[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 181 (Wednesday, November 13, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6536-S6540]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



          National Homeless Children and Youth Awareness Month

  Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, I rise today to talk about a resolution 
that I have introduced with my fellow Senator from Maine, Susan 
Collins, and 11 other fellow Senators from both sides of the aisle--
truly bipartisan--to designate November 2019 as National Homeless 
Children and Youth Awareness Month.
  Specifically, this resolution highlights the issue of children and 
youth homelessness and supports the efforts of businesses, 
organizations, educators, and volunteers who are dedicated to meeting 
the needs of homeless children and youth.
  In the 2016-to-2017 school year, there were 1.3 million children and 
youth--I repeat, 1.3 million children and youth--who experienced 
homelessness in the United States.
  In West Virginia alone, our schools have identified more than 10,500 
students experiencing homelessness. This is simply unacceptable, and we 
must do more to support our future generations. That is why I am a firm 
believer that there are five promises--five promises--we, as adults, 
should make to every child.
  No. 1 is every child must have an unconditionally loving and caring 
adult in their life. That is the first. Every child must know that 
someone loves them unconditionally. No matter what you do and no matter 
what mistakes you make, at the end of the day, that person loves you. 
It could be your mom or dad; it could be a grandma or grandpa; it could 
be an aunt or uncle; or it could be a neighbor, someone who knows they 
have your back no matter what.
  No. 2 is every child must have a safe place to call home where harm 
cannot enter. I would hope it is the home they live in. Sometimes it is 
not always the case. Sometimes it might be a school. It might be an 
after-school program. It could be a church. It could be a neighbor's 
home. Every child growing up has to have somewhere safe in their life 
where harm cannot enter and they are protected.
  No. 3 is every child must have a healthy start and access to a 
nutritious diet. I think that is why you have seen in our school 
systems that we have expanded our nutrition programs from breakfasts to 
lunches. When I went to school way back when in rural areas, we had no 
cafeterias and no lunches, but for some reason, I could always tell 
when my mom or other parents had put an extra sandwich in the lunch 
pail knowing that we couldn't eat it but somebody could. There were 
always those who kind of stepped in and helped others.
  Now we have that. Every child has to have a healthy start and access 
to a nutritious diet if they are going to grow and be engaged and, 
basically, be productive.
  No. 4 is every child should be taught a livable skill so that they 
can make their own way through life. Primary and secondary education is 
free in America. It makes us different from every other country in the 
world. We commit to every child that they can get an education to be 
literate--every child. That is why education should be held to a higher 
standard to make sure that they have a skill set.
  There should be no child graduating from high school who is not ready 
to

[[Page S6537]]

