to say the least, we
have the option to reconsider that bill and we will. We are going to
keep working to ensure its passage.
Look, as we approach Veterans Day, I ask my colleagues to consider
this. We have an all-volunteer force in this country. The young men and
women who sign up to defend our Nation don't ask for a lot, but our
Nation certainly asks a lot of them. These mothers and brothers and
friends and neighbors aren't legislative poker chips, and helping them
isn't a ``waste of the Senate's time.'' These are Americans who deserve
our support. Let's put the past in the past and unite to finally give
it to them. Both parties did so in committee a few months ago and both
parties could do so now.
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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Getting the Business of the Country Done
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I had the pleasure of listening to the
Republican leader's speech a few minutes ago. I understand he has two-
thirds of his caucus who voted against the budget agreement and he has
to kind of play to his audience. I think the words he used were: We are
the party of dysfunction.
All you have to do is read the newspaper to find out that is not the
case. The fact is, it has been shown time and time again in recent
years the party that is not working is the Republican Party. There is
no more evidence of that when you see who is running for President. All
you have to do is look and see what happened in recent weeks in the
House of Representatives, where the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, when asked a week before he resigned: How do you put
up with those people over there, and he said: If you are around garbage
long enough, you can't smell it.
So let's not talk about us being the party of dysfunction.
The Republican leader has complained about delay. I don't know what
kind of glasses he is wearing, we were ready to negotiate in June. We
kept saying that over and over again. Right now we don't have anything
we can move forward on. Let's sit down and talk. They refused to talk
time and time again. We asked for consent agreements. They refused to
do that.
Time was marching on. The debt ceiling was fast approaching where, if
we had not advanced that, this country would have basically shut down
and it would have had a dramatic negative effect on the world economy.
Please, I say to my Republican colleagues, don't talk about delay. We
haven't delayed anything. These bills that are going to be in the form
of an omnibus, they should have been done one at a time, but you
couldn't do it because they were spending everything for defense and
nothing for nondefense. So with the budget agreement, as we have said,
we wanted to make sure sequestration was taken care of--and it was.
Drastic cuts in sequestration are gone for 2 years. We wanted to make
sure if there was any increase in defense the middle class got equal
parity, and they did. We are satisfied where we are, but the time for
casting blame is gone and my friend the Republican leader should stop
trying to blame it on us. We didn't do it. We are not the party of
dysfunction.
From the very beginning we sought funding levels that were fair to
the middle class and to the military. The military is going to get
their money. Everybody knows that. The Presiding Officer knows it.
Everybody knows it, but it is not a bad deal that the middle class also
gets enough to take care of them. Republicans seem compelled, as they
did this morning, to once again fund one part of the government they
like--the Pentagon--without doing anything for the needs of the rest of
the country: the middle class, those people here at home.
We can give a speech just as patriotic as my Republican friend. We
believe in the military. They have made great sacrifices for all of us,
but we don't need to give great speeches about how patriotic we are.
What we need to do is get the business of the country done, and that
has not happened. Hopefully,
[[Page S7796]]
with this step forward and being on this Military Construction and
Veterans Affairs appropriations bill, we can do that.
Democrats opposed the motion to invoke cloture on the Defense bill
this morning because Republicans again were compelled to do everything
they could for the Pentagon and ignore the rest of the country, but
this afternoon we have been willing to move ahead the Military
Construction and Veterans Affairs bill. It is the right thing to do.
That bill has both defense and domestic matters contained in it. It is
a noncontroversial bill, and it will give us an opportunity to start
the appropriations process. It doesn't seem fair to us that we would
rush forward and do the Defense bill, which is more than 50 percent of
all the money this country spends in a year--more than 50 percent of
the discretionary spending that we have to appropriate.
Now we have a December 11 deadline and we have to fund all the
government to avoid a shutdown. So I hope we are considering this
Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill. The
Appropriations Committee will be working together to put together
funding--likely in an omnibus--for the rest of the government. Dealing
with the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill
is a small step to rebuild trust and experience in working together.
Democrats are willing partners to carry out the budget agreement
Congress passed last week, but we will continue to fight for the needs
of the middle class while we continue to fight and make sure the
military is taken care of and also continue to fight poison pill
riders.
Mr. President, we have a number of people on the floor. Is anyone
seeking recognition?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Unanimous Consent Request--S. 552 and S. 966
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to
ask the Senate to take up and pass two bipartisan no-cost bills that
will help small businesses with one of their most urgent needs; that
is, access to credit. Specifically, I am referring to Senator Risch's
bill to enhance the SBA support for startup firms, which is called the
Small Business Investment Company Capital Act, and the bill I have
sponsored with Senator Isakson, the Commercial Real Estate and Economic
Development Act, which is also known as the CREED Act.
Both of these bills have broad bipartisan support. In April, almost 6
months ago, the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship
voted unanimously to pass both of these bills. I had introduced the
CREED Act with my friend from Georgia Senator Isakson to reinstate a
new version of a successful no-cost program at the SBA known as 504
refinancing. That program had expired before many of the small
businesses that needed help could benefit. Congress had created this
refinancing program during the financial crisis when small business
lending was frozen. As real estate values declined, many small
businesses, even those that were performing well and were current on
their mortgage payments, were unable to refinance their loans through
traditional methods. Small businesses with equity in their properties
were often unable to access that equity for additional operating
capital.
That 504 refinancing program worked. For the short time that it was
active, SBA and its loan partners were able to help a lot of those
small businesses. More than 2,300 small firms refinanced $5 billion of
small business debt. Unfortunately, the program expired in September of
2012, even though there was still significant demand for this type of
financing. In fact, on the last day this program was authorized, more
than 400 businesses from around the country applied.
There is still a significant demand for this lending today. We keep
hearing from small businesses that they would benefit greatly from this
type of financing. In particular, it would help the many small
businesses who are paying too much in interest because they took out
their loans during the recession. As one lender in New Hampshire said:
During the crisis, businesses took whatever financing they
could get. The banks wouldn't commit to long terms. Today the
rates are much better, [so businesses holding those loans are
paying too much].
Now, while the economy is better and lending to small businesses is
starting to recover, many banks today either cannot or will not
refinance or renew an existing commercial real estate loan on terms as
beneficial as the 504 refinancing loan could.
We know there is real need for this program. We have heard it from
small businesses, and we have heard it from groups that work directly
with small businesses. I have a chart here that shows a number of those
groups we have heard from. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the
American Bankers Association support the legislation. The National
Association of Development Companies; the National Small Business
Association; the Consumer Bankers Association; the Small Business
Majority; Women Impacting Public Policy, which does so much to support
women-owned businesses; the Association of Women's Business Centers;
and then we have a whole list of those development companies that
support this legislation. I won't read through those development
companies, but these are all organizations and businesses that want to
see us start this program again because they have small businesses that
need this lending.
I have a number of letters here that I will just hold up and show. We
have a whole packet of letters, and I ask unanimous consent to have
printed in the Record these letters.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
GSDC
Aug. 4, 2015.
Hon. Jeanne Shaheen,
Committee on Small Business & Entrepreneurship,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Ranking Member Shaheen: Thank you for introducing S.
966, the Commercial Real Estate and Economic Development Act
of 2015 (CREED Act). This bill is important to small
businesses in New Hampshire and across the country. It would
re-instate the 504 Refi program, a two-year initiative that
permitted refinancing of existing commercial real estate debt
using the Small Business Administration (SBA) 504 loan
program.
We also want to thank the Members of the Senate Committee
on Small Business & Entrepreneurship for voting unanimously
to pass the bill out of Committee on April 23, 2015. That was
three months ago, and we are counting on the full Senate to
pass the bill because it is an important source of financing
for small businesses. We need to get it up and running again
as soon as possible.
The biggest impact of the SBA 504 Refi program is to allow
small businesses access to equity in their business real
estate thereby allowing the bank and SBA 504 to consolidate
shorter term, higher interest rate loans. This directly
benefits the small business by 1) lowering interest payments
and monthly payments, 2) locking in low rate mortgage
payments for 20 years, 3) freeing up working assets (Accounts
Receivable, Inventory, FF&E--Furniture, fixtures, and
equipment) allowing the business access to working capital to
support business growth and the hiring of new employees.
The SBA 504 Refi program is only available to existing
businesses that are financially viable with experienced
management and all loan payments current. This is not a
bailout for big businesses on the brink of collapse but
rather a credit enhancement for small businesses with equity
in real estate that banks are not willing to leverage without
the assistance of the SBA 504 Refinance program. The small
business owner is savvy enough to realize the significant
benefit of the program and is willing to pay the small fees
to cover all costs, if they only had the opportunity.
Below are three specific examples of small businesses that
benefited from the SBA 504 Refi program.
1. A building supply company headquartered in Merrimack,
NH, that was significantly impacted by the recession with
sales decreasing over 30% from 2007 to 2010. The business's
$1,000,000 LOC (line of credit) was demanded by the bank with
payment due in full in less than 6 months. The SBA 504
Refinance program allowed the business to access the equity
in their real estate by taking out a new 90% LTV mortgage
(50% new bank, 40% SBA) providing 1) sufficient funds to pay
off the $1,000,000 LOC, 2) convert short term working capital
with higher interest rate to long term lower interest debt
with a fixed rate, and 3) free up access to new working
capital. The new bank provided a new $250,000 LOC and a new
$200,000 term loan.
2. A manufacturing company that provides drilling and
routing services to high-tech industries located primarily
throughout the northeastern United States and has its
headquarters located in a 9,620 SF manufacturing facility in
an Industrial Park in Salem, NH. The company's original $575M
mortgage required monthly P&I payments of $4,500 (priced
@5.65%) and the SBA 504 Refi program refinanced their
mortgage and reduced monthly mortgage payments to
approximately $3,950 creating an annual savings of
[[Page S7797]]
over $6,600. The interest rate on the new mortgage was also
decreased to 4.25% with the assistance of the SBA 504
Refinance program. This 504 Refi transaction allowed the Bank
to reduce its mortgage exposure to the customer by $250M,
which in turn allowed the Bank to consolidate three term
loans and provide a single $460M term loan, creating an
additional $3,000 yearly savings at a lower interest rate.
Finally, debt consolidation and SBA 504 refinance allowed the
Bank to grant the customer a new $50M RLOC for working
capital needs to keep the customer operating during the slow
winter months.
3. A grocery store located in Littleton, NH. The store
carries a full line of grocery store products as well as
natural, organic and locally produced goods. With the
assistance of the SBA 504 Refi program the business was able
to access equity in their real estate and consolidate eight
short term mortgages and equipment terms loans totaling
$3,231,000 reducing payments by $114,000 per year. With this
annual savings the business was able to add long term
financial stability to costs and free up working capital to
allow the business to hire new employees. This business has
seen steady growth and is planning to expand in 2015.
There are more small businesses that could use this
financing. Please urge the Senate to pass this bill.
Thank you,
Scott Gardiner,
Executive Vice President, Granite State
Economic Development Corp.
____
Chamber of Commerce of the
United States of America,
Washington, DC, Aug. 19, 2015.
Hon. Jeanne Shaheen,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Johnny Isakson,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Shaheen and Isakson: The U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, the world's largest business federation
representing the interests of more than three million
businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions, as well as
state and local chambers and industry associations, and
dedicated to promoting, protecting, and defending America's
free enterprise system, supports S. 966, the ``Commercial
Real Estate and Economic Development Act of 2015,'' (CREED
Act) which would help provide small business owners with much
needed access to capital when attempting to refinance their
commercial real estate loans.
Many small business owners are challenged to refinance real
estate loans structured as balloon payments and
collateralized by devalued assets when the loan matures. Even
though the small business borrower may be current on their
payments, the financial institution experiencing tightened
lending standards and increased oversight by examiners may
not have a choice but to either force the business into
foreclosure, or take a loss by writing down the loan.
S. 966 would help small businesses and financial
institutions overcome these hurdles by allowing small
businesses to refinance eligible debt with a Small Business
Administration 504 loan, at no expense to taxpayers.
More than ninety-six percent of the Chamber's members are
small businesses with fewer than one hundred employees. The
Chamber thanks you for introducing S. 966, the CREED Act, and
looks forward to working with you on its passage.
Sincerely,
R. Bruce Josten.
____
Sept. 25, 2015.
Sen. Bob Casey,
393 Russell Senate Office Building,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Sen. Pat Toomey,
248 Russell Senate Office Building,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Casey and Senator Toomey: On behalf of
Northeastern Economic Development Co. in Pennsylvania, I
write to share my enthusiasm for S. 966, the CREED Act. This
bill was unanimously voted out of the Senate Committee on
Small Business and Entrepreneurship in April and has been
waiting to be passed by the full Senate for more than three
months. The bill is bi-partisan and has zero cost.
I urge you to push for quick consideration of this bill in
the Senate and vote in favor it so that Pennsylvania small
businesses, and small businesses everywhere, can once again
have access to this valuable program.
