[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 53 (Thursday, April 7, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1795-S1802]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       AMERICA'S SMALL BUSINESS TAX RELIEF ACT OF 2015--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.


                   Filling the Supreme Court Vacancy

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we have a unique opportunity for the 
American people to have a voice in the direction of the Supreme Court. 
The American people should be afforded the opportunity to weigh in on 
this very important matter.
  Our side, meaning the Republican side, believes very strongly that 
the people deserve to be heard, and they should be allowed to decide 
through their vote for the next President the type of person who should 
be on the Supreme Court.
  As I have stated previously, this is a reasonable approach, it is a 
fair approach, and it is a historical approach--one echoed by then-
Chairman Biden, Senator Schumer, and other Senators.
  The other side, meaning the Democratic side, has been talking a great 
deal about the so-called pressure campaign to try to get Members to 
change their position. It is no secret that the White House strategy is 
to put pressure on this chairman of the Judiciary Committee and other 
Republicans in the hopes that we can be worn down and ultimately agree 
to hold hearings on the nominee.
  This pressure campaign, which is targeted at me and a handful of my 
colleagues, is based on the supposition that I and they will crack and 
move forward on the consideration of President Obama's pick.
  This strategy has failed to recognize that I am no stranger to 
political pressure and to strong-arm tactics--not necessarily just from 
Democratic Presidents but also from Republican Presidents.
  When I make a decision based on sound principle, I am not about to 
flip-flop because the left has organized what they call a pressure 
campaign.
  As many of my colleagues--and especially my constituents--know, I 
have done battle with administrations of both parties. I have fought 
over irresponsible budgets, waste, fraud, and policy disagreements. I 
have made tough decisions. I have stuck with those tough decisions 
regardless of what pressure was applied.
  The so-called pressure being applied to me now is nothing. It is 
absolutely nothing compared to what I withstood from heavyhanded White 
House political operations in the past.
  Let me say, by the way, that most of that has come from Republican 
White Houses. To just give a few examples, in 1981, as a new Member of 
the Senate and a brand-new member of the Senate Budget Committee, I 
voted against President Reagan's first budget proposal because we were 
promised a balanced budget and it didn't balance. I remember very 
specifically the Budget Committee markup in April 1981 on President 
Reagan's first budget.
  It happened to be that I wasn't alone on this. I was one of three 
Republicans to vote against that resolution because it did not put us 
on a path to a balanced budget. You can imagine that when a budget has 
to come out on a party-line vote, you cannot lose three Republicans, 
and three Republicans who were elected in 1980 on a promise to balance 
the budget did not go along with it.
  What a loss this was for this new President Reagan--that his budget 
might not get adopted by the Budget Committee. We were under immense 
pressure to act on the President's budget regardless of the deficits 
that it would cause. But we stood on principle and didn't succumb to 
the pressure.
  As an example, right after that vote where the President's budget 
wasn't voted out of the Budget Committee, I was home on a spring 
recess. I remember calls from the White House. I remember threats from 
the Chamber of Commerce while I was home for Easter break, even 
interrupting my town meetings. Four years later, I led the charge to 
freeze spending and to end the Reagan defense buildup as a way to get 
the Federal budget under control. In 1984 I teamed up with Senator 
Biden, a Democrat, and Senator Kassebaum of Kansas, a Republican, to 
propose a freeze of the defense budget that would have cut hundreds of 
billions of dollars from the annual deficit.

  At the time, it was known as the Kassebaum-Grassley Budget or the KGB 
defense freeze. We were going to make sure that across-the-board 
budgets were responsible.
  For months, I endured pressure from the Reagan administration and 
from my Republican colleagues who argued a freeze on defense spending 
would constitute unilateral disarmament. President Reagan had put 
together a less aggressive deficit reduction plan. We didn't think it 
went far enough. My bipartisan plan was attacked for being dangerous 
and causing draconian cuts to the defense budget. I knew it was 
realistic and a responsible approach. I didn't back down.
  We forced a vote that year in the Budget Committee. We forced a vote 
on the Senate floor on May 2, 1984, and that particular year we were 
not successful. However, this effort required the Senate and the Nation 
to have a debate about a growing defense budget. We started that 
debate, about the waste and inefficiency in the Pentagon and the 
growing Federal fiscal deficits. Despite the weeks-long pressure from 
conservatives in the Reagan administration, I did not back down because 
I knew the policy was on my side.
  In this process I stood up to pressure from President Reagan, Defense 
Secretary Casper Weinberger, Secretary Barry Goldwater, Senator John 
Tower, Chairman of the Budget Committee, and many others. I remember a 
meeting at the White House where I reminded the President that he had 
been talking through the campaign about the Welfare queens impacting 
the budget. It happens that I reminded him there were Defense queens as 
well.
  I started doing oversight on the Defense Department. It wasn't long 
before the evidence of waste and fraud began appearing. We uncovered 
contractors that billed the Defense Department $435 for a claw hammer, 
$750 for toilet seats, $695 for ashtrays. We even found a coffee pot 
that cost $7,600.
  I had no problem finding Democrats to join my oversight effort back 
then, but it is interesting how difficult it is to find bipartisan help 
when doing oversight in the current Democrat administration. 
Nevertheless, 12 months later, on May 2, 1985, after a year of