work or ready to learn more. We should be able to identify in 7th, 8th, 
or 9th grade what their interests are going to be, whether they are 
going to be skill-set driven or whether they are going to be 
academically driven. Both are needed, and we should not make them feel 
like failures if they don't go to college because a lot of people 
aren't desiring to go to college. A lot of them want to work with their 
hands. They want the skill sets; they have that ability, and we should 
identify that very early.
  No. 5 is the hardest promise because you cannot teach it. You can't 
teach this promise that you should keep to every child--that that child 
should grow to be a loving, caring adult and give something back. They 
can learn that fifth one only by how you conduct your life, how that 
special adult in their life--mom, dad, aunt, uncle, cousin, neighbor, 
after-hours group, school--someone in their life has given them hope: 
Hey, I can be that person; I can give something back; and I can help 
somebody like me.
  Those are the five promises. If we can't keep those, then God help us 
all. We owe that to every generation. To have one child homeless in 
this country is wrong. Homelessness means you have no stability; you 
have no functional family; and you have no biological mom or dad to go 
home to. You are either couch surfing or basically living with another 
relative--whatever it may be--and this is something we have to 
intervene in and make sure we can correct.
  We must keep these promises to our children so that our future 
generations will grow up to be the best they possibly can and meet all 
their expectations. We expect our children and youth to care about 
their education, but if they don't have a roof over their head or a 
place to sleep, if they don't have adequate nutrition and meals, they 
can't focus on learning as they should be able to.
  I heard one child say: I am just trying to survive. I am just trying 
to make it through the day and survive. I would love to get the 
education you want me to get, but when it becomes basically survival 
tactics or educational tactics, survival will kick in first.
  That is what they are dealing with. This crisis is affecting not just 
these students in their homes, but it affects their school life, too, 
and we must do better to ensure that they can learn and give back to 
their communities.
  Speaking of doing more, there is a lot of great work being done in my 
State of West Virginia and nationally and, I am sure, in all the 
States. One wonderful example is the Children's Home Society in West 
Virginia. I know they are watching and are gathered for their annual 
conference today. I want to thank them for the incredible work they 
have been doing. They have been strong leaders in helping children and 
families who experience homelessness in West Virginia. We truly 
appreciate their leadership on this issue in our State and hope that 
their work can be used as a standard for the other States to combat 
this issue.
  Recently, I visited South Charleston Middle School to see the work 
they are doing to address the child and youth homelessness crisis 
facing our State from the perspective of a student's life, much of 
which is spent at school. They use Federal funding to help correctly 
identify students who are homeless so that they can provide services to 
those who need them.
  I hope my resolution will help raise awareness on this issue so that 
more schools can use the funds available to support the students who 
are experiencing homelessness. In West Virginia, the child and youth 
homelessness crisis is intensified by the opioid crisis that has 
ravaged our State. The lasting effects of the epidemic on our children 
and future generations are terrible, from the increase in children and 
youth homelessness to a rise in youth substance use disorder.
  This crisis will continue to affect communities like those all across 
West Virginia for decades to come, which is why we must begin to combat 
and address issues like child and youth homelessness now.
  In the middle of this crisis, there are success stories, too, like 
Hannah's. Hannah's parents could not care for her because of substance 
use issues, so she went to live with a family friend, who subsequently 
removed all support. A high school counselor referred Hannah to the 
Youth Services System Transitional Living Program, which helped her 
finish high school and go on to college. She is a recipient of the YSS 
Ronald Mulholland Futures Scholarship and attends West Virginia 
University, where she is now a junior studying chemistry. Last summer, 
she completed an internship in Tennessee.
  The Youth Services System is a wonderful national organization that 
works to provide shelter for children and youth across America. 
Organizations like the Youth Services System and the Children's Home 
Society deserve recognition for their incredible work because, without 
them, success stories like Hannah's and so many others wouldn't even 
exist. This is why we must raise awareness of this issue so that we can 
support the wonderful work being done across the United States every 
day.

  I am so proud to be here today to advocate for those 1.3 million 
children and youth across our Nation who need our help and deserve our 
help. We must do better for them, and I believe strongly that this 
resolution is the beginning to work toward solving this major crisis 
our Nation has with broad bipartisan support. If there is one thing 
that brings us together, it is the children. It is not a Democrat or 
Republican problem. It is a problem for all of us. It is an American 
problem, and we have to face it.
  With the support of 23 national organizations, I hope this resolution 
will pass quickly. I look forward to working with my colleagues who 
have signed on to this resolution and those on both sides of the aisle 
to bring us back together to combat child and youth homelessness.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.