The CREED Act will reinstitute a program that permits
conventional loans to be refinanced with the SBA's 504 loan
program. When this refinancing was in place from mid-2011 to
September 2012, more than 2,300 small business owners were
able to refinance existing equipment or owner-occupied real
estate debt. During this economically challenging time, these
entrepreneurs refinanced $5 billion of their own capital to
reinvest in their business and create jobs. One of the states
to use this program the most was Pennsylvania--roughly $68
million in loans went to small businesses that refinanced
existing loans on essential fixed assets.
While large businesses have equal access to capital as they
did before the recession, small businesses still have a tight
credit market. This valuable refinancing tool is needed to
help America's 28 million small businesses grow. The demand
is certainly there--over 400 businesses applied to the
refinancing program on its final day, but were left out from
participating when it closed. With interest rates at historic
lows, reinstituting the refinancing program will give small
business owners a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to lock in a
fixed-rate refinanced loan and be able to use those savings
to reinvest and grow their businesses, We hope with your
leadership, this program will be available to them again.
Thank you in advance for your support of S.966, the CREED
Act, and for your continued support of small businesses.
Sincerely,
Stephen Ursich,
Executive Director.
____
CSRA Business,
Oct. 26, 2015.
Sen. Johnny Isakson,
131 Russell Senate Office Building,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Isakson, We the non-profit SBA Certified
Development Companies in the State of Georgia, are jointly
writing you this letter to thank you for your support and co-
sponsorship of S.966 (the CREED Act) and to ask you to assist
in the passage of the bill that is expected to be introduced
on the floor of the Senate in the coming days. We as a group
unanimously support this legislation which is a badly needed
rule change to the SBA-504 loan program that we all operate
in our various communities which would allow small business
owners throughout our state to tap into the equity in their
buildings and refinance debt at our current low historical
rates.
This bill was unanimously voted out of the Senate Committee
on Small Business and Entrepreneurship in April and has been
waiting to be passed by the full Senate for more than four
months. As you well know, the bill is bipartisan and has zero
cost to the taxpayers.
As one of the lead cosponsors of this bill, you understand
the benefits it will provide to small businesses. The CREED
Act will reinstitute a program that permits conventional
mortgages and other loans to be refinanced with the SBA's 504
loan program if a small business owner can demonstrate
sufficient equity and cash flow exists. When this refinancing
was in place from mid-2011 to September 2012, more than 2,300
small business owners were able to refinance their owner-
occupied business real estate debt.
While large businesses have equal access to capital as they
did before the recession, small businesses still have a tight
credit market. This valuable refinancing tool is needed to
help America's 28 million small businesses grow. The demand
is certainly there--over 900 businesses applied to the
refinancing program on the final day it was in place. With
interest rates at historic lows, reinstituting the
refinancing program will give small business owners the same
opportunity consumers have had--to refinance into a low
fixed-rate loan and be able to use those savings to reinvest
and grow their businesses. We hope with your leadership, this
program will be available to them again.
It is our understanding that some have suggested that this
program be held to accounting standards outside of the
current federal budgeting procedure. The process of how the
budget is managed is a contentious one and one that should
not hold this bill hostage. That issue should be handled
through the Senate Budget Committee and not a bipartisan bill
that gives small businesses an opportunity to grow.
We know the performance of the loans that were refinanced
during the downturn while program was in place, have
outperformed OMB projections and the regular default rates on
standard SBA loans. SBA implemented credit safeguards by
making the program available only to businesses who have been
in business two or more years and by not allowing business to
refinance debt that has been past due in the year prior to
application.
We appreciate your leadership on S.966, the CREED Act, and
ask for your assistance in its passage in the Senate.
Sincerely,
Randy Griffin, President,
CSRA Business Lending, Augusta,
On Behalf of the Attached.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. The support for this bill is so broad, as indicated by
this chart and as indicated by these letters, because the need is so
great. There is no reason we shouldn't take up and pass this bill. It
has been approved by the committee--the small business committee. It
has broad bipartisan support. It is cosponsored by Senators Fischer,
Ayotte, Coons, Cantwell, Hirono, Franken, and Casey. I thank them for
their support, and I thank the small business committee for its work.
Mr. President, like so many of the important bills that go through
the Senate, this bill has been paired, as I said earlier, by the
chairman of the small business committee, Senator Vitter, with another
no-cost small business bill which is authored by Senator Risch from
Idaho. That bill, along with the CREED Act, will provide no-cost
solutions that will help small businesses in this country get the
credit they need to fuel our growth.
Again, both of these bills passed unanimously out of the small
business committee. I believe the time has come
[[Page S7798]]
to pass them in the Senate. They have been held up for too long.
At this time I want to yield to my colleague, who is going to talk
about the hold problem we have been facing on this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I would like to be recognized to ask my
colleague from New Hampshire a question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, it has been more than 4 years since the
Senate overwhelmingly passed a bipartisan resolution ending the ability
of Senators to place secret holds as a way to block passage of
legislation and confirmations of nominees. The resolution--which I
worked on with our colleague from Iowa Senator Grassley for more than a
decade, and Senator McCaskill joined in these efforts--overwhelmingly
passed the Senate by a 92-to-4 vote. Under the resolution, Senators who
object to requests to pass legislation by unanimous consent are
supposed to record their opposition by sending notice to the cloakroom
and to the Secretary of the Senate, notifying colleagues of their
objection. The objection is then listed in the Senate Calendar on a
page--I took today's with the title ``Notice of Intent to Object to
Proceeding.''
Mr. President, if you look at the page in the Senate Calendar where
holds on bills are supposed to be listed, right now you will find a
single entry on the page. It concerns a public hold that I placed on
the intelligence authorization legislation last July. I wish I could
say the reason that only one objection to a unanimous consent request
is listed in the Senate Calendar is that my objection is the only hold
placed on a bill in the past few months.
Regrettably, that does not seem to be the case. For example, my
colleague from New Hampshire has been talking about her bill, known as
the CREED Act, S. 966. It was hotlined back on June 18 to determine if
any Senator objected to passing that bill by unanimous consent. An
objection was made after the bill was hotlined back in June, but the
objecting Senator was not publicly identified as the timely objection
was made. My understanding is that Senator Shaheen and her staff
subsequently learned that multiple Senators had objected to passing her
bill by unanimous consent, but not one of those Senators made their
objection public through the notice requirements that were part of the
bipartisan resolution.
I think it is important to note that Senator Shaheen's CREED Act was
determined to have no cost to Federal taxpayers. It is funded entirely
by fees paid by the borrowers and lenders under the SBA 504 Loan
Program. It strikes me as a very good bill that would benefit America's
economy.
I gather there are some Senators who might not agree about the value
of the program, which, of course, is their right as Senators. But if
they object to passing a bill, Senators ought to be publicly
accountable. That is how we voted--92 to 4. They shouldn't be able to
hide opposition behind anonymous objection. Senator Grassley and I and
Senator McCaskill and others have said: Look, public business has got
to be done in public. So Senator Grassley and I have publicly announced
our holds by putting statements in the Congressional Record, and I
don't think that Western civilization has exactly been harmed as a
result of this kind of transparency and accountability.
I would like to ask my colleague Senator Shaheen, given her interest
in living up to both the letter and the spirit of the bipartisan
resolution, whether it is her intent to state a unanimous consent
request at this time to ensure the kind of transparency and
accountability that was envisioned in the bipartisan resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. I thank my colleague from Oregon for pointing out the
fact that people who want to hold up legislation that has broad
bipartisan support are supposed to make themselves publicly known. It
took us months to figure out who was actually holding up this bill. So
I do intend to ask unanimous consent to move the bill forward. I
appreciate the Senator pointing out the change we have agreed to as a
Senate in how we handle those holds and that the people holding up the
legislation should be public so the public understands who is objecting
and has a chance to weigh in with the people who are objecting.
Mr. President, with that said, I ask unanimous consent that the
Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 104, S.
552, and Calendar No. 107, S. 966, en bloc; that the bills be read a
third time and passed; and that the motions to reconsider be considered
made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I want to
address the unanimous consent request, and I am delighted to continue
the ongoing conversation we have been having about this for many months
now with the minority staff on the small business committee and with
the office of the Senator from New Hampshire.
I might preface my comments by observing that I used to own and
operate my own small business. I helped launch a little community bank
in eastern Pennsylvania, western New Jersey. I have some firsthand
personal experience both as a small business borrower and as a small
business lender, and that experience informs my judgment about this and
other things.
I should also point out that this is a unanimous consent request to
consider two bills together en bloc. I have made it clear that I have
no objection to S. 552, but I do have some concerns about S. 966 that I
want to address.
Let me be clear about what this does. This legislation would
reactivate an expired program that requires taxpayers to guarantee
certain loans. By the way, taxpayers are already on the hook for over
$3 trillion of loans we force them to guarantee through many different
programs. This would bring back to life another taxpayer loan guarantee
program. It does it by specifically requiring taxpayers to guarantee
loans that would refinance existing debt.
So this particular legislation that we are considering today is about
the refinancing of existing debt. It is not taking on new debt for the
purpose of expanding an existing business or something like that; it is
refinancing existing debt.
As the Senator observed, this would sort of reincarnate a program
that was launched in 2010. This was launched in 2010 because we were
still in the very early days of recovering from a severe financial
crisis. It was designed intentionally to be temporary--to require
taxpayers to finance these loans for small businesses but only for this
2-year period. And that is what happened.
Here are my problems with this. I have two problems. One is the cost
this imposes on taxpayers. I have heard it described as a no-cost
program on several occasions. That is absolutely not true. The fact is
that no small business goes through the hassle of applying for and
participating in this program unless it can get the loan at a lower
rate than what is generally available from banks. That difference
between this taxpayer-subsidized lower rate and a market rate is the
cost to the taxpayers. You don't have to take my word for it; that is
what the Congressional Budget Office said. I will say more on that in a
moment. In addition, the parent program that provides similar types of
loans has lost $300 million for taxpayers over just the last several
years. How is that no cost?
The second concern I have is that there is no job requirement
whatsoever in this particular legislation, unlike the existing
program--the parent program, if you will, the 504 program that never
suspended. That has an explicit job requirement for additional taxpayer
liabilities. This one doesn't. It explicitly exempts the business
borrowing this money from having to create or even retain so much as a
single job.
So I would like to modify the unanimous consent request, and my
modification does three things: No. 1, it allows the resumption of the
program. That is the first thing it does. It allows this program to
resume, which is the intention of the Senator from New Hampshire, I
believe. But what it also does, after 1 year of resumption, is require
that we begin to have some taxpayer protections on this. Specifically,
[[Page S7799]]
the form that would take would be to require the Office of Management
and Budget to certify that the program doesn't cost money on a fair
value basis. The fair value basis is taking into account the fact that
not all credits are equal. For instance, the corner pizza shop is not
as creditworthy as the Treasury of the United States of America. So a
true cost of a loan differs between that which you would extend to the
Treasury of the United States of America and the local pizza shop. If
you don't have a differential between those two, then someone is
getting the wrong rate. And if you lend to the pizza shop at the same
rate you lend to the Federal Government, you are surely not being
compensated adequately for the risk you are taking.
So this methodology, the fair value methodology, is the same one we
use when we quantify the cost of the TARP program, when we quantify the
cost of GSE guarantees, and when we quantify IMF liabilities. That is
what I am suggesting we use.
The Congressional Budget Office has weighed in with their views on
fair value accounting, and they said:
When the government extends credit, the associated market
risk of those obligations is effectively passed along to
taxpayers, who, as investors, would view that risk as having
a cost. Therefore, the fair-value approach offers a more
comprehensive estimate of federal costs.
That is the second thing we do. First, we extend the program and
allow it to resume. Secondly, we impose fair value, which is to say an
honest assessment of the true cost to taxpayers. Finally, my suggestion
is that we enact the very same jobs test that the parent legislation--
the alternative, similar legislation, the 504 program--requires, and
that is, for every $65,000 of new risk that taxpayers are being forced
to take, let's at least make sure we are creating or retaining at least
one job. Think about the alternative. Someone could go out and
refinance an existing loan at a lower rate because the government--the
taxpayers--is subsidizing the rate. They could use the savings to buy
automation equipment and actually eliminate jobs. How could that make
any sense at all?
My modification would restore the program, would provide some
protection to taxpayers, and would require job creation in the process.
I ask that the Senator modify her request, that the bills be passed
en bloc, and that my amendment to S. 966, which is at the desk, be
agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator so modify?
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Reserving the right to object to the modification, let
me point out that Senator Toomey's objection to this bill is not only
wrong, it is inconsistent. The Senator is not objecting to Senator
Risch's bill, S. 552, which is also being considered today. He not
seeking to amend it, even though it would increase small business
assistance and also require taxpayer guarantee.
We have also recently passed bills that increase small business
assistance, including Senator Vitter's disaster legislation and an
increase to the cap for the SBA 7(a) Loan Program. The fact is that the
amendment Senator Toomey is proposing is really not a compromise. Let
me take a few minutes to explain why.
This amendment would essentially gut the pre-legislation, the 504
refinancing program, and it would prevent it from ever helping small
businesses.