[[Page S1796]]

work to make the case that the Defense Department needed structural 
reforms and slower spending growth, I was successful. My amendment to 
freeze the defense budget and allow for increases based on inflation 
was agreed to when a motion to table failed by a vote of 48 to 51.
  A majority of the Republicans opposed me, and a majority of the 
Democrats were with me. That didn't matter because I knew we were doing 
the right thing. I went against my own party, my own President, to hold 
the Pentagon accountable, and I never backed off.
  I had a similar experience with President George W. Bush in 1991. In 
January 1991, the Senate debated a resolution to authorize the use of 
U.S. Armed Forces to remove Saddam Hussein's forces from Kuwait. I 
opposed the resolution because I felt the economic and diplomatic 
sanctions that I voted for should have been given more time to work. I 
was not ready to give up on sanctions in favor of war.
  In the end, I was one of just two Republicans, along with Senator 
Hatfield of Oregon, to oppose the resolution. I was under pressure from 
President Bush, Vice President Quayle, and White House Chief of Staff 
John Sununu. I was even pressured by Iowa Governor Terry Branstad. I 
heard from a lot of Iowans, particularly Republicans, who were 
disappointed and even angry with my position. Some were even 
considering a public rebuke because of my vote. As one of just two 
Republicans, it was difficult to differ with a Republican President on 
such a major issue. But as I stated at the time, my decision was above 
any partisanship. It was a decision of conscience rather than a matter 
of Republican versus Democrat.
  After a tremendous amount of soul-searching, I did what I thought was 
right, regardless of the political pressure. The same is true today 
with regard to the Supreme Court vacancy.
  Under President George W. Bush, I faced another dilemma. The 
President and the Republican congressional leadership determined that 
they wanted to provide $1.6 trillion in tax relief in 2001.
  I was chairman of the Senate Committee on Finance. The problem is, we 
had a Senate that was divided 50-50 at the time. The parties' numbers 
also equal, on the Senate Finance Committee. I had two members on my 
side who were reluctant to support a huge tax cut because they had 
concerns about the deficit and the debt.
  As we saw a few years later, their concerns were not totally 
unwarranted. But, at the time, the administration leadership would have 
nothing to do with anything except what the President wanted--$1.6 
trillion in tax relief. Obviously, the White House wasn't thinking 
about how many Republicans might vote against it, and when you have a 
50-50 Senate, you can't lose a lot of Republicans.
  After very difficult negotiations, I finally rounded up enough votes 
to support $1.3 trillion in tax relief. A hailstorm of criticism 
followed. There were Republican House Members who held press 
conferences denouncing the fact that the Committee wasn't able get 
enough votes for the whole $1.6 trillion. Those House Members were more 
professional in their criticism of my position, than what we currently 
witness almost every day from the current minority leader about my role 
as chairman of the Judiciary Committee. But, it was still a very 
contentious and difficult period that included both the budget and the 
reconciliation process.
  Minority Leader Reid has already recently brought up the pressure I 
came under in regard to ObamaCare back in 2009. Of course, his version 
is his usual attempt to rewrite the actual history. At that time, I was 
the ranking member of the Finance Committee. I was involved in very in-
depth negotiations to try to come up with a health care solution. We 
started in November of 2008. We had negotiations between three 
Republicans and three Democrats on the Finance Committee. We met for 
hours and hours at a time.
  We met between November 2008 and mid-September 2009, and then the 
other side decided they ought to go political and not worry about 
Republicans. The minority leader, in his usual inaccurate statement of 
facts has tried to say that Republicans walked out of those 
negotiations on ObamaCare. The fact is, we were given a deadline and 
told that if we didn't agree with the latest draft of the bill, then 
Democrats would have to move on.
  I would suggest that anybody in the Senate who wants some reference 
on this should talk to Senator Snowe or Senator Enzi. I was the other 
Republican. Talk to Senator Baucus, talk to Senator Conrad and the 
then-Senator from New Mexico. The President called six of us to the 
White House in early August of 2009. The first question I got was this: 
Would you, Senator Grassley, be willing to go along with two or three 
Republicans to have a bipartisan bill with ObamaCare at that point? And 
I said: Mr. President, the answer is no. What do you think we have been 
working on for 9 months? We have been working, trying to get a broad 
bipartisan agreement. It's something like 70 to 75 votes you need to 
get if you really want to have a changed social policy and have it 
stick.
  We didn't abandon this until 2009. But my idea is that probably it 
was that meeting at the White House in early August 2009 where this 
President decided: we don't want to mess around with those Republicans 
anymore. We have 60 votes; we are going to move ahead. Well, that 
happened then in that September.
  The fact is, we were given that deadline, and we were shoved out of 
the room. So when we didn't bow to this pressure and agree to 
Democratic demands, it ended up being a partisan document. That is why 
it still doesn't have the majority support of the American people.
  I want the minority leader to know that is what happened, not what he 
described a couple of weeks ago. Eventually, as we all know, the former 
majority leader--now minority leader--had his staff rewrite the bill 
that came out of the HELP Committee and in secret in the back rooms of 
his leadership office. And we ended up with the disaster called 
ObamaCare that we have today.
  The Senate minority leader also recently proclaimed that rather than 
follow Leader McConnell--and these are Senator Reid's words--
``Republicans are sprinting in the opposite direction.'' The minority 
leader also wishfully claimed that the Republican facade was cracking 
on the issue. Senator Schumer fancifully stated that ``because of the 
pressure, Republicans are beginning to change.''
  You can almost hear the ruby slippers on the other side clicking 
while they wish this narrative they describe were true. The fact is, 
the pressure they have applied thus far has had no impact on this 
Senator's principled position or the principled position of almost 
everybody on this side of the aisle. Our side knows and believes that 
what we are doing is right, and when that is the case, it is not hard 
to withstand the outrage and the pressure they and the White House have 
manufactured.
  The pressure we are now getting on this issue pales in comparison to 
the pressure I have endured and withstood from both Democrats and 
Republicans in the past.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the 
bill that is on the floor, the Federal Aviation Administration 
Reauthorization Act. I thank Senator Thune and Senator Nelson for their 
leadership.
  I serve on the Commerce Committee. I am proud of this bill. Our State 
has a long history of aviation. It was the childhood home of Charles 
Lindbergh. We are home to the Minneapolis-St. Paul International 
Airport, the 13th busiest airport in the United States. We are home to 
Cirrus Design Corporation in Duluth, which makes planes and is a very 
successful company, as well as many people whose jobs and ways of life 
depend on the aviation industry, not to mention the 148th Fighter Wing 
National Guard base, as well as the one in the Twin Cities and the one 
in Duluth.
  I see my colleague from Arizona is here, so I will focus on one 
issue, and that is aviation security.
  Mr. President, 9/11 was our country's wake-up call that our 
transportation system is a target, and the attacks in Brussels last 
month remind us that we must continue to do everything we can to 
strengthen security, and not just in our security lines at the airports 
but also in places like baggage claim areas and other forms of 
transportation, like train stations. We need to make sure