                             5G Technology

  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I will talk for a few minutes today 
about 5G technology and taxpayer money. We have all heard the term 
``5G.'' 5G stands for fifth generation--fifth generation technology. In 
short, what 5G means is incredibly fast data transmission--data going 
from my cell phone to the President's cell phone, my internet to your 
internet, and the ability to connect a lot of different devices at the 
same time.
  Through 5G technology, which is wireless technology, we will be able 
not only to transmit data very quickly, but we will also be able to 
transmit huge amounts of data--almost breathtaking amounts--and it is 
going to have a huge impact on American society. It is going to have a 
huge impact on the world.
  In some respects, it is going to change the world. If technology has 
changed the world thus far--and indeed it has; among other things, it 
has made the world smaller--5G is going to change it even more. For 
example, you will be able to use your smartphone to open your garage 
door. You will be able to use your smartphone and be a mile away but 
turn on your coffee maker. We will be able to do surgery by internet. 
Surgeons will be able to be in one place 1,000 miles away from a 
patient, and that surgeon, through robotics and other means, will be 
able to transmit the data to operate on that patient.
  Driverless cars are going to change the world dramatically--not only 
the way we get around. It is going to change our need for roads; it is 
going to change our tax base; and it is going to change the insurance 
market.
  5G is going to allow farmers to be prewarned about encroaching 
diseases. Farmers will not have to wait to see their crops attacked by 
certain diseases; through 5G technology, they will be able to know and 
predict that those diseases are coming. It is going to help us feed the 
world.
  5G technology is going to allow our young people to have virtual 
apprenticeships. If you are a young woman or a young man and you are 
right out of school and you are offered an apprenticeship or an 
internship, let's say in San Francisco, and you are living in Duluth--
say you are a student and you say ``I don't have the money to move to 
San Francisco, and I don't have the money to live in San Francisco,'' 
you will be able to do an internship through technology.
  It is going to be 100 times faster. In terms of the amount of data, I 
don't know how to quantify that, but it is going to have an 
extraordinary impact on wireless technology.

[[Page S6538]]

  What are we talking about here? When my phone calls the President's 
phone, what are we talking about? Really, we are just talking about 
radio waves. We are talking about radio waves. A radio wave is nothing 
more than electromagnetic radiation. I don't want to get off the 
subject here. When my phone talks to the President's phone, we are just 
sending radio waves through the air. Sometimes you might have heard 
that referred to as a spectrum. That is basically how a cell phone and 
the internet works, except with 5G, the speed with which that data is 
transmitted and the amount of data will be substantially larger.
  Who owns those radio waves and the air through which those radio 
waves travel? According to Federal law--the Federal Communications Act 
of 1934--we do. We all do. The American people do.
  The Federal Government, through the Federal Communications Commission 
and other agencies, including but not limited to Congress, regulates 
those radio waves going through the air, which we call spectrum, but 
those radio waves and the air through which they pass are owned by the 
American people. Just like a national park, just like the oil and gas 
offshore in Federal waters, just like the Rocky Mountains, they are 
owned by us, the American people.

  Now there are certain types of radio waves that are owned by the 
American people that are perfect for 5G technology. These radio waves 
and this spectrum, if you will--I will use the term ``spectrum,'' but 
remember, I am just referring to radio waves moving through the air. 
This particular spectrum that is perfect for 5G technology is called 
the C-band. I don't know why they call it that, but that is what they 
call it. It is between 3.7 gigahertz and 4.2 gigahertz. Don't worry 
about what that means; just know that this part of the overall spectrum 
is perfect for 5G. It is perfect because it strikes a balance between 
coverage and capacity. And this C-band, if you will, is not too hot, 
not too cold. It is just right for 5G. It is critical to our 
development of 5G technology.
  Since the American people own this C-band and since many of our 
wireless companies want to develop and offer 5G technology to the 
American people, given those facts, the FCC is going to play an 
integral part. The FCC licenses spectrum to companies that want to use 
it. In other words, if you are a wireless company and you want to use a 
portion of the spectrum--the radio waves going through the air that are 
owned by the American people--you go to the FCC and say: I want to 
license that spectrum, and I want to pay for it.
  By law--not by custom; by law--the FCC says: OK. To be fair, we are 
going to hold an auction, and everybody who wants to bid on this 
portion of the spectrum can submit a bid.
  In the last 25 years, the FCC has done an extraordinary job, by the 
way, of getting spectrum out to the private sector and getting the 
American taxpayer paid for its property interest. In the last 25 years, 
the FCC has conducted over 100 of these auctions. The FCC has brought 
in $123 billion for the American people--billion. That is nine zeros. I 
have met with folks at the FCC who handle the public auctions. They are 
incredibly experienced. They know what they are doing.
  Let me get back to the C-band. When we left off, we were talking 
about the C-band being perfect for 5G. We have a lot of wireless 
companies that want to lease it, if you will--want to license it--and 
the FCC is there in the middle. You would expect that what we would do 
in this instance is what we always do--we hold a public auction.
  It has been estimated that if we hold a public auction, if the FCC 
holds a public auction and tells all the wireless companies that want 
to bid to come on down and bid, it will bring in $60 billion for the 
American people--$60 billion. Do you know what we could do with $60 
billion? With $60 billion, we could put 1 million kids through college 
for all 4 years. With $60 billion, we could hire 1 million new cops for 
a year. With $60 billion, we could build 7,000 miles of interstate. 
With $60 billion, we could make sure that broadband reaches every 
crevice and corner of America because right now it doesn't.
  If you are in a rural area right now--I don't want to overstate my 
case, but in many instances, if you are in a rural area, you don't have 
the same broadband both in terms of reach and coverage and speed that 
people have in a large city, and that is true even before we get to 5G.
  We could even give the money back to people. We have 140 million 
taxpayers in America. If we gave $60 billion back to 140 million 
taxpayers, that is about $430 for every taxpayer in America. I am not 
suggesting we do that. That is above my pay grade, making that 
decision. For a lot of people, $430 isn't that much money, but I have a 
lot of friends who would say $430 is a lot of money.
  But in the middle of what I just described, we have a hair on the 
biscuit. We have three companies--and I am not disparaging them. Two of 
them are headquartered in Luxembourg, and one is out of Canada. They 
are foreign satellite companies. They have gone to the FCC and they 
have said: Look, we are going to make you a deal. We know we need to 
get this 5G, this C-band spectrum, into the market as quickly as 
possible. We will do the auction for you.