I appreciate Senator Toomey's experience as a small business owner.
My husband and I started out our married life as small business owners.
We had a family business. It did very well by us. I learned a lot about
the challenges facing small business. One of the major ones is access
to credit.
What Senator Toomey is talking about would single out this
legislation and gut the intent of this legislation, and that is not
what small businesses need.
I want to read a letter that we received from nine lenders--the
nonprofit SBA certified development companies in the State of Georgia
that worked with this program--about their assessment of what Senator
Toomey is proposing. They say:
It is our understanding that some have suggested that this
program be held to accounting standards outside of the
current federal budgeting procedure. The process of how the
budget is managed is a contentious one and one that should
not hold this bill hostage. . . . We know the performance of
the loans that were refinanced during the downturn while
[the] program was in place have outperformed OMB projections
and the regular default rates on standard SBA loans. SBA
implemented credit safeguards by making the program available
only to businesses who have been in business two or more
years and by not allowing businesses to refinance debt that
has been past due in the year prior to the application.
That is the end of the quote from the letter, and it was submitted as
part of the package of letters I submitted earlier.
What Senator Toomey's proposal would do is single out this program
and make it subject to a budget standard that would artificially raise
the cost of programs meant to help small businesses, farmers, students,
and so many others get access to credit.
I understand the Senator from Pennsylvania wanting to change budget
rules for credit programs. Certainly, if he has a concern about that,
he should try to do that. I am happy to have that debate. But this
isn't the right place to do it. We shouldn't be holding small
businesses hostage.
The Budget Committee recently started a series of hearings on budget
reforms, and I think that is the right venue for this discussion.
I would point out that Senator Enzi, who chairs the Budget Committee,
voted for this legislation. He was part of the vote in the Small
Business Committee that passed this legislation.
I would also like to note that the CREED Act, as passed by the
committee, was supported by a number of organizations from the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
I will quote again from one of the letters we received from one of
those lenders from Pennsylvania, NEDCO. They said:
I write to share my enthusiasm for the CREED Act. . . . I
urge you to push for quick consideration of this bill in the
Senate and vote in favor of it so that Pennsylvania small
businesses, and small businesses everywhere, can once again
have access to this valuable program. . . . While large
businesses have equal access to capital as they did before
the recession, small businesses still have a tight credit
market. . . . With interest rates at historic lows,
reinstituting the refinancing program will give small
business owners a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to lock in a
fixed-rate refinanced loan and be able to use those savings
to reinvest and grow their businesses.
The letter goes on. That is just one lender. Across Pennsylvania, the
program had a big impact while it was up and running. In fact,
Pennsylvania was the 12th most active State, with more than $64 million
in loans and more than 1,700 jobs supported in about the 18 months of
the program.
We did amend the bill in the Small Business Committee to address some
of the concerns from Republican Members about its budget implications.
Those changes have been made. They have been vetted by our committee.
But now, after months of delay, Senator Toomey has proposed an
amendment that is not a good-faith effort at compromise, from my
perspective, that would effectively prevent the program from ever
helping small businesses that we need to help.
For all of these reasons, I object, and I would again ask unanimous
consent to take up and pass both bills as reported by the committee of
jurisdiction.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cassidy). Objection is heard to the
modification.
Is there objection to the original request?
The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I am a
little surprised and disappointed to be accused of not operating in
good faith when I attempted to reach a compromise by allowing one of
these two bills to go exactly as the proponent advocated.
I would be happy to extend fair value accounting treatment to the
Risch bill as well. The Senator from New Hampshire is concerned about
consistency. Let's consistently apply honest accounting for the risks
we are imposing on taxpayers. And to think that is not an appropriate
conversation to have at a time when we are asking taxpayers to take new
risks--I don't know what better time there could be, especially after
we have saddled taxpayers with over $3 trillion of guarantees that they
have been obligated to already.
If somehow my modifications would make it impossible to make the
loans,
[[Page S7800]]
that should tell us something about this program. In other words, if we
say that they can't proceed with a loan if a fair and honest
accounting, as prescribed by CBO, shows it to be in a loss, then
apparently they are concerned about the program being at a loss--as
well they should be since the most closely related program has lost
hundreds of millions of dollars for taxpayers.
So I think this is exactly the time to have this conversation. We
have been having this conversation for months with the Senator from New
Hampshire's staff and the small business committee's minority staff. If
we can reach an agreement on this, as I said before, I am happy to
allow this program to resume, but it should be done in a way that it
actually creates jobs and actually does provide some protection to
taxpayers. So since we can't agree to that today, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I understand Senator Toomey has objected
to my unanimous consent request, but I do think it is important to
point out that in fact the amendment he has proposed would essentially
undermine the program. That is why I say that is not an amendment that
is a real effort to improve the bill. In fact, it is not being offered
on any other of these kinds of programs--didn't offer it on Senator
Vitter's legislation, on increasing the SBA 7(a) program cap.
If that is a conversation he wants to have as a member of the Budget
Committee and for the Budget Committee to start talking about that,
that is very appropriate, but that should not undermine the efforts of
small businesses to get the lending they need. In fact, this is a
program that has a history. It has a history that shows that it has a
lower default rate than other SBA loan programs. In Pennsylvania alone,
it created 1,700 jobs during the time it was in effect.
So I think there is the possibility to get to some agreement, even
though we have already made some reforms to this bill in committee, but
I don't think gutting the program in a way that makes it ineffective is
the way to do that.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, first, I thank the senior Senator from
New Hampshire for her advocacy for small business. We work together on
a number of different small business issues dealing with capital, and I
appreciate her advocacy. Her partnership has helped us in Michigan on
some very important things on which I hope we are going to be able to
move forward, so I thank her.
Affordable Care Act
Mr. President, I want to speak today about the importance of having
access to quality, affordable health care. The Affordable Care Act has
fixed a lot of what has been wrong with our broken health care system
in the past. We no longer have to be afraid of someone in our family
getting sick and being dropped from our insurance plan. Being a woman
is no longer viewed as a preexisting condition. Young people are able
to stay on their parents' plan while they are looking for a job with
full health benefits. That has certainly affected people in my family,
as I am sure everyone in the Chamber and certainly those across the
country have felt this, as they are supporting young people who are
moving from high school or college and looking for a job. And we are
slowing the growth of health insurance premiums. And, as we have this
first week of open enrollment and Americans are heading to
healthcare.gov to sign up and get covered, we know we now have 17.6
million more Americans enrolled in the Affordable Care Act who know
that if the kids get sick tonight, they will be able to make sure they
can go to a doctor and get the health care they need. If they
themselves get sick, they won't just be relying on emergency rooms,
which are the most expensive way to get regular health care. They will
have the peace of mind of knowing they are covered if there is cancer
discovered or if there is an accident or something else happens in
their family.
According to the Centers for Disease Control, the number of people
who are uninsured has fallen to 9.2 percent. I would like to see that
still lower, but the good news is that it is half of what it was just 2
years ago. So in 2 years we have seen the number of people without
health insurance cut in half --I think that is good news--even before
the opening of the marketplace and State exchanges.
Thanks to the ACA, the rate of uninsured children dropped to 6
percent last year, which is the lowest in history. We have the lowest
number of children who are now in a situation where they don't have
health care coverage. Unfortunately, just as Americans are reviewing
their options right now during the open enrollment period, Republicans
are looking to pull the rug out from under these children and their
families.
A few weeks ago Republicans in the House passed what is called a
budget reconciliation bill that essentially, bottom line, guts the
Affordable Care Act, removing major provisions that help families get
access to quality affordable health care coverage. According to the
nonpartisan budget office, the bill on the whole ``would increase
premiums . . . by roughly 20 percent above what would be expected under
current law'' and cause 16 million people of the 17.6 to lose health
insurance. Why in the world would we want to pass this bill? I don't
know why in the world the House wanted to pass this bill, but why in
the world would we want to pass a bill that will roughly increase
premiums by 20 percent above what they otherwise would be and knock 16
million people off their health insurance? Unfortunately, we are going
to have that bill in front of us very shortly. I hope we are all going
to vote no.
Of those who lose insurance, up to 20 percent of them--over 3
million--are children. After achieving the lowest rates of uninsured
children in history, we are going to have in front of us a bill that
would require elimination of 3 million children from being able to get
health insurance.
The bill also eliminates the Prevention and Public Health Fund. As
they say, we know that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of care.
It is much better to focus on healthy outcomes, to focus on reducing
obesity, diabetes, heart disease, strokes, and all of those things that
allow us on the front end to do prevention and public health and
wellness rather than picking up the pieces. It would eliminate that
thought.
In Michigan these funds have been used to help prevent tobacco use
and to promote awareness of the importance of children getting
immunized against debilitating and deadly diseases, to name just a few
things. Critically important, the House bill strips funding for Planned
Parenthood. The budget office again estimates that up to 25 percent--
one out of four--people currently being served by clinics for
preventive health care would face reduced access to care. It makes
absolutely no sense to roll back preventive health care for women, to
roll back prevention that allows us to create opportunities for people
with information and tools they need to be healthy rather than getting
diseases down the road. Certainly, it makes no sense to raise premiums
by 20 percent or to see 16 million people lose their health care.
I hope when that budget reconciliation bill comes before the Senate
that we will say no and allow millions of Americans to continue to have
the peace of mind of knowing they will have access to the medical care
they need for themselves and their families.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
F-35 Procurement
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the current
plan to procure around 2,500 F-35s for our men and women in uniform.
Recently, I understand the chairman of the Armed Services Committee
called upon Congress to cut the number of F-35s our Armed Forces will
produce. Usually, I fully agree with the chairman's astute assessment
of national security matters. In fact, I think he is a terrific
chairman. In particular, I applaud his vital work in drawing attention
to this administration's lack of effective strategies to eliminate the
current threats posed by the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and the so-called
Islamic State.
[[Page S7801]]
Nevertheless, I must respectfully disagree with his call to reduce
the number of F-35s to be acquired by our Nation's military. In doing
so, I reiterate my full support for the existing program of record,
which calls for the procurement of 1,763 F-35s for the Air Force, 420
for the Marines, and 260 for the Navy.
As we assess the question of F-35 procurement, we should remember how
the Department of Defense determined the number of aircraft it would
purchase in the first place. I can assure you, this decision was
neither hasty nor taken lightly. The Pentagon based its estimates on a
thorough review of our Nation's airpower readiness and the capabilities
needed to deter and defeat future threats to our national security. The
Department's procurement request doesn't reflect an arbitrary estimate
but the number of F-35s needed to keep our Nation safe.
If we reduce the number of F-35s to be acquired by the military, we
hamstring our own ability to defend ourselves against America's
enemies. Despite the formidable war-winning capabilities of the F-35,
this weapon system cannot be in more than one place at once. One F-35
aircraft cannot simultaneously deter Russian aggression in Eastern
Europe, patrol free waters in the South China Sea, target the Islamic
State of the Middle East, and provide critical air support for our
allies in Afghanistan. With every aircraft we cut, we are spreading our
defenses thin, putting our national security at risk, and limiting the
ability of our men and women in uniform to complete their mission.
Now is the worst time imaginable to limit production of the F-35. Not
only does the quantity and magnitude of threats facing our Nation
continue to increase, so does the number of locations from which these
threats emanate. Moreover, when the Department of Defense made the
initial assessment for F-35 procurement, we did not face the
exponential growth of threats which continue to metastasize under the
Obama administration's failed foreign policy. In this sense, the
military's request to procure just under 2,500 aircraft is not only
reasonable but actually highly conservative.
As some of my colleagues discuss reducing the number of F-35s we
provide to our Nation's military, they should remember to consider the
economies of scale. With every single aircraft we cut, the individual
cost of each F-35 actually increases, but if we keep current
procurement levels the same, the price of each aircraft remains the
same. We should be actively looking for ways to lower costs, not raise
them.
Thanks to the hard work and dedication of the F-35 Joint Program
Office, its program executive officer, Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, and
its industry partners, we are finding ways to drive down costs and make
the F-35 more affordable. They are doing a terrific job. In fact, the
pricetag for the F-35 in our country is actually decreasing. Currently,
each aircraft costs roughly $104 million to produce, but with the
projected purchase of over 3,500 jet fighters worldwide, I believe that
price will continue to fall.
At full production, the price of the F-35 will be comparable to the
cost of new versions of the aircraft it is designed to replace; namely,
the F-16 and the F/A-18, which raises another question. Why is it vital
to replace our aging aircraft with the F-35? Why don't we just purchase
new and improved versions of aircraft which are already in the fleet?
The answer is simple. No matter how many improvements and modifications
we make to the design of the A-10, F-16, and F/A-18 aircraft, they will
never be stealth aircraft, nor will they ever match the capabilities of
a fifth-generation jet fighter.