[[Page S1797]]

our soft-target areas, as they are called--like the security lines, 
baggage claims, and ticketing counters at the airport--are safe.
  I am a cosponsor of the amendment that passed today that will help 
address the issue by doubling the number of visible intermodal 
prevention and response teams from 30 to 60. These teams help provide 
important deterrent security at potential air and ground transportation 
targets across our country.
  This amendment which passed today will also improve existing security 
systems in airports and train stations by expanding bomb-sniffing dog 
patrols, law enforcement training for emergency situations, and 
security in all perimeter areas of the airport.
  We must also improve the secure areas of airports where airline 
employees have secure access to what are called sterile areas. In 
March, as we all know, an airline employee was arrested after 
attempting to use his badge to enter the boarding area of a terminal 
from the tarmac, bypassing security gates. He had a backpack with 
$282,000 in it. In the same month, we saw another employee try to 
smuggle 70 pounds of cocaine in her suitcase at LAX, and she was caught 
at a security checkpoint. The most egregious breach of security 
happened at the Atlanta airport, where airline employees helped to 
facilitate a gun-smuggling ring and were successful at getting guns on 
at least 20 flights from Atlanta to New York. Needless to say, there 
continues to be significant concern, as much as we know that the vast 
majority of our airline employees are hard-working and good employees.
  Eighty-five Senators just voted in support of the Airport Security 
Enforcement and Oversight Act, a bill I cosponsored that would help 
address this issue of security at the airport, but I would like to add 
our own story out of Minnesota-St. Paul.
  First of all, it is a story of inefficiency, so we made a 
reconfiguration at our airport. There were lines at one point where the 
average time was 45 to 50 minutes--average time. That was just a month 
ago. There were passengers waiting for 2 hours and missing their 
flights. There were simply not enough TSA agents. They were out at a 
training, which was, of course, necessary because of the inspector 
general's report that came out this June and showed some severe 
problems in security at our airports. So we had a perfect storm of 
people out for training, a new reconfiguration, and finally the spring 
break travel. But it was simply unacceptable when our taxpayers are 
paying for TSA. In fact, this Congress authorized $100 million--$90 
million more than they asked for in the last budget year.
  I have appreciated TSA Administrator Neffenger coming to Minnesota, 
saying that it was unacceptable, saying that they were hiring people 
with the budget money that was provided.
  There are also plans to use these K-9 units not just in the 
perimeters of the bill we passed today but also on these lines. Not 
only do these dog teams add more security, by working a line of 
passengers, they actually speed up that line because then those 
passengers essentially become precheck passengers and they don't have 
to be prechecked. They become prechecked because of the dogs, and that 
speeds up everything for all airport passengers.
  I think we have seen enough of these terrorist attacks across the 
country, planes with bombs going down in other places. We know this is 
a danger. We don't want this in our homeland.
  I appreciate the support of my colleagues on these amendments. We 
will continue to work on security issues.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.


                      Permanent VA Choice Card Act

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the urgent need 
for Congress to reform how the Department of Veterans Affairs delivers 
health care to our Nation's veterans. One of the great scandals and 
shameful aspects of the greatest Nation in the world is the way we 
treat our veterans. I believe important progress has been made since 
the scandal in which veterans died, waiting on nonexisting wait-lists 
for care at the Phoenix VA medical center and VA hospitals around the 
country, but we have a long way to go to fulfill our solemn promise to 
every veteran who has served and sacrificed.
  In the matter of that terrible scandal, I was proud that Congress 
quickly acted to pass the bipartisan Veterans Access, Choice, and 
Accountability Act. That bill was an important first step--and I 
emphasize ``first step''--in reforming the gross mismanagement and lack 
of accountability at the VA.
  In my view, the hallmark of the bill is the Choice Card Program, 
which for the first time allows any veteran who is waiting more than 30 
days for an appointment or who lives more than 40 miles from a VA 
health care facility to receive a Choice Card that they can use to 
visit a participating doctor in their community instead of being forced 
to wait with no recourse.
  So how is the VA Choice Card working? My colleagues in the Senate and 
I continue to hear from veterans in Arizona and across the country 
about their ongoing problems receiving care. Veterans find that VA 
staff don't know about the Choice Card or how to authorize care through 
it. Veterans are forced to wait on hold for hours with a call center in 
order to schedule an appointment. Community doctors and hospitals that 
volunteered to participate in the Choice Program are not getting paid 
for their services. Veterans who are able to use the Choice Card once 
and need to use it again have to start all over from scratch. Veterans 
still have to drive long distances to get prescription medications.
  There should be no doubt that the VA is failing to fully and 
effectively implement the Choice Card. In doing so, it is preventing 
our veterans from receiving the flexible care they have earned and 
deserve.
  We know that when implemented correctly, the Choice Card Program is 
improving care for our veterans. After an extremely difficult start, 
the VA Choice Card is now authorizing more than 110,000 appointments 
for veteran care per month--over 5,000 per workday. Each of these 
appointments represents a veteran's appointment that would otherwise be 
delayed and pending for months in the VA scheduling system. It also 
frees up appointments at the VA for veterans who do not use the Choice 
Card, helping countless veterans receive an appointment faster.
  We have also seen what can happen when the VA properly reimburses 
community doctors for their services. In the western region alone, 
community doctors participating in the VA Choice Program have increased 
from around 95,000 to nearly 160,000. More than 90 percent of all 
doctors are being paid within 30 days, and the vast majority of doctors 
are choosing to stay in the VA Choice Program--mainly because of their 
love of country--to treat our Nation's veterans.
  Moreover, we have seen that when the VA is equipped to handle the 
demand for Choice Program appointments made through call centers, 
veterans are getting their appointments faster. Recent openings of new 
call centers have greatly reduced wait and on-hold times among our 
veterans. Today, wait time averages for veterans calling into the 
western region call centers for Choice Card appointments are less than 
1 minute.
  As a result of a positive VA policy change last year, contractors are 
now able to contact veterans and ensure that their authorizations for 
care are approved ahead of time so that appointments can be made much 
faster over the phone.
  While we are seeing important progress as a result of the Choice 
Card, far too many veterans are still experiencing long wait and on-
hold times with call centers and confronting difficulties getting an 
appointment. Unfortunately, some veterans, veterans service 
organizations, and opponents of the VA Choice Card cite these 
shortcomings as evidence that the whole Choice Card Program is broken 
and needs to be eliminated. These opponents are wrong, and they know 
it. The problem isn't the Choice Card; it is that the VA refuses to 
implement it correctly.
  Instead of working to solve the problems at the VA head-on, the same 
bureaucrats who have completely bungled the implementation of the VA 
Choice Card are using their own failures as an excuse to shut down the 
entire program. Allowing them to do so would only send veterans back to 
the unacceptable status quo of never-ending