  It doesn't matter that the FCC has already done 100 auctions and 
brought in $123 billion. These three foreign companies have gone to the 
FCC and said: Let us do the auction for you because we can do it better 
and quicker even though we have never done a public auction.
  Then they told the FCC: By the way, we want to keep the money. We can 
do it faster than you, FCC. Even though you have done 100-plus auctions 
and we have never done one, just trust us. We can do it faster than 
you, and we want you to give us the spectrum and let us keep the $60 
billion.
  The FCC is considering doing it.
  My State has a lot of oil and gas. The Federal Government--the 
American taxpayer--owns the seabed of much of the Gulf of Mexico. 
Periodically, on behalf of the American people, the Federal Government 
leases that seabed to oil and gas companies to explore for oil and gas. 
When the Federal Government leases the land, the Federal Government 
takes an upfront cash payment and a portion of any oil and gas that is 
found.
  Can you imagine what would happen if I went to the Federal Government 
and said: Even though I have never done an oil and gas auction, I can 
do it faster than the Federal Government even though the Federal 
Government has done thousands of them. So I want you to give me all the 
minerals in the gulf and let me do the auction and keep the money.
  Can you imagine the reaction if I approached the Federal Government? 
The people in charge of those oil and gas leases would do one of two 
things. I would end up in either handcuffs or a straitjacket. But that 
is what is being proposed here, and for the life of me, I do not 
understand why the FCC is taking this seriously.
  An article just came out a couple of days ago. I will read the first 
sentence of it. It came out of a periodical called Market Watch on 
November 11, just a few days ago.
  It starts: ``A big step in the U.S. deployment of 5G wireless could 
take place by year's end as the Federal Communications Commission is 
expected to back a plan from the satellite industry for auctioning off 
radio spectrum.''
  They called a couple of investment bankers. One investment bank group 
is called Height Capital Markets, and another one is called Beacon 
Policy Advisors. I don't know where they are getting their information, 
but they are saying that the FCC has already agreed not to do a public 
auction but to let these foreign companies have the spectrum and get 
the $60 billion.
  The article goes on to explain that these three companies--these 
three foreign companies, the two Luxembourg companies and the Canadian 
company--spent $515,000 lobbying regulators and lawmakers on its 
auction plan.
  Then I go back and I look at another article that came out not too 
long ago, and it talks about one FCC Commissioner. It sounds like he is 
already sold. He was asked about the idea of just giving the spectrum 
to these foreign companies and letting them keep the money.
  Here is what he said: ``Most of the criticism of what is known as the 
CBA proposal''--that is the proposal by the private companies--``shows 
a lack of

[[Page S6539]]

understanding of how the Internal Commission works. . . . [D]on't let 
anyone try to lecture me on the commission's . . . efficiency and 
timeliness.
  This Commissioner goes on to say:

       If someone or some entities make a profit for being at the 
     right place at the right time, I will live with that outcome. 
     In the grand scheme of things, if it is a contest between 
     speed and government trying to extract a significant piece of 
     the transaction through a lengthy process, I'll take the 
     speedy resolution.''