Stealth technology is absolutely critical to the future of our Armed
Forces. Stealth fighters are the only aircraft capable of penetrating
airspace protected by advanced area denial anti-aircraft systems. Both
Russia and China are developing these advanced anti-aircraft systems,
and both nations appear willing to sell their technology to potential
adversaries, including Iran. Because of Russia's propensity to
proliferate weapon systems to rogue regimes and China's startling
advancement in technology to include the J-31 stealth aircraft and the
PL-15 air-to-air missile, it is all but inevitable that our forces will
routinely encounter these sophisticated systems in both the near- and
the long-term. Because stealth technology is the most effective means
of defeating these anti-aircraft systems, we hold a solemn duty to our
servicemembers to provide them with the superior capabilities of the F-
35.
I will not deny that the F-35 has had its fair share of problems. Its
development program was not well-planned, and along the way there were
abundant technical hurdles, cost overruns, and program execution
concerns, but as is the case in the development of any breakthrough
technology, setbacks are not only probable, they are expected. What
matters now is how we react to these setbacks to make the program a
success.
We have now rounded the corner and are on the cusp of fielding the
most remarkable strike aircraft ever developed. The F-35 will help our
Nation reclaim its technological edge at a critical time. Our enemies
have been working tirelessly to match our military might, and they have
made significant progress in achieving parity with our current
technology systems, but the F-35 will widen the technological gap once
again. Its superior capabilities will put us far ahead of our
adversaries, and we can stay one step ahead by keeping procurement
numbers for the F-35 at their current levels.
In all of my years of public service, the F-35 is the most impressive
weapon system I have ever seen. I am convinced this platform will give
our Air Force, Navy, and Marine aviators the military advantage they
need to protect us against tyranny, deter our foes, and protect our
cherished liberties for years to come. I urge my colleagues to support
this program, including the military's initial procurement request.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized
as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, what is the business before the Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is considering H.R. 2029.
Mr. McCAIN. Which is?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The MILCON-VA appropriations bill.
Department of Defense Appropriations Bill
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, we are now considering the MILCON-VA
appropriations bill. Obviously, anything we do for our veterans is
something that is laudable to all of us, but earlier a very interesting
vote took place in the U.S. Senate, when the Department of Defense
appropriations bill which funds the appropriations for the Department
of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and for other
purposes, et cetera--in other words, the Defense appropriations bill
which provides for the training, the equipment, the pay, the medical
care, all of those vital necessities for the men and women who are
serving in the military--a sufficient number of my colleagues, I
believe all but one on the other side of the aisle, decided to vote
against moving to that legislation.
I want the record to be clear, all but one of my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle, as I understand it, voted against moving to
the legislation which provides the funding for the defense of this
Nation and the men and women who serve it--items that are vitally
important to the men and women who are serving, items such as military
personnel. The committee recommends $3 billion for pay allowances and
other personnel costs for Active Reserve and Guard troops activated for
duty in Afghanistan and other contingencies, counterterrorism
partnership funds, a money provision that recommends $300 million for
the Ukrainians who are now being dismantled by Vladimir Putin. The
committee, as I mentioned, recommends money for pay allowances and
other personnel costs for Active, Reserve, and Guard troops activated
for duty in Afghanistan and other contingency operations. The
recommendation includes funding for subsistence, permanent change of
station, travel, and special pays, including imminent danger pay,
family separation allowance, and hardship duty pay.
I will have some other selections, but I think the American people
ought to know what my colleagues on the other
[[Page S7802]]
side of the aisle just voted against. They voted against paying
allowances and personnel costs for the Active, Reserve, and Guard
troops activated for duty in Afghanistan, including funding for
subsistence, permanent change of station, travel, and special pays,
including imminent danger pay. We won't fund the men and women serving
in imminent danger. We decided not to fund them. That is amazing--truly
amazing.
One of the programs in here is the Counterterrorism Partnership Fund.
There is item after item listed here. These appropriations are for the
men and women in the armed services. These appropriations include their
pay, their benefits, their weapons, and their means to carry out their
duties in dangerous times.
Other programs in here include countering violent extremism online,
the European Reassurance Initiative, and, as I mentioned, Ukraine and
counterterrorism. All of these provisions are contained in probably
what is the most important obligation that we have. I don't know of a
greater obligation that we have to the American people and the security
of the Nation. If there is any doubt about what is going on in the
world, one might just want to look back at what happened in the last
couple of days--the loss of a Russian airliner under very suspicious
circumstances, the continued pouring of weapons and capabilities into
Syria by the Russians and Iranians, and the continued gains made by
ISIS in many parts of the world, including even as far away as parts of
Africa and Afghanistan.
Do any of my colleagues know of the strategy that the United States
has to address these issues? They can't because there is none. But here
we are doing our duty--our constitutional obligation--to provide for
the men and women who are serving and defending this Nation. And for
obscure reasons--perhaps the Democrats, my colleagues and friends on
the other side of the aisle, will come to the floor and explain why
they would not go to a piece of legislation that protects this Nation
and the men and women who serve it.
I am sure that in about 6 days--I believe it is--on November 11,
Veterans Day, every one of my colleagues, like me, will go and be part
of the celebration of the men and women who served and sacrificed.
What do you have to say about the men and women who are now serving?
What you just did was to vote to not fund, train, equip, and defend
these men and women, and without this, their lives are in greater
danger. So don't go back and say that you are doing everything you can
to defend this Nation. You are not.
Right now we have a very turbulent political situation in America. We
have people who are now leading in the polls and perhaps have never
held public office. The approval rating of Congress is at 12 percent or
lower, and sometimes I hear some of my colleagues wonder why we are
held in such low esteem. If we can't even fund the men and women in the
military and take care of their needs, who in the world will we take
care of?
I believe the Republican leader voted in a way so that we can
reconsider the vote. We need to reconsider the vote. We need to vote,
and we need to be on record that we have done our barest of duties--our
fundamental duty as elected officials, which is to ensure the security
of this Nation.
Right now my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who voted not
to move forward with this legislation have a lot of explaining to do on
Veterans Day--a lot of explaining to do as to why they wouldn't take up
the legislation that takes care of their change of station, their pay,
their benefits, and takes care of their health care. It is all in this
legislation, and yet my colleagues, for reasons which I do not
understand, did not vote to take up this legislation.
I say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: Where are your
priorities? Where are they? Is it somehow to gridlock this legislation
because you want a certain piece of legislation brought up instead of
this one? Is it for some other obscure reason or is it because you
don't give a damn?
This is an embarrassing time for me in this body, when we have enough
Senators to prevent us from taking up what are our barest minimal
requirements of our obligations, which are to provide for the defense
of this Nation and the men and women who serve it. It is foolish,
cynical, and dangerous to hold defense legislation hostage until every
one of their political demands is met simply because of that.
Veterans Day is 1 week away. I urge my Democratic colleagues to stop
treating our national defense as a tool for extracting political
leverage. Let's return to the bipartisan tradition of providing for the
common defense. That is what the men and women serving in the military
deserve and require from us, it is what Americans expect from us, and
it is what the Constitution demands of us.
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. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Transportation Authorization bill
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, it is always a pleasure to spend these
late afternoons--sometimes Thursday afternoons--when the current
Presiding Officer gets stuck presiding, when I come to the floor to
talk, yet again, about funding--paying for--these roads and highways,
bridges and transit systems that we use. I thank the Chair for being
here. As I look around, sometimes we have more than a few folks on the
floor, but I think a lot of people are headed for home on Thursday
afternoon when we have no more votes.
Looking back over the last several days, there are actually a couple
of things to feel good about. Last week we passed very important
legislation improving the strength of our cyber defenses and our
ability to fend off some of the 24/7 attacks that are being visited on
financial institutions, on our military, on colleges and universities,
on research operations, and on businesses in our country. I am very
proud of the bipartisan work we did on cyber security, information
sharing, and some of the new technologies that are being deployed to
help fend off attacks from the bad guys around the world. I felt very
good about that.
Not everybody likes the 2-year budget agreement that has been worked
out in rough form. But I like to say about a friend, when you ask him
how he is doing, he says: Compared to what? The idea of living from
week to week, not knowing if we are going to have to shut down the
government, continuing to spend enormous amounts of human time and
capital getting ready for a shutdown and hoping it won't happen but
preparing for the worst and having to do that month after month--I
think we have, for the most part, said we are not going to do that for
the next 2 years. Whether one likes every morsel or portion of the
budget deal, I think we can pretty much all say: Compared to what?
Well, it is better than the path we were on.
Today, as we prepare to take up over the next couple of weeks
transportation policy for our country and transportation funding to
fund that policy, there is the late-breaking news this morning from the
House of Representatives that they have taken a very modest
transportation bill including authorization--it is probably a two-part
deal where we actually authorize transportation policy and then we try
to figure out how to pay for it.
Too often in the past we have decided to pay for it by bailing out
the transportation trust fund. The legislation we passed and I voted
against here in the Senate last month on transportation--during the
last Congress I chaired the Senate subcommittee on transportation
infrastructure. I am I think the No. 2 Democrat on the Environment and
Public Works Committee. I am a former Governor. I spent 8 years as
Governor in my own State of Delaware. We focused on transportation
infrastructure. I chaired the National Governors Association for a
year. So I have looked at these issues nationally as well as a
Governor.
But if we look at the authorization bill--again, that is one of the
two parts of our legislation, to authorize programs. A lot of what we
did in the Senate, coupled with what they did in the House, was pretty
darn good. I was very proud of it. I want to give shout-outs to some of
my colleagues, including Senator Boxer and Senator Inhofe.
[[Page S7803]]
I don't always think of them as two people who work well together, but
on transportation and infrastructure, they do. They provide very good
leadership, and they were good enough to let the rest of us join in. I
think we had a good policy or set of policies that we can be proud of.
I will just run through a couple of them here, using of this chart.
I have made a big focus on freight transportation. It is not just
people who use roads, highways, bridges, and transit to get places, but
we move an enormous amount of freight in this country. We move it on
barges--actually, I don't know how many people think of that--or ships.
We move a fair amount on airplanes. We move a fair amount on trains. We
also move a great deal of our freight by roads, highways, and bridges.
The legislation we passed out of the Environment and Public Works
Committee on I believe a unanimous vote makes good progress on the
freight transportation side, trying to make our roads, highways, and
bridges more reliable, more affordable, and more efficient. That is
good.
The legislation we passed out of committee, which I think is mirrored
in the House Transportation bill, is that we prioritized bridge safety.
I think something like one out of every four bridges in our country,
deemed so by people a lot smarter than me, are not safe. So in our
legislation, we focused on bridge safety and we focused on large
facilities, large projects of national importance--not little projects
but big ones of national importance, regional importance.
The Transportation authorization legislation from the House and from
the Senate also increases baseline funding and funding for public
transportation. And it focuses on clean air funding toward the most
dangerous diesel emissions to increase the bang for the buck, if you
will. If you ever go by road projects, highway or bridge projects and
transit projects, you will often see this yellow equipment that is
almost always powered by diesel, and they put out--those vehicles put
out a lot of pollution. We provide some money here in the authorization
legislation to say that can't be good for us. It can't be good for the
people who work around there and live around there. Let's see if we
can't get some reduction in those emissions.
The other thing I liked about our authorization bill is research
grants that go to States to see if we can't find a better alternative
to user fees, which we have historically traditionally used, and to
eventually replace the gas tax or something that makes more sense. It
could be something called a road user charge, it could be tolling in
conjunction with public-private partnerships, but just to look at the
alternatives to user fees like the gas tax and diesel tax, which has
not been raised for 22 years.
Let's see what we have next. The last time we raised the user fees in
this country--part of me wishes I could be doing this speech surrounded
by former Presidents who have supported the use of user fees. I think
we go back a long time, actually, when I was a little kid, before the
Presiding Officer was born. Dwight Eisenhower, the President who
brought us the State highway system, was an advocate of user fees.
Since then we have had other Presidents--let me think of another
President who thought that was a--Bill Clinton thought user fees were
appropriate. I want to say George Herbert Walker Bush might have been
one who thought that things that are worth having--that folks who use
our roads, highways, and bridges ought to pay for it. I think there
might have been one more. Ronald Reagan supported that notion as well.
So in a bipartisan way, Democrats and Republicans have said for a long
time that if we really want to have a better transportation system, we
have to pay for it.
The idea is that folks who use that system and the businesses that
use that transportation system have some responsibility to pay for it.
That has been the way we have done it for a long time. Maybe someday,
when we have the ability to do these vehicle-miles-traveled deals,
where we don't have to worry about privacy concerns, figure out how
many miles every car, truck, van in the country travels and be able to
assess a user fee--I don't know if we are going to be able to do it. We
have been trying for a long time. Maybe somebody will be able to do it,
but concerns have been raised about doing that as well.
Anyway, since 1993, what has been happening? Maintenance costs
continue to rise. We raised the gas tax in 1993 to 18.3 cents per
gallon. We raised the Federal tax on diesel to I think 24.3 cents. What
has happened in the last 22 years, believe it or not, is the cost of
concrete has gone up a lot. The cost of asphalt has gone up a lot. The
cost of steel and the cost of labor has gone up a lot. And the gas tax
and the diesel tax have stayed right where they were 22 years ago.