[[Page S1798]]

wait times for appointments. Does anybody want to return to the status 
quo?
  I refuse to send our veterans back to the nonexistent wait-lists that 
led to the scandal of denied and delayed care in the first place. Every 
representative in Congress and every official at the VA should too. 
According to a poll recently released by Gallup, the American people 
overwhelmingly agree. Ninety-one percent of survey respondents believe 
that veterans should be allowed to get health care from any provider 
who accepts Medicare, not just the VA.
  This chart describes the main problems with VA health care before the 
Choice Program. Today, military and civilian retirees; Federal 
employees, including VA employees; ObamaCare enrollees; civilians on 
employer insurance plans; and refugees and illegal immigrants have the 
ability to choose their doctors. The only group of Americans who is 
still being denied universal choice in health care is disabled 
veterans. How is it that we have created a system where virtually 
everyone in America gets to choose their doctor except for our Nation's 
disabled veterans?
  Our veterans want and need the opportunity to choose the health care 
that works best for them. It is simply unacceptable that half a million 
veterans nationwide today are waiting for a medical appointment that is 
scheduled more than 30 days from now. We can address this crisis now by 
making simple changes to the law. Under the law, the VA Choice Card 
pilot program expires next year. We cannot and will not go back to the 
way our VA operated before the scandal.
  While some senior VA leaders are aggressively implementing the Choice 
Program, many others believe veterans should be forced to stay within 
the walls of the VA no matter what. Making the program permanent will 
send a clear message that we refuse to send veterans back to the days 
of denied and delayed care. That is why I introduced legislation to 
make the VA Choice Card permanent and universal. I believe every 
veteran--no matter where they live or how long they are waiting for an 
appointment--should have the ability to see a doctor of their choice in 
their community.

  Last week I held a townhall meeting with veterans in Phoenix, AZ, 
along with Mike Broomhead, a distinguished leader in our community. 
With tears in their eyes and frustration in their voices, veterans 
described the unending wait times for appointments and difficulty 
obtaining and using the Choice Card to receive the care they want and 
need. More than 2 years after the scandal in care first arose in 
Phoenix, AZ, and more than a year after reform legislation was signed 
into law, the VA is still failing our veterans.
  It doesn't have to be this way. There are additional steps we can 
take now to reform this broken health care system. That is why I 
recently announced my Care Veterans Deserve action plan. The elements 
of my plan address some of the most urgent problems still plaguing the 
VA.
  First, the action plan proposes keeping the VA open later during the 
week and opening the VA on weekends for local doctors and nurses to 
treat our veterans. This would address the most common complaint we 
hear that wait times for appointments are still too long. In Arizona, 
wait times have gotten worse--not better--over the last year, with more 
than 10 percent of all the Arizona veterans having to wait more than 30 
days for care at the VA.
  Despite these long wait times, veterans are still not allowed to make 
appointments past 3 p.m. during the week and have very few appointment 
options on weekends. VA employees abruptly close clinics no matter what 
a veteran needs at the end of the day. By keeping the VA open later and 
adding hours on weekends, we can address these unacceptably high wait 
times and maximize the use of our VA facilities.
  I have also proposed in the Care Veterans Deserve action plan that 
the VA allow community walk-in clinics to treat veterans for minor 
injuries and illnesses such as a cold, the flu, allergies, sinus 
infections, immunizations, vaccines, sore throats, and minor headaches. 
Again, this would greatly reduce the need for veterans to visit VA 
emergency rooms after hours and would free up appointments for everyone 
waiting for care at the VA.
  The plan also proposes that we require VA pharmacies to stay open 
until 8 p.m. during the week and for at least 8 hours on Saturday and 
Sundays. This would tackle a common complaint among our working 
veterans who cannot visit VA pharmacies during their limited workday 
hours to obtain a prescription. It is absurd that a civilian can go to 
a pharmacy 24 hours a day in most cities in America, but VA pharmacies 
close early on weekdays and completely on the weekends.
  I also propose in this action plan that individual VA hospitals 
undergo peer review from the best in health care: Mayo Clinic, 
Cleveland Clinic--there is a long line of them--and other top-tier 
health care networks. I was disappointed that the independent review 
required by the Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act only 
resulted in a high-level review of the VA health care system. Its 
findings were so broad and general that they provided Congress with 
very little guidance on what is happening at individual VA hospitals in 
our States. By requiring the VA to undergo peer reviews from the best 
in health care, we will have better insight into how to fully reform 
the VA health care system.
  I intend to include the elements of that action plan in a bill I will 
introduce in this Congress. By enacting legislation as soon as 
possible, we can fix the serious inequity in veterans health care. It 
is absurd to me and many others that virtually every American receives 
Federal subsidies for choice and freedom in health care while veterans 
are forced to wait in line and ask permission from a VA bureaucrat 
before getting access to care.
  I thank my colleagues for working with me on these and other measures 
that will help finish the work we started nearly 2 years ago with the 
Veteran Access, Choice and Accountability Act and urge passage of my 
commonsense reforms as soon as possible.
  Before I close, I want to take a moment to applaud the efforts of my 
friend from Georgia, the chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs 
Committee, Johnny Isakson, for his leadership, particularly on the 
issue of accountability at the VA. One of the most disgraceful aspects 
of the scandal at the VA is that only a small number of senior VA 
executives responsible for the wait-time scandal were fired. This was 
despite the fact that Congress provided the VA Secretary broad 
authority to hold corrupt executives accountable for wrongdoing. I look 
forward to working with Chairman Isakson and my colleagues in the 
Senate to pass legislation that would ensure we hold all those 
responsible for denied and delayed care, even the deaths of some, 
accountable.
  Mr. President, 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. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                               EUREKA Act