  Are you kidding me? What planet did he just parachute in from? This 
is a current member of the FCC. Somebody needs to tell him about the 
President's Executive order, right here: ``Buy American and Hire 
American.'' It doesn't say ``hire Luxembourg companies.'' I have 
nothing against Luxembourg companies; I just prefer American companies. 
It doesn't say ``buy Canadian companies and hire Canadian.''
  I can tell you what is going to happen if the FCC does this. First of 
all, the American people are going to lose $60 billion. No. 2, they are 
going to get sued. They say they can do it faster--I don't believe 
them--but I know this much: I know a little something about litigation. 
I used to do it for a living. They are going to be tied up in court for 
about 10 years--I can tell you that--because the Federal Communications 
Act requires a public auction.
  I can tell you what else is going to happen. The people who live in 
rural communities are going to get the little end of nothing because we 
won't be able to control who gets this C-band. I will bet you that the 
companies that end up with it start--and I hope I am wrong--and remain 
in the cities. So if you live in the country, where I was raised, you 
won't get the benefit of 5G.
  Also, if we give it to these three foreign companies and they get to 
decide who gets the C-band, how do we control who ends up with our 
spectrum? What if they give it to Huawei? What if they give it to a 
company that violates our national security and our national 
intelligence?
  This is a really bad idea, folks. There is a bill that has been 
offered. It is a bipartisan bill in the House. I am going to sponsor it 
in the Senate. It is offered by two Republicans and two Democrats. The 
bill is very simple. It says: Do the right thing. This spectrum belongs 
to the American people. This C-band belongs to the American people. 
That $60 billion belongs to the American people. I am asking my friends 
at the FCC to do the right thing. Do what you have done 100 times 
already, and let everybody bid. Let everybody bid. Take the $60 billion 
that you get from the American people, and let's spend it on something 
the American people need.

  I thank you for your time and attention.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                  Unanimous Consent Request--S.R. 420