The gas tax has lost almost 40 percent of its purchasing power--18.3
cents in 1993 is today worth about a dime. I think the 24.3 cent diesel
tax is now worth somewhere between 10 and 15 cents. We have done
nothing about it. We have not even been willing to consider indexing
these user fees to the rate of inflation.
Has the highway trust fund eroded? Not everybody knows we have a
highway or transportation trust fund. We do. Not everybody understands
it is largely fed by user fees. Not everybody understands that when we
run out of money in the transportation trust fund, we have to--if we
are going to still build roads, highways, bridges, and transit systems,
we have to do something about it. What we oftentimes do is we move
money from the general fund for our country and move that money over to
fill up the transportation trust fund or the highway fund. When we run
out of money in the general fund, we go around the world with a tin cup
in hand and borrow money from all kinds of people, including the
Chinese. We say: We would like to borrow some money from you, and, by
the way, we don't want you to be mucking around in the South China Sea
and all those other places where I used to fly around. We don't want
you to be inflating your currency. We don't want you to be dumping your
stuff on the American markets.
And the Chinese say: Well, we thought you wanted to borrow money, so
get off our backs.
We don't want to be in that situation.
There is a growing need for road repair, as I mentioned earlier. One
out of four bridges is bad. Two out of every 10 miles of highway
surfaces are not good.
We have vehicles that are more fuel efficient. That is a good thing.
We adopted CAFE legislation, and Senator Feinstein was good enough to
let some of us help her write that. But probably over the next 10 years
or so we are going to continue to require more energy-efficient
vehicles.
There has been a reduction in the annual miles driven. A lot of the
millennial generation don't want to have a car. I remember as a kid
growing up--maybe the Presiding Officer growing up couldn't wait to
have and drive a car. That sure was my generation.
We have an aging system that needs to be addressed. In the face of
congressional inaction, what have we done to pay for our transportation
system? Well, we use budget gimmicks. We are pretty good at pension
smoothing. Our pensions must be pretty smooth, because we have used
that. We have used unrelated offsets to pay for some. Say, for example,
monies that go to TSA to supposedly provide for safer travel in our
airlines and airways, we are going to use that money instead to go into
transportation--money that should be used to strengthen our ability to
monitor traffic coming across our borders, a lot of vehicular traffic,
a lot of trade. We are going to raise those Customs fees, but we are
not going to use it to build up our defenses along our border and other
stuff that probably has no relationship with transportation. That is
what we have done--gimmicks.
It is not an easy thing to think about, but these are some numbers
that we ought to look at. We bailed out the transportation trust fund
in 2008 to the tune of $8 billion. We bailed it out again in 2009, $7
billion; the next year, 2010, almost $20 billion; 2013, over $6
billion; and we really got into the bailout business in 2014, $23
billion; and for the current year, 2015, $10 billion. Add it all up, it
is about $75 billion in bailouts. We moved money from the general fund.
That means we don't have money to spend on other things that are
legitimate needs in our country, and we are using it to pay for things
that ought to be actually paid for by
[[Page S7804]]
the folks and businesses that use our roads, highways, and bridges.
Now, a lot of people are saying to me: Why should we raise the user
frees? Why should we raise the gas tax or the diesel tax? Because it is
fair. The notion that people and businesses that use these roads and
highways and bridges ought to pay for them, to me, that seems fair.
Frankly, it seemed fair in this country for about 60 years. We seem to
have gotten away from that. We need to get back to that.
Here are a couple of questions--or the same question asked several
times. Why raise the gas tax and fix the trust fund? This is $324. What
is that number? That is how much the average driver in this country
spends a year in vehicle repairs, such as replacement of tires, axles,
wheel rims--you name it. I have seen it actually as high as $500, but
we will take the low range of $324. We pay for it one way or the other,
and that is how much we spend on average in vehicle repair.
Again, the same question: Why raise the gas tax and fix the trust
fund? The number 42 shows up. That is because that is how many hours a
year we spend sitting in traffic. These are not my numbers. Every year
Texas A&M updates this number, and they say that in Washington, DC, and
up the road from where Senator Coons and I live, in New York City,
where some of our family members live, or Denver or LA, it is about 82
hours per year sitting in traffic, wasting gas, and putting out harmful
emissions.
This is the number of billions of gallons of gas we waste just
sitting in traffic every year--2.9 billion gallons of gas a year. That
is a lot.
I don't know if it is the last poster that we have, but it is not a
bad one to close on. One of the major roles of government is to provide
a nurturing environment for job creation and job preservation. It is
not the main role of government, but a major role of government is to
provide a nurturing environment for job creation and preservation. We
don't create jobs. Senators, Governors, and county executives don't
create jobs, no matter how talented they are. Presidents don't create
jobs. What we do is create a nurturing environment to help support job
creation and job growth. What does that include? A world-class
workforce, young people and not-so-young people coming out of colleges
and universities who can read, write, think, and use math and
technology, and who have a good work ethic--public safety and rule of
law, affordable energy, affordable health care, access to foreign
markets, and also the ability to move goods and products from place to
place in this country and through our export markets.
McKinsey has a piece of their operation that does consulting and it
is called McKinsey Global Institute. They have done a little bit of
thinking and calculating to see if we actually made robust
investments--not just little investments, not just creeping from year
to year borrowing money from the general fund but actually making
robust investments.
What would it do? We are talking about $150 to $180 billion of annual
investments from all sources--State, local, and Federal--and to do this
for 15 to 20 years. What would it do in terms of employment and GDP?
Here is what it would do. Those kinds of investments in our
transportation system would raise GDP anywhere from 1.4 to 1.8 percent
per year. In addition to that, it would add almost 2 million jobs. Half
of those jobs would be men and women going to work building highways,
roads, bridges, and transit systems. We would have a more efficient
economy--an economy to move products and goods more effectively, more
efficiently, and more productively.
We say thanks very much to the McKinsey Global Institute. If we did
this, a lot of people would be put to work building our roads,
highways, bridges, and transit systems. They haven't been working much
because we have underfunded transportation investment now for years at
the local, State, and Federal levels. If we had funded it in a more
appropriate and robust way, then a lot of people who have been on the
sidelines who are either unemployed or underemployed would be doing
something productive with their lives and at the same time strengthen
our economy.
I see my colleague has been waiting patiently for me to finish. I
will close with these words. Someone said to me: How do you feel that
the House seems to have come up with a little bit more money?
We are not sure what the pay-fors are that they are using. Somehow we
found some magic money in the Federal Reserve, and I hope it is
legitimate. I hope there are no unintended consequences that we are
aware of, but we will find out about that over the next several days, I
hope. I am not outraged.
I was, frankly, outraged by what we passed here a month or so ago--so
grossly underfunded, 3 years of not very thoughtful funding. What we
hear from the House is that it is more robust, and I am happy to take a
look at that. But it is not a user fee approach. It basically doesn't
say: OK, those who use our highways, roads, and bridges ought to pay
for those. We strayed from that. It is sort of a grab bag from places
that have nothing to do with transportation. We are going to use that
money, and it is only for a short while. We will be back in the soup
again in 4 or 5 years.
This Senator thinks we can do better than that. It is not just me who
is disappointed. People are disappointed, but we will live to fight
again another day. It is too bad that we didn't take advantage of this
day and seize the day.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, it is my desire to address the Senate
about a particular serious problem that faces us. I ask unanimous
consent that I be granted 7 minutes as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Guantanamo Bay Detention Facilities
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today regarding President Obama's
most recent, egregious attempt to close the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base
detention facilities and relocate enemy combatants, i.e., terrorists,
to the United States.
Who are we talking about here when we say enemy combatants with
regard to our national security and the problems that this may pose? We
still have some high-level terrorists at Gitmo. It reminds me of the
five terrorists that we let out sometime ago in exchange for a Sgt.
Bergdahl. These are high-level terrorists. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed we
know is the mastermind of 9/11. Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the USS Cole
bomber. I was a member of the Intelligence Committee when that
happened, and I was concerned that we didn't connect the dots with
regards to our national security and our national safety. That
certainly was the case. We have Hambali, who is the Bali bomber. We
have four coconspirators with Khalid with regards to 9/11--Ramzi bin
al-Shibh, Mustafa Ahmed al Hawsawi, Abd al Aziz Ali, and Walid bin
Attash.
These are folks that are still determined to do great harm to the
United States. I don't think they changed their minds.
The President's determined effort to close Gitmo began his first days
in office when he signed Executive Order 13492, requiring the close of
Gitmo within 1 year. Fortunately, for the security of the United
States, the Congress stood up to this Executive order and stopped it,
and the President's attempt to close Gitmo was also met by strong
objections from all across the country, even in his home State of
Illinois. Illinois turned its back on a plan to transfer detainees to a
state-run prison, the Thompson Correctional Facility.
More importantly, the Congress laid down its first marker on
prohibiting the President from transferring or releasing detainees to
the United States through the Supplemental Appropriations Act passed in
June of 2009. Every year since then--7 years--the Congress has
maintained this prohibition.
This year's National Defense Authorization Act continues to enforce
the will of the American people and the Congress. Yet just yesterday
the President's Press Secretary announced blithely that the President
is not bound by Congress--and I would include the American people--and
the President will do what he wants to do by another Executive order if
he determines that is the best approach.
National Security Advisor Susan Rice has just been quoted as saying:
``I
[[Page S7805]]
can't say with certainty that we're 100 percent going to get there, but
I can tell you we're going to die trying.'' That is a pretty bold
statement.
What the President wants to do doesn't equate with national security.
I think he wants to fulfill his campaign promise and preserve his
alleged legacy and simply close Gitmo, not taking a hard look at what
may take place.
Now I have gone head-to-head with this administration on many issues
but none are as close to my strong belief and commitment to protect the
United States, the people of Kansas, and all Americans. It does not
make sense to locate terrorists at Fort Leavenworth, KS, which is the
intellectual center of the Army, and to pose a threat to that
community. I have often said that the first obligation of any Member of
Congress is to protect our national security. Allowing Gitmo terrorists
to set foot in the United States is in direct violation, in my view, of
that commitment, and we should not stand for this President or any
future President to threaten our security by Executive order.
It is regrettable that I have to be here making this speech at all in
response to the administration and the news that suddenly appears in
the Nation's press that there were people visiting Colorado, Fort
Leavenworth, and Charleston, SC.
In September, in response to the administration's visit to Kansas, I
placed a hold on the administration's nominee to serve as Secretary of
the Army. I don't like doing this. I have no personal bias whatsoever
with regard to this person politically or the ability to do the job. I
did so with purpose and respect. I articulated this to the Army. I
articulated this to my good friend and colleague John McHugh, who was
the Secretary of Army, to the Department of Defense and the Secretary
of Defense. During my conversations I was reminded that the
administration could not implement any parts of this study without
explicit authorization from Congress. So if and when a study is
produced--if there is a plan, and we don't know if there is a plan--the
administration would come before Congress to ask for that authority and
the money. Guess what; no money can be spent on that. So it seems to me
that is already a violation.
The administration's threat to act by Executive order yesterday
speaks to the exact opposite of the understanding that I have. Congress
has listened to the American people and done what is necessary to
uphold national security and prohibit this administration from behaving
in an unleashed fashion.
I know the President is resolute. He reminded us of that fact by
signing 223 Executive orders during his Presidency. It is not so much
the number of Executive orders but Executive orders that are in direct
violation or in opposition to the intent of the Congress.
I just don't think this should be determined by ignoring the Congress
and simply issuing an Executive order. That is not the way to go. It
just raises all this dust in opposition, and people like me come to the
floor extremely worried about what this could bring.
I remember before 9/11, when I made the statement that the oceans no
longer protected us. Our threat level remains high today. The threat of
ISIS grows, stability in Syria continues to erode, Russia is advancing
in the Middle East, and Iran continues to churn its nuclear reactors.
We cannot, it seems to me, we must not act politically. We must not
take action simply because of ``legacy'' and a political campaign
promise. Instead, we must act conscientiously. The only conscientious
way forward on this issue is to maintain detention at Guantanamo Bay.
To do otherwise would be a violation of U.S. law, not to mention a
bull's-eye on Fort Leavenworth, where we have the intellectual center
of the Army and the Army Command and General Staff College. That is not
wise. That does not make any sense.
Let me say that there is another issue the President has brought up,
and that is the issue of recruitment. We hear this from people who
honestly believe that if we close Gitmo, somehow it will take away the
incentive for various terrorist groups to recruit other terrorists from
this country and all across Europe, all around the world, saying: Oh my
goodness, we have terrorists at Gitmo, and when will the United States
close that so that we can close our recruiting?
If we have terrorists located in the United States, it seems to me
that the recruiting would simply be this: All right, Gitmo is closed,
but we have our brothers at Fort Leavenworth, we have our brothers in
Charleston, and we have our brothers in Colorado. What do you think
would happen with regard to what they would do in response to that, not
only to recruit people but to act? This goes back to the welfare of all
Americans, not to mention those in Colorado, Kansas, and South
Carolina. This is a bad idea--a very bad idea.