  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President and my fellow colleagues, I once again come 
to the floor to talk about Alzheimer's and the efforts being made in 
this country and in this Senate and in this city to find a cure and 
find better treatments for the scourge of Alzheimer's. Many of you know 
this is the most expensive disease our country has ever seen; one-half 
trillion dollars a year in costs to programs that we need to protect 
like Medicare, Medicaid. This will rise to $1 trillion per year in the 
lifetime of many people within the sound of my voice unless something 
is done.
  I am so appreciative of the some 1,200 people who descended on 
Washington this week advocating on behalf of the millions of Americans 
living with Alzheimer's and their family members. I was honored to be 
invited to their conference and to speak to over 1,000 people in the 
hotel where they were meeting earlier this week. They then came to 
Capitol Hill to visit in the offices of Senators and Members of the 
House of Representatives, and I had a great meeting on Wednesday in my 
office. We want to reaffirm our dedication to putting an end to this 
terrible disease. My mom died with dementia. Most of us have family 
members who have had Alzheimer's or who have been impacted by 
Alzheimer's.

[[Page S1799]]

  I appreciate the support of my colleagues in this Congress for NIH 
funding. It is very important to continue funding, to continue 
increasing the funding for the excellent work done by the National 
Institutes of Health to fight Alzheimer's disease and fund Alzheimer's 
research.
  I appreciate my colleagues voting for a $350 million increase in 
research for Alzheimer's disease, but of course this falls far short. 
This is funding that experts say is needed to reach our goal of curing 
Alzheimer's within the next decade. Along those lines, I have 
introduced legislation that I think gives us a different way to 
approach the disease of Alzheimer's. My bill is called the EUREKA Act 
that involves a prize competition, in addition to everything we are 
doing in research, everything NIH is doing, and all the research being 
done around the country. It is a prize competition inviting innovators, 
inviting people to think outside the box, come forward, and give us 
their ideas.
  EUREKA stands for ``Ensuring Useful Research Expenditures is Key for 
Alzheimer's.'' Of course, the Greek translation for Eureka is ``I found 
it.'' That is what we are trying to do--trying to find a cure for 
Alzheimer's, trying to find milestones that will lead to a cure, and 
trying to find treatments to help those suffering from the disease.
  The goal of my EUREKA Act is to find the best and brightest minds in 
the country, the best and brightest minds in the world, to come forward 
and use their ingenuity to solve this complex problem. As I have 
reiterated in visits with Member after Member, and I have reiterated on 
the floor, with a prize competition, we pay only for success. 
Regardless of the amount of money we put on the prize, you don't pay 
the money until we have success, which is one of the reasons this 
EUREKA provision wouldn't come out of NIH funding. It would add to it, 
and we would only pay the money if we got the result, which of course 
would be far more valuable than the prize.
  The numbers associated with Alzheimer's are daunting--even worse, 
chilling. The disease affects 5 million Americans. The number of people 
with Alzheimer's is on the rise, as we all know. It is the sixth 
leading cause of death in America and, again, it is the most expensive 
disease in America: $236 billion this year and $1 trillion per year by 
the year 2050. Of course, there is a huge burden for the caregivers 
also.
  There is good news, to be sure. It was announced last week that 
there's been an analysis by UsAgainstAlzheimer's, and it showed some 17 
drugs for Alzheimer's could be launched in the next 5 years. In 
Mississippi, the University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson 
has developed a service called TeleMIND as part of its MIND Center. 
Telehealth technology is being used to attack Alzheimer's, to treat 
Alzheimer's patients, and make life better for them and their family.
  Let us try the concept of EUREKA also. Let us try the concept of 
offering a prize to young minds. Perhaps people from around the world 
might come to the United States. This might be someone in a basement or 
in his mom's garage or might be some major international corporation. 
We don't care. We want to offer an incentive for somebody to come 
around, think outside the box, and get us to a cure quicker.
  Prizes have a history of success. In 1927, Charles Lindbergh achieved 
a nonstop flight between New York and Paris. He won a prize of $25,000 
in so doing. In 2004, the XPRIZE--sponsored by the XPRIZE Foundation--
offered $10 million for the first reusable manned spacecraft. You know 
what happened. It drew down $100 million in investments, this $10 
million prize. In 2011, $1 million was awarded for a breakthrough in 
oilspill cleanup. So prizes work. It can work, in addition to the 
research NIH is doing around the country.
  Let me say, in addition to myself as principal sponsor of this act, 
we now have 39 cosponsors among this 100-person Senate. We are day-by-
day, step-by-step getting toward a majority. It is my hope the 
leadership of the HELP Committee that is now working on the 21st 
Century Cures Act that came over from the House with an overwhelming 
bipartisan vote--I hope we can, in a bipartisan fashion, with the 
leadership of Senator Alexander, with the leadership of Senator 
Murray--his lead Democrat on the committee--I hope we can make a 
decision to add the EUREKA bill to the 21st Century Cures Act, to have 
this extra opportunity, in addition to everything we are doing, to cure 
Alzheimer's.
  I would urge my colleagues, I would urge the staff members who might 
be listening to this, to check and see if their Members have 
cosponsored this and to help us with an additional tool to attack the 
problem of Alzheimer's.
  Thank you very much, Mr. President.
  I thank my colleague from Michigan for deferring for a moment or two 
while I make these remarks.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.