I hope those of us in the Congress will maintain our vigilance and
make sure that no money will ever be authorized or appropriated with
regard to taking terrorists from Gitmo and locating them in the United
States. We must not do it. It is the wrong decision. It is a bad
decision. I don't know why the President is so stubborn about it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
National Apprenticeship Week
Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I rise today to shine a spotlight on
apprentices, one of our Nation's oldest forms of education and still
one of the smartest investments we can make as a nation. The week we
are in the middle of right now--this very week--is National
Apprenticeship Week. I am honored to be joined today by Senator
Franken, who will also be making remarks in support of the value of
apprenticeships.
In this body, we often discuss the importance, the value of expanding
early childhood education, strengthening our public schools, and making
college more affordable. Indeed, these investments are critical, but
let's not forget about what I call the other 4-year degree. It is a
degree that guarantees you a well-paying job and a career path after
graduation. It is a degree that gives you experience that employers
demand and teaches you skills that last a lifetime. It is a degree that
provides a paycheck even while you are still in school. And it is a
degree that leaves you debt-free. But where is the catch? Well, you
might have to wake up early every day. You might have to work on nights
and weekends. You will definitely have to complete thousands of hours
of hands-on on-the-job training and 4, 5, or more years of work in your
trade. In many apprenticeship programs, if you miss even a few days of
work, that is it, you are done. On-the-job training, years of work
experience, and a limited number of absences does not sound like a
typical college curriculum, and it is not. It is an apprenticeship.
Broadly defined, apprenticeships are programs that train workers in
highly skilled occupations by providing instruction and on-the-job
training. After apprentices complete their programs, they receive
journeyman papers and are set up for a job with the employer, the
union, or the association that sponsored the program. These programs
are long, challenging, and competitive. An appropriate question at the
outset is, Do they work?
Well, ask Ed Woodrum, an instructor at the Carpenters Joint
Apprenticeship Center in New Castle, DE. Ed tells the story of Scotty.
Scotty is a Delawarean who was literally living on the streets,
destitute, who was blessed to land an opportunity through the Challenge
Program, a not-for-profit rehabilitation and skills organization in
Wilmington which I know well and have always supported and have enjoyed
seeing the impact of their work, both the materials they introduce and
the impacts on the lives of the young men and women they train.
The Carpenters have a partnership with the Challenge Program, and
through that relationship Scotty began working as an apprentice with
the Carpenters. Fast-forward to today, years later, and Scotty is still
a journeyman with the Carpenters. He recently got engaged, he owns a
car, and he is living in a townhouse in Wilmington. So do
apprenticeship programs work? In Scotty's case, it transformed his
life.
If you want to know if they really work, ask Jim Maravelias with
Laborers Local 199, also from Delaware. The laborers apprenticeship
program requires 4,000 hours in the field and at least five core
classes in heavy construction, although most apprentices take over a
dozen classes in that time. Jim has seen his laborers journey men and
women go on to leadership and
[[Page S7806]]
management roles in construction as foremen or shop stewards or
business agents. Jim knows how important apprenticeships are not only
for the construction industry but for the lives and futures of the
Delawareans who are so deeply affected positively by their
apprenticeship experience. As Jim puts it, through these apprentices,
``we offer them a career, not just a job.''
So do apprenticeship programs work? Ask Tony Papili, my friend from
the Glasgow area who runs the Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 74. Fresh
out of college with a traditional bachelors's degree, Pip went back to
school as an apprentice. Today Pip know from firsthand experience how
valuable apprenticeship programs are, which is why Local 74 trains
fitters, plumbers, HVAC service technicians, welders, and instrument
technicians. Local 74's program is no cakewalk. Once an applicant is
accepted, they are committed to 5 years of night classes, on top of the
8,500 hours they will spend in the field learning their trade before
becoming a journeyman.
Apprenticeship programs are not just difficult, they are competitive
too. Take the program at the IBEW 313 in New Castle, DE, of which Doug
Drummond is one of the leaders and a trustee. The IBEW's apprenticeship
program is the largest in Delaware today with 120 active apprentices.
Each year, 313's apprenticeship program has 2,500 applicants competing
for just 1 of 24 open spots. That is a 1-percent acceptance rate.
The fitters, the electricians, and the carpenters in these programs
are just some of the 1,100 Delawareans actively working through
apprenticeship programs with lots of different businesses, unions, and
organizations. Last year, my home State saw 119 apprentices complete
their programs and get their journeyman papers. So far, 109 have gotten
their papers this year, and we want to see these numbers continue to
steadily rise.
Right now, across the entire country, over 440,000 aspiring
journeymen are working through apprenticeship programs, knowing that if
they put in the time and effort, they will earn an opportunity to
unlock a steady, high-paying job. On average, the starting salary for
an apprentice is $50,000, which is several thousand dollars more than
the average starting salary for a college graduate with a bachelor's
degree, and typically there is no debt for an apprentice.
The benefits of apprenticeship programs are sustainable. Over the
course of their career, American workers who complete an apprenticeship
program can expect to earn $300,000 more than their peers who don't go
through a comparable program. If that is not the ticket to the middle
class, I don't what is.
I want to commend today the 150,000 employers across this whole
country who host apprentices, who partner with apprenticeship programs.
Businesses are not doing it as a public service; they are investing in
apprenticeships because they typically get $1.50 in return for every $1
they invest. Tony Papili and the members of Local 74 pay for their own
apprenticeship program out of pocket. They take money that would
otherwise go to a pay raise or their benefits and put it back into the
program. The electricians at Local 313 put in over 1 million hours of
work a year, and for every hour they work, they put 55 cents back into
their apprenticeship program. These are significant investments. More
importantly, they are smart investments that are helping to fill a much
needed gap in the American workforce with high-quality, high-paying
jobs and by helping train workers for skilled trades and the vital
manufacturing jobs of this century.
Strengthening America's 21st-century workforce is essential to the
competitiveness of our economy in the world today and to the continued
revitalization of our manufacturing sector. That is why it is one of
the four core pillars of the Manufacturing Jobs for America Initiative,
which includes a number of additional proposals to strengthen career
development and on-the-job training programs.
Last year's reauthorization of the Workforce Innovation and
Opportunity Act, which was a real win for job-training programs across
the country, included five different policy ideas, many of them
bipartisan, which came from the Manufacturing Jobs for America
Initiative. I would like to see this momentum continue by making a
sustained commitment to expanding apprenticeship programs.
The thousands of hours of on-the-job experience produce journeymen
with a keen understanding of the techniques and the tools they need to
do their jobs, and it makes them safer, more skilled, and more
productive employees. Employers know this too. Electrical contractors
in Delaware are hiring journeyman straight out of the IBEW's
apprenticeship program because they know they are well trained, well
equipped, and ready to work. Same for the pipefitters.
Pip said he is training apprentices to be ``smarter and better
skilled than the last generation,'' but he adds, ``I don't think people
realize what we do to train these young men and women to become
journeymen in the field.'' Pip is right. That is why after I get off
the 5 o'clock train I am taking home to Wilmington tonight, my first
stop will be a trade and apprenticeship open house at Delcastle High
School.
I urge my colleagues to learn about the apprenticeship programs in
your States. Go and visit employers who depend on apprentices and talk
to your constituents who have gone through these programs. I know you
will be impressed.
Too often we define ``education'' too narrowly here. We talk about
education as a ticket to the middle class, but we often don't include
apprenticeship programs. That has to change. Apprenticeship programs
work.
Ed Woodrum with the Carpenters sees it as simple math. He describes
apprenticeship programs as ``opportunity plus resources plus support
which equals changed lives.'' Ed is right.
That is why I am so proud to join Senator Franken in cosponsoring
Senator Murray's bipartisan resolution honoring the inaugural National
Apprenticeship Week this week. I am also proud to join President Obama
and Delaware's own Vice President Joe Biden in support of their goal to
double the number of apprenticeships in 5 years--a goal all of us
should share. I especially want to recognize and thank the Vice
President for his effective and long leadership in reviewing our
Nation's job-training programs and finding ways to meaningfully improve
them.
I commend the administration's efforts to expand access to registered
apprenticeships to make it easier for apprentices to turn their
experience into college credit. Besides apprenticeships, there are very
few other Federal programs we know that are estimated to return $27 in
economic productivity for every dollar we invest. Budgets are tight
today, and we are all looking for smart, cost-effective investments
that create jobs and that can help revitalize manufacturing. That is
why apprenticeship programs deserve our continued support.
Before I yield the floor, I want to thank my colleague Senator
Franken for his passionate, engaged, and sustained leadership on making
sure that community colleges and apprenticeship programs work for the
working men and women of this country and help create new opportunities
for manufacturing jobs that are high-skill, high-wage, and high-quality
for folks all over this country.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I would like to return the kind words of
my colleague from Delaware and thank him for his leadership in this
whole field of manufacturing and filling the skills gap that we see all
over this country and getting young people and getting people in
midcareer trained up to do jobs that manufacturers and people in the IT
industry and other industries need to fill.
I rise today to recognize the very first week of November as the very
first ever National Apprenticeship Week. I want to talk a little bit
about the benefits of apprenticeship training programs, about what I
hear in my State of Minnesota, and about my bill, the Community College
to Career Fund Act, which would expand apprenticeship training programs
through partnerships between employers and community and technical
colleges.
When I travel around my State--and I am sure the Presiding Officer
hears
[[Page S7807]]
this in Louisiana as well--I hear over and over again that employers
are desperate to hire good people with the right skills for jobs that
pay well.
Today there are over 6,500 open manufacturing jobs in my State. And
other sectors such as IT, health care--and mechanics for the aerospace
industry, for airplanes--these sectors in our economy are experiencing
similar problems. They cannot find workers with the necessary training
and the right skills to fit jobs that are there. These jobs are there.
This is what is called the skills gap. I am sure that my friend, the
Presiding Officer from Louisiana, sees the skills gap in his State as
well.
One Minnesota employer, Kimberly Arrigoni of Haberman Machine in
Oakdale, MN, put it this way:
For my company specifically it no longer is a capacity
issue because of equipment, but one with people. We are
limited in what we can produce and ship out the door. . . .
Imagine what this very ripple effect is causing my state and
our country as a whole.
She is right, by the way. I visited Haberman Machine, and it is a
very good precision machine tooling company. It is a family-owned
business, and it is great. They have jobs they want to fill, but people
aren't being trained up fast enough.
There are many registered apprenticeship programs nationwide in more
than 1,000 occupations that prepare workers with the skills they need
for tomorrow's jobs, yet they don't get the support they need. I have a
bill that would address that and provide that support. My bill, the
Community College to Career Fund Act, would encourage apprenticeship
training programs by supporting public-private partnerships among
communities, technical colleges, and businesses. These partnerships
create job-training programs that provide direct hiring opportunities
for students, and they give businesses the trained workforce they
desperately need at little or no cost to the student. Programs such as
the one supported by my bill will help employers fill available jobs,
they will help students get those jobs and graduate with very little or
no college debt, and they help our economy stay competitive globally.
This is a win, win, win.
Labor Secretary Tom Perez has described apprenticeship programs as
college ``without the debt'' or ``earn while you learn.''
In Minnesota we have many great examples of such programs. I want to
talk a little bit about one of them.
Erick Ajax is the co-owner of EJ Ajax Metalforming Solutions in
Fridley, MN. This is the third generation of Ajaxes. It was Ajax and
Son, but the son, I think, is too old to be called a son anymore. Erick
is third generation.
They make 70 percent of North America's appliance hinges. His company
has over 70 employees--one for every percent, evidently, of our
appliance industry. Half of his employees were trained, hired, and had
their college tuitions fully paid through his earn while you learn
registered apprenticeship program. To do this, Erick partnered with
local community and technical colleges to find and train students,
including veterans, women, first-generation Americans, and ex-
offenders.
I went to his factory floor, and he introduced me to an ex-offender
who had been working there at EJ Ajax for 6 years. He just bought his
first home because of a training program he had taken that had been
made available through a community technical college.
For all of these categories I am talking about, I met first-
generation Americans who have great middle-class jobs, got their
training, and received degrees. There was a veteran who has his
bachelor's degree now, paid for by Erick, by the company. These are
full-time, high-paying, solid, middle-class jobs.
Because Erick fully covered college tuition for his employees, some
of his veteran employees were able to transfer their GI bill benefits
to their spouses and their children to help pay for them to go to
college. This is a great answer to our college affordability, our
vexing college affordability problem that we all talk about. Erick
Ajax's employees are evidence that apprenticeship training programs
work. They increase their career opportunities, they provide businesses
with skilled workers, they generate higher paying jobs, and they help
our competitiveness globally.
Did you know that individuals who have completed registered
apprenticeship programs earn, on average, a starting salary of $50,000
a year and $300,000 more over their careers than their peers who did
not participate in registered apprenticeship programs? In fact, the
apprenticeships can be the start of a pathway to business leadership
positions.
Take Martin Senn, who is Swiss. Martin is the CEO of the Zurich
Insurance Group, a Swiss company with offices around the world. The
last I checked, it was one of the Fortune 500 companies--well,
actually, in the Fortune 200 companies in 2012. I don't know exactly
where it is now, but Martin is CEO of a huge company. Like many Swiss
executives, he is a believer in apprenticeship programs.
When he was asked why Swiss executives choose to implement
apprenticeship programs in the United States, he said: ``I started my
career as an apprentice and know first-hand how powerful such a program
can be in inspiring young people to achieve their full potential.''
From apprentice to CEO, I would like to see more of these success
companies involving U.S. companies here at home. Not all apprentices
are going to become CEOs, but apprenticeship programs--their training
programs--are providing a proven path for workers to enter the middle
class and for business owners to develop a high-skilled workforce to
fill today's available jobs.
So as we recognize the first ever National Apprenticeship Week, I
invite my colleagues to take a close look at my Community College to
Career Fund Act. Let's expand the apprenticeship training model so we
can better serve the needs of our students seeking good-paying jobs and
of our businesses looking for qualified employees.
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.
Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Export-Import Bank
Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, finally we see the light at the end of
the tunnel, and it is not a train. It is, in fact, the eventual and
necessary passage of the Ex-Im reauthorization bill.
As you know, last week the Ex-Im bill passed the House by a vote that
was 72 percent in favor. We have been told for months and months as we
debate the Ex-Im Bank that this bill could not possibly pass the House
as a stand-alone bill. Remarkably, when that myth was put to the test,
we found out that not just 51 percent, but 72 percent of the House
supports reauthorization of the Ex-Im bill.
Last night we faced another challenge for the Ex-Im bill which was,
in fact, a series of amendments on the Ex-Im portion of the
Transportation bill. Once again, we exceeded expectations by having
supermajorities on almost--in fact, all of these amendments suffering
defeat at a very wide margin. So now what we know is we have a bill
that continues to have broad-based support and continues to represent
the necessary steps that need to be taken to reauthorize and reopen the
Ex-Im Bank.
Let's just recount history. The Export-Import Bank has been closed
for over 3 months, preventing needed support for small business across
the country. Many of those small businesses--guess where they are? They
are in States such as North Dakota. A lot of people, such as my
colleague from Washington State who has come on the floor--I think
everybody understands the significance of exports to States on the
Pacific Rim and understands that story, but I don't think anyone really
thinks about the Ex-Im Bank in conjunction with places such as North
Dakota. So I wish to take a few moments today to talk about small
business, to talk about the people who have been dramatically affected
by the closure of the Ex-Im Bank and why it is so important that we
understand, appreciate, and not have a long-term history that does not
move the Ex-Im Bank forward.
[[Page S7808]]
Let's start out by talking about the 5,800 small businesses around
the country that depend on the Export-Import Bank to finance export
deals and how many of them right now have no support as this issue has
languished in the Senate. I think we all know that small business makes
up a large percentage of that economic opportunity in the United
States. That is true in North Dakota and true to a greater extent
because probably 95 percent of all employers in North Dakota qualify as
small businesses. For many of these businesses, if they do not have
help exporting their products, that help, which the Export-Import Bank
provides, they can't grow. With more than 95 percent of all consumers
in the world living outside the United States, if businesses in the
United States do not export, if they are not competitive, we will lose
economically.
Several of my colleagues have been on the floor talking about
manufacturing and talking about economic opportunity. At the end of the
day this is about small business, but it is also about the jobs that
small business create. So we have seen companies such as GE and Boeing,
which use, interestingly enough, 16 suppliers in North Dakota that are
dependent on the work GE and Boeing does--and their necessary reaction
to the failure of this Congress to appropriately and timely reauthorize
the Ex-Im Bank has been to look for other ways to encourage their
business growth, and that encouragement has not been in this country.
They have had to look overseas.
So it is critically important we understand the idea of a supply
chain. Everybody says: Well, this is a bank for big business. This is a
bank for these people. That is just pure nonsense. In every one of
those deals that is done for one of these major manufacturers, inside
that deal are literally thousands of small businesses and hundreds of
thousands of jobs created in those small businesses as they support the
supply chain.
I want to talk about a number of the export-import uses in my State
and brag a bit about the work they do because they are on the cutting
edge with a lot of their technologies. The first business I want to
talk about is Amity Technology. It is a 20-year-old family-owned
company based in Fargo that sells farm manufacturing equipment to
companies around the world. They began in August of 1977. They sold
their first business to Case International and then built Amity in the
winter of 1996.
What I love to tell about this story is these brothers--one of whom I
went to college with--come from the family who actually created the
Bobcat. So they have been entrepreneurs, they have been inventors, they
have been innovators, and they have driven a lot of jobs in North
Dakota.
Amity is a big user of the Ex-Im Bank. It is the largest distributor
of sugar beet equipment, working with some of the world's largest farm
equipment companies around the world. With agriculture markets slowing
down, business is harder to come by and so it is particularly important
they have all the tools in their arsenal. Without the help of the
Export-Import Bank, the company, which employs 70 North Dakotans, could
quickly lose out on at least 10 percent of their business and face
tough questions about the future of their exports.
The next business I want to talk about is WCCO Belting in Wahpeton.
Wahpeton is a small community in the far southeastern corner of our
State. It is a 60-year-old, family-owned rubber supply company often
used in farm equipment that is supplied to every major farm equipment
company in the world.
For 12 years, the Export-Import Bank has allowed WCCO Belting to
continue to export opportunities it had previously been ignoring. The
Bank has supported over $850,000 in exports from the belting company
since 2007. The company employs 200 employees who generate more than 60
percent of their annual revenue from customers that are located outside
of the United States. That would not be possible if it were not for the
Ex-Im Bank; if that 60 percent of their business is driven by the
opportunity that the Ex-Im Bank gives them.
I want to talk about JM Grain. That is a small grain company in
Garrison. They are a young family-owned pea, lentil, and chickpea
distributing company that supplies their products to top packaging and
food companies around the world. When you look at their numbers, $15
million--in fact, 70 percent of the company's annual revenue for almost
a decade--has been backed by the Ex-Im Bank. It has allowed JM Grain to
pursue export opportunities to top manufacturing and packaging food
ingredient companies that demand buyers to provide financing for 90 to
100 days--something they could not do on their own.
Incidentally, they could not find a private bank that would be
willing to do it. Without the Export-Import Bank, JM Grain would not
have been able to pursue exports to such high-quality, high-selling
companies because it would have to significantly cut its price or risk
going under.
The company now has doubled or tripled the pay of its workers,
retaining its workforce throughout the oil boom, which has been awfully
tough in North Dakota given high living costs, and has been able to
hire top technological workers. It is incredible. It is an incredible
story, but it is a story that would not be possible without the Ex-Im
Bank. It is responsible for $10 million of the company's annual $15
million in revenue. Without the Export-Import Bank, the company would
risk losing sales to competitive exporting companies abroad, including
companies from India, China, and South America.
The last company I want to talk about is Equipment Wholesalers based
in Fargo, ND, and Sioux Falls, SD. They sell equipment such as John
Deere tractors in the United States and abroad. Equipment wholesalers
told us if the Export-Import Bank is not reauthorized, it will have a
negative impact on the company's sales. How great is that? Well, it
will be a 35- to 40-percent impact on their sales. Imagine that. Just
because of the inactivity of Congress, we have risked 35 to 40 percent
of this company's business. The company acknowledges it has already
lost business to companies in Germany that have access to Germany's
export-import agency. They say without the Export-Import Bank being
reauthorized, Equipment Wholesalers will lose even more business.
While our businesses are left at a disadvantage because the Export-
Import Bank expired, foreign--foreign--export-import banks, including
those in India and China and 60 other places around the world, are
hugely benefiting. In fact, they are wondering what is going on in the
United States, but we are not going to let any grass grow under our
feet as we run to daylight and a take advantage of the inaction in
Washington, DC. They are already stepping in and filling our place.
If we do not reauthorize the Export-Import Bank to support American
businesses and manufacturers, China and India will step in. There is no
doubt about it. They are already doing it. In fact, during the recent
downturn in both of those economies, the first investment they made was
putting billions more in their export credit agencies. Do you know why?
Because it made business sense. It made sense to their balance of
trade. It made sense to their economy to support their manufacturers,
especially in an environment where we weren't supporting ours.
Last week my bipartisan bill with Senator Kirk, which would
reauthorize this agency, passed with the support of more than 70
percent of the House. Just yesterday--again, I will repeat--the Export-
Import Bank reauthorization was attached to the House Transportation
bill. Despite efforts to once again derail the Export-Import Bank from
people who believed they could kill it altogether with amendments, over
two-thirds--and in most cases those same House Members who tried to
kill it--voted against those Export-Import Bank-killing amendments.
Doesn't that tell us something? Doesn't that tell us that the vast
majority of people here are not ideologues; that they look at the
facts? They say: In what world would you not support exports?
We used to do this in State government when I was attorney general
and when I served on the Industrial Commission. We would talk about
North Dakota's economy and we would say: What do we do to grow
economies? We say: We have new wealth creation. I am not picking on
retail businesses. Retail businesses typically, unless we are inviting
Canadians, which we do, to come
[[Page S7809]]
down and spend money, they are not new wealth creation. It is those
things that bring new dollars to our State. If you look at new wealth
creation in this country and look at what creates wealth in this
country, guess what it is. It is exports. It is having a favorable
balance of trade. It is making sure we are a country that believes in
reaching out to the 95 percent of the consumers in this world and
saying to them: We produce the best quality agricultural products, we
produce the best quality manufacturing products, we are the top
supplier and the most trusted source of products in the world, but we
need the tools to make those sales, and the Ex-Im Bank is a critical
tool. It is part of that structure of trade infrastructure that we need
to make this work.
I hope, I sincerely hope--because I don't know whether I am going to
be here when we go through this again--I hope the lessons of the last 3
months have been learned. I hope the lessons we have been preaching
since really this spring--that we cannot let this Bank expire and there
will be dire consequences if we do--have been learned and that the Ex-
Im Bank and the people at the Ex-Im Bank, but more importantly that our
American businesses that rely on the Export-Import Bank, our jobs that
rely on the Export-Import Bank, and our opportunities created by the
Export-Import Bank, are never forgotten; that they are never left
behind.
Once again we have cleared yet another hurdle. The light is at the
end of the tunnel. We believe we are ready, willing, and excited about
the opportunity of once again opening the doors of the Export-Import
Bank and welcoming American business in and saying once again,
``America is open for business'' to the rest of the world.
Mr. President, I yield the floor to my friend from Washington.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from North Dakota
for coming to the floor again to talk about the Export-Import Bank and
today specifically outlining how this program of credit insurance helps
finance the sales of U.S. products in overseas markets, particularly
for small businesses.
She and I, obviously, are stalwarts on what are economic
opportunities in a global economy. We want to make things in the United
States of America and we want to sell them to overseas markets. So we
are here today to thank our House colleagues for standing up and
defeating amendments last night that would kill the Export-Import Bank
as a part of a package in the transportation deal. We are proud of
those Senators who have supported this in the Senate, but we are
especially proud of those House Members who went to the extent of
getting a discharge petition to demonstrate that 313 Members of the
House of Representatives support this policy.
My colleague and I are not giving up on trying to emphasize to people
we have waited way too long to get this done and now we should not wait
one moment longer. We should make sure this part of a transportation
bill--while not necessarily our choice for how this gets done--finally
gets over the finish line so we can put our small businesses back to
work.
As my colleague said, small businesses are the key to her State's
economy. Well, they are really the key to the U.S. economy. Fifty
percent of all U.S. jobs are provided by small businesses. So that is
why we have talked about this issue as it relates to those job
providers.
If you are in North Dakota and Washington State and you are growing
an agricultural product, you show me the bank that is going to finance
that sale. I know maybe people don't think about agricultural products
when it comes to Ex-Im Bank, but that is exactly what we have in mind
because our States produce so many agricultural products.
The fact is small businesses need global customers. Why? Because if
we are just going to grow product for the United States of America, we
are not going to be growing much job opportunity. Ninety-five percent
of consumers live outside the United States, and we want to make sure
we are selling to them, but when we are selling to a country in Africa
or we are selling to a country in Asia and you go to that bank in North
Dakota or even in Walla Walla, WA, or someplace, and you say: Listen, I
want you to help me do a deal with this buyer in a very small country,
they want to know, what the securitization is. The securitization of
that issue is usually all the capital of that company, which means they
are not going to do the sale or they are going to try to find a bank
that is also not going to do it because they do not have the security
to put behind that.
That is why credit insurance was created--to help those sales
actually happen. That is why this is such an important issue to small
businesses. People think, well, OK, we get it, you are concerned about
jobs. This is not just about the jobs in our State today, although we
care immensely about that; this is about the way the Senator from North
Dakota and I view the economy of the future. We view it as an economy
that is taking opportunity of what is happening with the growth of the
middle class outside the United States, that and selling them U.S.-made
and U.S.-grown products.