                     Flint, Michigan, Water Crisis

  Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, it is very hard for me to believe I am 
once again standing on this floor. I have to come before my colleagues 
in the Senate to report that despite the fact that we have been 
building bipartisan support for legislation that will address the 
catastrophic situation in Flint, we still have one Senator standing in 
the way of this coming to a vote.
  It has been now nearly 2 months since Senator Stabenow and I 
introduced legislation to deal with the catastrophic crisis in the city 
of Flint, MI. Since that time, we have been able to build a broad 
coalition of folks on both sides of the aisle, Republican cosponsors 
who have joined with us to say it is time for this body, it is time for 
the Senate, to stand and help those in need in the city of Flint, as 
well as issues all across this country. Senator Stabenow and I offered 
legislation, along with Senator Inhofe, and a long list of Democrats 
and Republicans, including Senators Burr, Capito, Kirk, and Portman, 
have been working very closely with Senator Murkowski as chair of the 
committee as well.
  Yet we have one Senator, one Senator who says that is not enough. He 
wants to have more, and he is standing in the way of the people of 
Flint getting the help they desperately need. He is standing in the way 
of children like this young infant who appeared on the cover of Time 
magazine. To me, those eyes are very compelling, and I think those eyes 
are very compelling to every American who has witnessed what has 
happened in that city, who has witnessed the horror and the tragedy of 
having poisoned water going into people's bodies for many months while 
the State government dropped the ball.
  I will say folks around the country have responded. There has been an 
outpouring of help from people in every corner of this great country of 
ours. People have sent bottled water. They have sent filters and are 
providing resources. It is what our country does. It is what our people 
do when we see people in crisis. We stand and lend that helping hand. 
We know any one of us at any time could be in that situation. The 
wonderful thing about being an American is that as Americans we look 
out for each other. We know we are a community, a very special place in 
this world, and we look out for each other.
  That is why people back home in Michigan--and as I travel around the 
country--people are at a loss and wondering why the U.S. Congress 
hasn't done something to address this issue. When I tell them we have 
legislation that will help deal with infrastructure, not just in Flint 
but in communities all across the country, that will plus-up public 
health programs to deal with lead poisoning at a time when we realize 
lead poisoning is not just an issue for Flint but is an issue for 
communities all across this country and one we need to focus on and 
probably ignored for far too long, they wonder why we have not acted. 
When I tell them we have one Senator--just one Senator--standing in the 
way, it only adds to their belief that this is a dysfunctional place; 
that partisanship and polarization have prevented this body from doing 
what is right.
  We can't forget the people of Flint, and I know many of my colleagues 
on the Senate floor have not. That is why we have been able to get 
broad support from both Democrats and Republicans, who have come 
together and said to both my senior Senator, Ms. Stabenow, and me: We 
understand it is a problem in Flint, but we also understand it is a 
problem in other communities around the country. Let us design 
legislation to deal with that.
  That is what we have before us. We have legislation that will provide 
money for those cities that may be in

[[Page S1800]]