Less than 3 percent of small businesses today are exporters. How are
we going to get them to be exporters? We want them to take risks. How
are we going to get them to take risks if they can't get financing for
their products? If 95 percent of consumers live outside the United
States, that is where the rising growth is happening, that is where the
big opportunity is, and we want our small businesses to do something
about it. Yet we take away the one tool that has been there to help
small businesses finance those. It was a big mistake. My colleague
talked about that.
There were more than 3,300 small business deals approved by the
Export-Import Bank in 2014, so that was a lot of economic opportunity.
I have met people from many of those companies. They warm my heart and
make me believe the United States of America can win at any economic
opportunity it sets its mind to.
When I think about a Yakima company that makes music stands--
Manhasset has been in the music stand business for 40 years. They are
selling music stands all over the United States of America. They get up
every morning, they go into that factory, and they try to figure out
how they are going to improve their processes, how they are going to
improve access. But if you say to them that every sale they make to an
overseas market has to be backed with their own capital--from
Manhasset--how long will it take before someone comes in and competes
with them and basically knocks them off and defeats them? It is not
going to take long.
What they have to do is constantly grow their market opportunities
and stay ahead of technology investments, even with a music stand, the
best techniques, the best practices, and get your reputation as the
best product and advertise and continue to dominate in the marketplace.
That is what selling and exporting are all about.
The two of us come from export States, Washington State being a major
exporter and North Dakota being an exporter. We know in our DNA that we
have to compete. We want our small businesses to compete, and that is
why both of our States have been big users of the Export-Import Bank,
and we want these deals.
In helping to support those small businesses, the Export-Import Bank
has done $10 billion worth of exports. Isn't this what we want? Isn't
this what we want in the United States of America, to help small
businesses grow and become exporters? They are winning. They want their
products to be purchased by overseas consumers.
When they don't support the Export-Import Bank, they are saying: I
want to make it really, really, really hard or impossible for you to
make that sale, because you are going to have to go find somebody to
finance it. And we all know that people would rather do a lot more
financing of dark derivative markets than helping small businesses get
their deals done.
We are so happy that our colleagues in the House of Representatives
last night defeated 10 amendments to kill the Export-Import Bank and
that it is now traveling over here as part of a transportation package
that will go to conference, and hopefully in the next 2 weeks we will
be able to rectify this issue and put our small businesses back to
work. This is so important not just
[[Page S7810]]
for the companies using the Export-Import Bank today but because my
colleague and I know we have to grow our economy. We know we do great
work and we produce great products. We need to make sure that in the
developing world, we can access the opportunity to get our foot in the
door and make the sale. Don't stop us from doing that. Let's finally
get this Bank reauthorized and get on our way to growing a stronger
economy.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I want to make one final point, along
with my colleague from Washington State. I don't know how many times
the Senator from Washington and I have been on the floor telling the
story of the Ex-Im Bank, about what the problems have been since we
have closed the Bank for business, talking about what this means for
small business, trying to reflect the amazement we get from our small
businesses: Why is this happening when we return money to the Treasury
and this doesn't cost anything?
I find it curious that as many times as we have been down here, there
has been no one down here arguing the counterpoint. There has been no
one down here willing to ask us to yield for a question about why we
believe what we believe about the Ex-Im Bank. There is no one down here
challenging what we are saying about the Ex-Im Bank. I find that
interesting, and I think it is a lesson maybe for the future--let's not
mess around with jobs; let's not mess around with people.
I think everybody thinks they are picking on some kind of large
corporation, but the reality is that those large corporations in many
ways can wait this out or they can devise a business plan that gives
them a workaround from the Ex-Im Bank or they can assemble their
materials someplace other than the United States. But my small
businesses, the ones I just outlined, don't have that choice, and they
don't have a big line of credit they can use to just wait this out.
They don't have the ability to wait.
It is one thing to say we are all about small business and helping
small business. We hear it every time. The two great lines that are
used here: We care about the middle class and we care about small
business. But as it relates to the Ex-Im Bank, there has been no
activity here that would actually prove the point that we care about
small business.
So I want to say I do find it extraordinarily curious that we have
gone unchallenged in this whole discussion. No one really wants to take
us on because at the end of the day there is no argument on the other
side. Yet we have closed this Bank for over 3 months. We have closed
this Bank and this opportunity for America's manufacturers, America's
small businesses, and all of the great people who work there.
Just know that I am so grateful for the work of my colleague from
Washington. She has been an incredible leader. I thank her for
everything she has done. She is an expert on the Export-Import Bank but
also a woman who has been in business most of her life and who
understands the critical importance of the Ex-Im Bank.
So let's not unlearn this lesson. Let's make sure this never happens
again and that we never disrupt Americans' economic opportunity the way
we have by shutting down the Export-Import Bank for the last 3 or 4
months.
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. SCHATZ. 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. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I ask to speak as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Solutions to Deforestation
Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I rise to talk about one of the solutions
to one of the driving forces behind global climate change; that is,
deforestation. After fossil fuel combustion, deforestation is the
single largest contributor to human-induced climate change, but the
exciting thing is that we have proven cost-effective solutions at hand
that can go a long way in addressing this problem.
Forests in the United States and around the world provide important
services to people--services that are not adequately or appropriately
valued by the free market, creating a market failure. These services
include many things that we all take for granted--clean air, clean
water, wildlife habitats, and long-term carbon sinks that absorb and
sequester carbon pollution for years. Because these functions of a
healthy forest ecosystem don't have a dollar sign attached to them,
they are often not incorporated into decisions made by businesses,
consumers, and governments, but just because they don't have a pricetag
does not mean they are without value. In fact, the 2008 study pegged
the cost of deforestation to the global economy at between $2 trillion
and $5 trillion per year.
As the U.S. Forest Service put it, ``When our forests are
undervalued, they are increasingly susceptible to development pressures
and conversion. Recognizing forest ecosystems as natural assets with
economic and social value can help promote conservation and more
responsible decisionmaking.''
I agree. Adequately valuing forests, and the services they provide
offers many benefits to local populations to the climate. Limiting
deforestation and forest degradation will not reduce global carbon
pollution and slow the pace of climate change. It will also help to
safeguard the livelihoods of the more than 1.6 billion people who the
U.N. estimates depend on forest services.
What is more, tropical forests are the source of over one-quarter of
all modern medicines. Forests impede the transmission of insect- and
animal-borne infectious diseases. So beyond the economic benefits, we
know that keeping our forests intact can improve the livelihoods of
billions of people while avoiding drastic increases in global
temperatures.
Thankfully there are good solutions available to address
deforestation. We can start by properly enforcing laws that are already
on the books. I plan on working with my colleagues to ensure that we
fully fund the agencies charged with enforcing the ban on illegally
sourced timber and paper included in the 2008 amendments to the Lacey
Act.
When the leaders, environmental ministers, finance ministers, and
climate negotiators from all nations meet in Paris later this month, I
hope they will keep in mind the many advantages of reducing forest loss
in rainforest nations and other developing countries. I hope my
colleagues will recognize the crucial role that the United States can
play in sharing our best practices and helping to build capacity in
those countries so we will all be better stewards of our natural
environment.
A changing climate brings with it a unique set of challenges, but it
is not too late to take the necessary steps to avoid the worst impacts
of climate change. There is good news to be had. We have at our
disposal a wide range of solutions for reining in our emissions of
carbon pollution. Addressing deforestation is one of the most effective
and cost-effective ways to slow global warming, while enhancing the
lives and livelihoods of the hundreds of millions of people who rely on
forests and the services they provide.
Clean Power Plan
Mr. President, I wish to talk about another aspect of climate change
and another reason for hope. Two weeks ago the Clean Power Plan was
published in the Federal Register, meaning that it is now the law of
the land. This is the signature achievement of President Obama's
efforts to reduce carbon pollution. It will reduce carbon emissions
from the power sector by 32 percent by the year 2030. The power sector
is the source of some of the most cost-effective emissions reductions,
and the Clean Power Plan is the most critical and vital step toward
putting the United States on a path to a low-carbon economy.
Powerplants are the largest single source of greenhouse gas emissions
in the Nation, accounting for more than 30 percent of all U.S. carbon
pollution. There are currently no limits to the amount of carbon
pollution that can be emitted from powerplants. I want to repeat that.
There is no limit under the law before the Clean Power Plan to the
[[Page S7811]]
amount of carbon pollution that can be put into the air.
This is despite having landmark legislation already in the books
called the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act requires the Federal
Government to regulate airborne pollutants. It doesn't require or allow
the Federal Government to select from among a menu of airborne
pollutants and decide which ones will be most cost-effective or most
important to regulate. It says the EPA is charged with taking airborne
pollutants and regulating them, to place limits on them. It is a
mistake that over the last 20 years, even though we have recognized
that carbon is an airborne pollutant, that it is not regulated under
the Clean Air Act.
The Clean Power Plan fixes this problem. It is an innovative and
flexible solution that gives States the right to develop their
individual plans. This is also an important point. The first iteration
of the Clean Power Plan was a little more of a blunt instrument. It was
geographically constrained. It was powerplant constrained. Therefore, a
lot of States, a lot of utility companies came back and said: Look,
there are going to be individual instances where it is going to be very
difficult to reduce carbon pollution at a particular site because it is
rural, because it has already been capitalized, because we can't get
the financing to reduce the carbon pollution at a particular site, but
if you allow us to work what they call outside of the fence and you
allow us State by State to reduce in the aggregate the amount of carbon
pollution put into the air, then we can make this work. We can still
have what they call good power quality, which is to say you don't want
undulations in power quality to the point where you have blackouts and
brownouts. That was industry. That was regulators. That was a public
utilities commission. That was energy companies coming back and saying
this is not workable.
The EPA came up with a scenario where we are still regulating carbon
pollution under the Clean Air Act, but we are doing it in a way that is
totally workable for every State and every energy portfolio in every
region in every State. It gives States the rights to develop their own
individual plans to cut carbon pollution from the energy sector. The
Clean Power Plan has sent a signal to the rest of the world that the
United States is serious about preventing catastrophic changes to our
climate.
The American public knows that climate change is a problem and large
majorities want us to act. A Stanford poll found 83 percent of
Americans, including 61 percent of Republicans, say that if nothing is
done to reduce emissions, global warming will be a serious problem in
the future. Now, 77 percent of Americans say the Federal Government
should be doing a substantial amount to combat climate change, and 67
percent of Americans support EPA action to curb carbon pollution.
In other words, 67 percent of Americans support the EPA action that
is being undertaken right now. They support the Clean Power Plan. They
may not know the details, but they understand the basic premise which
is that the Clean Air Act is the law of the land. It was passed a long
time ago with large bipartisan majorities. The basic idea that the
Federal Government has some simple responsibilities, and one of them is
to keep us safe from air and water pollution, is a bipartisan consensus
not in this Chamber, unfortunately, and not in the other Chamber,
unfortunately, but across the country, everybody understands that
carbon is a pollutant, and we should try to reduce it over time as much
as we possibly can.
I think it is time we acknowledge that the electricity industry is
already changing. We are rapidly moving away from fossil fuels as the
dominant source of electricity generation. Soon even low-priced natural
gas may not be able to compete with wind and solar energy. We should be
celebrating these advances and devoting ourselves to finding ways to
accelerate this transition, not throwing up roadblocks.
The truth is the Clean Power Plan is merely accelerating market
trends that are already underway. Listen to this. Through the first 9
months of this year, over 60 percent of new U.S. capacity additions
were renewable energy. More than 60 percent of the new power generation
in the United States over the last 9 months has been clean energy. That
is the change that is happening. That is the clean energy revolution.
In 1998, when I was in the State legislature and I was helping to
work on net energy metering laws, solar tax credits, and a renewable
portfolio standard, this was aspirational. This was something we hoped
we would eventually achieve, but 60 percent of new generation this year
in the United States is clean energy. It is already happening.
As wind and solar prices fall, they are increasingly competitive with
new fossil generation in more and more places around the country. To my
colleagues who warn of massive price shocks from the transition to
clean energy, I point out that we are already underway with our
transition, and the massive price shocks have not happened. The Clean
Power Plan is the most important power tool that we have in our arsenal
to fight climate change.
To my colleagues who are trying to stand in the way of making real
progress toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions, I say this: When you
are ready to be constructive and work on a comprehensive energy policy,
to work on a comprehensive climate policy, we are open.
I have continued to come to the floor of the Senate over the last
several months, over the year of 2015, and have said this is an issue
that has unfortunately become incredibly partisan. This is an issue
where we have Democrats coming to the floor offering constructive
solutions and an empty side of the Chamber on the other side, but this
is the challenge of our generation. This is our obligation as the
indispensable Nation. The United States has to lead. The Senate has to
have a real debate on climate and energy policy, and we need
Republicans to step up. This issue is crying for Republican leadership,
and I am looking forward to the day--hopefully very soon--where we will
have it, where we will have a serious negotiation.
I understand that not all of my ideas will win out, not all of the
progressive perspectives will win out, but that is the legislative
process. We need a dance partner. We look forward to that moment.
Mr. President, 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. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________