a declared emergency, which is where we are with the city of Flint, but 
we also know there may be other communities in this country--in fact, 
we think there will be a community very soon--that will also have a 
declared water emergency that will be able to access those funds. We 
also know aging infrastructure is not unique to the city of Flint. It 
is with cities all across the country, especially older urban areas 
that have lead surface lines, but there are certainly many rural areas 
that have that as well. Those pipes need to be taken out.
  In this legislation, we create a fund that will allow money to be 
loaned to those communities--oftentimes, communities that don't have a 
lot of resources but desperately need infrastructure improvement. It is 
a loan fund that will be paid back to the taxpayers but will extend the 
money necessary to make improvements that truly will be lifesaving 
improvements for the citizens in those cities.
  We also plus-up a number of public health programs from the CDC that 
deal with lead poisoning in children.
  The insidious thing about lead poisoning is that once it gets into 
the brain of a young child--like this child who is looking at us right 
now in this picture I have in the Chamber--it has lasting effects. It 
has lifetime effects. We need not only to embrace that child with our 
love but understand that the child is going to need health care for 
decades. That child is going to need educational support to be able to 
pursue his or her version of the American dream that he or she may 
have. They are going to need to have, in addition to education and 
health care, good nutrition, making sure the food they eat will provide 
their bodies with the nourishment that can counter some of the impacts 
of lead.
  But it is not just the children; it is everybody in the city of 
Flint. Senior citizens have also been impacted. I have gone door to 
door in Flint and worked with volunteers, including the American Red 
Cross, delivering bottled water to the people of Flint. I never thought 
I would have to go with the American Red Cross to deliver bottled water 
to a community because the water they were getting out of their pipes 
was poisoned--not in this country, not in the United States of America. 
But that is what people are doing, and filters as well are being given 
door to door.
  The people of Flint are appreciative. Please know they are extremely 
appreciative of the generosity they have seen from people across this 
country and from FEMA response as well, but they are also frustrated. 
People can't bathe with bottled water. They are cooking and cleaning 
food--all of the basic things we take for granted each and every day. 
It is simply impossible to live just on bottled water and have that 
bottled water delivered to them every few days. It is not a workable 
system. It is unacceptable, and it certainly should be unacceptable to 
everybody in this country.
  That is why we need to have a long-term solution. It has to be a 
long-term solution that will fix the problem permanently by making sure 
the infrastructure improvements are there, lead pipes are pulled out, 
but makes sure other support services are going to be there for 
decades.
  My fear for the people of the city of Flint is that although they 
have been the beneficiaries of a great outpouring of love and support 
from people around the country, they have been able to get that because 
the spotlight has been on Flint and the TV cameras are in Flint. We all 
know in today's media world that those cameras will eventually go away. 
There won't be media attention for Flint. There won't be the bright 
lights of publicity motivating people to do what is needed in the city 
of Flint. When those lights go down and when it goes dark, the people 
of the city of Flint will still be confronted with this absolutely 
catastrophic situation that is impacting them in their homes. It is 
impacting businesses--businesses that have been rocked as a result of 
this. People don't want to go to restaurants because they are not sure 
of the water there. Real estate values have plummeted. This is a 
different kind of a disaster than a natural disaster if a hurricane 
goes through or a tornado goes through. Then we can rebuild, and it can 
be as good as new.
  Our concern with Flint is that there will always be this stigma 
attached to the city as a result of this, and if that stigma is there, 
it is going to make it even more difficult.
  The people of Flint are resilient and courageous and brave and 
strong. They will survive, but we need to be there to lend that helping 
hand. That is why it is even more frustrating to me, given the fact 
that when we have natural disasters across this country, this body--the 
Senate--acts. We send money. We help those local governments. The State 
governments provide help.
  Now, I know some colleagues have said that this is not a natural 
disaster, that this is a manmade disaster. All I can say is to ask that 
child when he or she grows up: Does it make a difference that it was a 
manmade disaster or a natural disaster? Ask the senior citizen in Flint 
right now. Ask the parent who is concerned about that child. Does it 
make any difference? I don't think any American here thinks it makes a 
difference. There isn't anybody in this country who thinks it makes a 
difference. A disaster is a disaster.
  Now, it is true the State government messed up horribly in Michigan. 
In fact, the Governor's own task force that he appointed to look into 
it clearly points the finger at the State of Michigan and the 
incompetence that was shown by the government of the State of Michigan. 
That is a given. They are primarily responsible and need to step up, 
and they have. But they need to do a whole lot more than what they have 
done so far.
  But even though the State has to do that and must do that, that 
doesn't prevent us, the Federal Government, from also standing up and 
saying: We can help as well because that is what we do. It is what the 
American people expect us to do. I certainly hope my colleagues will 
help Senator Stabenow and I move this legislation forward. If we can't 
get around this one Senator who wants to constantly move the goalpost, 
who wants to change the basis of negotiations even though this 
legislation is completely paid for--we have used a pay-for that Senator 
Stabenow fought for, authored to help manufacturers in the Midwest. I 
fought aggressively to keep that fund when I was a Member of the House. 
This is something that is important to us, but we know that dealing 
with a catastrophic situation in Flint and water infrastructure across 
this country so that we don't have any more Flints is more important. 
That money will be used to help the people of Flint and communities 
across this country. Not only does it pay for this, but it actually 
reduces the deficit at the same time.
  I think it is important to say that usually when a disaster hits this 
country, we don't look for pay-fors. We step up and provide money for 
people in need. We have been asked to come up with a pay-for, and we 
did--completely paid for while reducing the Federal deficit at the same 
time. Yet we have one Senator who wants more. He wants more.
  I don't know how that one Senator can hold up something that has been 
able to get this kind of bipartisan support and can hold up something 
that is so important to this child in this picture. How can you stand 
in the way? If that one Senator does not like this legislation, that is 
fine. They can vote against it. But allow the other 99 Senators in this 
body an opportunity to have their say. That is the way this institution 
is supposed to work.
  I still believe in this institution. I still believe the Senate can 
do better than allowing one Member to stand in the way of helping this 
child and other children just like this one.
  It is now our task as Members of this body to come together and say: 
Enough is enough. We are going to help somebody in this country no 
matter who you are, no matter where you live, no matter the 
circumstances. If you have been hit by a major disaster, we will stand 
with you. We will help you. That is who we are as Americans. It goes to 
the very core of our values.
  It is now up to my colleagues here in the Senate to please join 
Senator Stabenow and me and our long list of both Democratic and 
Republican cosponsors. Put this legislation on the floor. Let's vote on 
it, let's pass it, and let's help the people of Flint and other folks 
all across the country.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.

[[Page S1801]]

  



              Tribute to Trent Harmon and La'Porsha Renae

  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I don't know what other Members of the 
Senate will be doing at 8 p.m. eastern time, but I can tell you I will 
be in front of my television set watching ``American Idol.'' We all 
take pride in people from our own States, but I want to boldly predict 
that the winner of ``American Idol'' tonight will be a contestant from 
my State of Mississippi. The reason I am so certain of this is that two 
talented Mississippians are the two finalists remaining in the 
``American Idol'' competition tonight.
  They say this will be the final season of ``American Idol.'' Perhaps 
we are only going to have a timeout for a few years, and we will see it 
back. This is the 15th season of ``American Idol.'' I am so proud to 
announce to my colleagues in the Senate and to the Presiding Officer 
that the two finalists are none other than Trent Harmon of Amory, MS, 
and La'Porsha Renae of McComb, MS.
  Now, in Mississippi we proudly call ourselves the Birthplace of 
America's Music, and I think we do that with some justification. From 
blues to country to rock and roll, our State has produced more Grammy 
award winners per capita than any other State in the Nation. Elvis 
Presley comes from Mississippi, as well as Robert Johnson, B.B. King, 
Jimmie Rodgers, Charley Pride, Faith Hill, and the list goes on and on 
and on.
  Last month, I was honored to participate in the opening of the Grammy 
Museum in Cleveland, MS. There are now two Grammy museums in the 
country. One is in Los Angeles and the other is in the Mississippi 
Delta in Cleveland. The Mississippi Delta is a testament to the many 
musical inspirations that have emerged there.
  In 1986, Paul Simon sang: ``The Mississippi Delta is shining like a 
National guitar.'' He sang that line 20 years before the first 
Mississippi Blues Trail marker was placed, but he was correct. We now 
have some 200 Blues Trail markers across our State, and I invite each 
and every Member and all the rest of you to come and visit those 
locations in Mississippi.
  But tonight, the entire State of Mississippi will be shining like a 
national guitar with talents like La'Porsha Renae and Trent Harmon. 
They are keeping our legacy alive. They represent the wide range of 
Mississippi's musical influences. It was wonderfully touching to watch 
the video of their hometown visits, where the people came out to 
support them, showing off their Mississippi talent and the dedication 
of their fans.
  Trent Harmon is from Amory, MS. He grew up on his family's farm, 
working in his parents' restaurant, the Longhorn Fish and Steakhouse. 
Growing up in Amory is truly a small town beginning. The town has a 
population of around 7,500 people. Trent's interest in music was 
apparent from early on, as he spent his time in high school and college 
performing in musicals. My wife and I have numerous times been to Amory 
High School to see Trent Harmon perform in programs such as ``Joseph 
and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat,'' ``Forever Plaid,'' and other 
performances. He was a star then, and he is going to be a star in the 
future. Trent's powerful voice and versatility seem effortless. He can 
do it all, from southern soul to R & B.
  La'Porsha Renae comes from McComb, MS, down in the southwestern part 
of our State. She worked for a call center before auditioning for 
``American Idol.'' She has shared with America the details about her 
story of survival from an abusive relationship in which she had to seek 
refuge in a women's shelter. Her soulful voice has been compared to 
Aretha Franklin, and the emotion she pours into every performance is 
truly show-stopping. She credits her former high school algebra 
teacher, Angelia Johnson, as one of her biggest mentors who encouraged 
her to embrace her own signature style. La'Porsha dedicated last 
night's moving performance of ``Diamonds'' to her young daughter who 
was in the audience.
  So when it comes to talent, I believe ``American Idol'' may have 
saved the best for last, and I very much anticipate a great performance 
tonight. Millions of Americans will choose one of these outstanding 
young Mississippians as the latest, but perhaps not the last, 
``American Idol.''
  Trent and La'Porsha have made Mississippi proud. They have made me 
proud, and I wish them all the best tonight and in their future musical 
careers. I am quite certain that both of them will be incredibly 
successful.
  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. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


Amendments Nos. 3499, as Modified; 3508; and 3505 to Amendment No. 3464

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following 
amendments be called up and reported by number: Wyden No. 3499, as 
modified; Collins No. 3508; and Tester No. 3505.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendments by number.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Thune], for others, 
     proposes amendments numbered 3499, as modified; 3508; and 
     3505 to amendment No. 3464.

  The amendments are as follows:


                    Amendment No. 3499, as modified

  (Purpose: To require a review of heads-up guidance system displays)

       At the end of subtitle D of title II, add the following:

     SEC. 2405. HEADS-UP GUIDANCE SYSTEM TECHNOLOGIES.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal 
     Aviation Administration shall initiate a review of heads-up 
     guidance system displays (in this section referred to as 
     ``HGS'').
       (b) Contents.--The review required by subsection (a) 
     shall--
       (1) evaluate the impacts of single- and dual-installed HGS 
     technology on the safety and efficiency of aircraft 
     operations within the national airspace system;
       (2) review a sufficient quantity of commercial aviation 
     accidents or incidents in order to evaluate if HGS technology 
     would have produced a better outcome in that accident or 
     incident; and
       (3) update previous HGS studies performed by the Flight 
     Safety Foundation in 1991 and 2009.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall submit to the 
     appropriate committees of Congress a report containing the 
     results of the review required by subsection (a).


                           Amendment No. 3508

 (Purpose: To continue the contract weather observers program through 
 the end of fiscal year 2017 and to require the FAA report to identify 
     the process through which the FAA analyzed the safety hazards 
   associated with the elimination of the contract weather observer 
                                program)

       On page 40, line 15, strike ``and'' and all that follows 
     through line 25, and insert the following:
       (3) indicating how airports can comply with applicable 
     Federal Aviation Administration orders governing weather 
     observations given the current documented limitations of 
     automated surface observing systems; and
       (4) identifying the process through which the Federal 
     Aviation Administration analyzed the safety hazards 
     associated with the elimination of the contract weather 
     observer program.
       (b) Continued Use of Contract Weather Observers.--The 
     Administrator may not discontinue the contract weather 
     observer program at any airport until October 1, 2017.


                           Amendment No. 3505

  (Purpose: To direct the Comptroller General of the United States to 
   study the costs of deploying advanced imaging technologies at all 
    commercial airports at which TSA security screening operations 
                       procedures are conducted)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. GAO STUDY OF UNIVERSAL DEPLOYMENT OF ADVANCED 
                   IMAGING TECHNOLOGIES.

       (a) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States 
     shall conduct a study of the costs that would be incurred--
       (1) to redesign airport security areas to fully deploy 
     advanced imaging technologies at all commercial airports at 
     which security screening operations are conducted by the 
     Transportation Security Administration or through the 
     Screening Partnership Program; and
       (2) to fully deploy advanced imaging technologies at all 
     airports not described in paragraph (1).

[[Page S1802]]

       (b) Cost Analysis.--As a part of the study conducted under 
     subsection (a), the Comptroller General shall identify the 
     costs that would be incurred--
       (1) to purchase the equipment and other assets necessary to 
     deploy advanced imaging technologies at each airport;
       (2) to install such equipment and assets in each airport; 
     and
       (3) to maintain such equipment and assets.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit 
     the results of the study conducted under subsection (a) to 
     the appropriate committees of Congress.


Vote on Amendments Nos. 3499, as Modified; 3508; 3505; 3495; and 3458, 
                              as Modified

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now 
vote on these amendments, as well as the Heller amendment No. 3495 and 
the Casey-Toomey amendment No. 3458, as modified, en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I know of no further debate on these 
amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendments en bloc.
  The amendments (Nos. 3499, as modified; 3508; 3505; 3495; and 3458, 
as modified) were agreed to en bloc.

                          ____________________