  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, earlier this week, we celebrated Veterans 
Day, a day we honor the sacrifice and the service of those who fought 
in Normandy and Pearl Harbor and Inchon, at Khe Sanh, Somalia, Bosnia-
Herzegovina, Kandahar, Mosul, and everywhere else where veterans work 
to protect our country. We owe them and their families a debt that we 
often fall short in repaying. That is what this is about today.
  For years, the VA has been presented with scientific information from 
the National Academy of Sciences making it clear that the list of the 
conditions stemming from Agent Orange exposure is extensive. It 
includes hyperthyroidism, bladder cancer, Parkinson's-like symptoms, 
and hypertension. In the late iteration of the Veterans and Agent 
Orange Exposure Update 11, published a year ago, the National Academies 
recognized that those illnesses--hypothyroidism, bladder cancer, 
Parkinson's-like symptoms, and hypertension--all have suggestive or 
sufficient evidence associated with Agent Orange.
  Historically, the VA added illnesses in those two categories to the 
list of presumptive medical conditions associated with Agent Orange 
exposure. On a bipartisan basis, this Congress has done the right thing 
time after time. We are all on the same side when it comes to helping 
veterans who were exposed to Agent Orange in Vietnam.
  We recently found out that former VA Secretary Shulkin decided to add 
three of these conditions to the list of presumptive medical conditions 
associated with that exposure only to have OMB--the Trump 
administration--block his decision. In an email to Director Mulvaney, 
Secretary Shulkin said adding these conditions was ``imperative.'' Yet 
no action took place. There are 83,000 veterans living with at least 1 
of the presumptive medical conditions--83,000. They are in Tennessee. 
They are in Georgia. They are in South Dakota. They are in Ohio. In a 
discussion with blue water Navy veterans last week, I learned that 
since the Department put a stay on adjudicating their Agent Orange 
claims earlier this year, 12 veterans have died. Time is running out. 
Some might accuse this body of waiting until they all die. As hard as 
it is to say that and hear that, we are waiting until they all die 
before we move.
  For whatever political reason the administration seems to place on 
this, we need to ensure that veterans receive the healthcare and the 
compensation they earned. They shouldn't have to fight these one at a 
time when there are sick men and women veterans of Vietnam. We did this 
to them. The American Government decided to spray Agent Orange. We knew 
it was harmful. We know it is harmful. We knew it then, and we know it 
now. The chemical companies knew and the government knew. Why does the 
administration now think it is OK to abandon our commitment to these 
veterans? If you are exposed to poison while serving our country, there 
should be no question that you deserve the benefits you earned. Period. 
No exception.
  Madam President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent 
that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 420, 
encouraging the President to expand the list of the Department of 
Veterans Affairs of presumptive medical conditions associated with 
exposure to Agent Orange to include parkinsonism, bladder cancer, 
hypertension, hypothyroidism, which was submitted earlier today; I 
further ask that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed 
to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the 
table with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. ISAKSON. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Reserving the right to object, I want to say to my 
committee member how much I appreciate his dedicated work. In the 
committee, we work on a lot of things, including the diseases in here, 
getting presumptive conclusions done so we can cover as much as 
possible, but medicine is not exact. Diseases are not exact. 
Circumstances are not exact. When you make a decision to include a 
benefit for our veterans, you are making a commitment to spend that 
money from the taxpayers of the United States of America.
  In the committee--and the Senator is part of it, and he knows this 
because I helped him a lot--we just approved blue water Navy funds, 
which is going to be one of the largest increases in the history of 
benefits going to our veterans. We are circumventing into that some of 
the due diligence--which you really ought to do before you make a 
presumption of the diseases caused in all cases.
  I am an alumni of the Georgia Air National Guard and a veteran. I am 
chairman of the committee. I think the world of the Senator from Ohio. 
What he is trying to do is great and right, just as he wanted to lead 
us to help get us where we got to on the blue water Navy funds, but I 
object to this motion as one who would benefit because I have 
Parkinson's. I went into service during the 1960s, during a year that 
would be considered the Vietnam era. I didn't serve in Vietnam, but I 
served in that era, so I would have consideration if I got Parkinson's 
disease--which I have Parkinson's. Then they can use that as a 
conclusion to find out if it

[[Page S6540]]

was presumptively caused or not by the exposure I had.
  I am just telling you as one who, if I wanted to, could take a 
benefit from this end run. I am not going to do it because I think it 
is time, as chairman of the committee--that it is time we make sure 
that every benefit we promise veterans, that we have the money to do it 
so we don't spend too much money on other benefits and leave ourselves 
short for theirs.
  I object to the motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Senator Isakson knows this is no sort of false kind of 
flattery. He knows how much I think of him. He runs the most bipartisan 
committee in the Senate. I have been honored to be on it my entire 13 
years in this body. No Ohioan ever served on this committee as long as 
I have. I consider that a privilege, No. 1, and an opportunity to pay 
people back.
  I didn't serve in the military. I know Senator Isakson did. President 
Trump had deferments from Vietnam. He didn't serve in the military. I 
think that maybe perhaps, because I didn't serve in the military, I 
should work a little bit harder to make sure those people, most of whom 
are older than I by a little bit, during the Vietnam war--that they be 
treated better than they were by the country and by the public upon 
their return from Vietnam; that they, in this case, get the benefit of 
the doubt and the history of what happened with Agent Orange.
  You may remember years and years ago, veterans--people who had fought 
in Vietnam and had been exposed to Agent Orange--had to prove, 
initially, case by case, why they got sick, which was darn near 
impossible, especially when you are sick, trying to do that and go 
through that pain.
  Congress, on a bipartisan basis, did the right thing back then. They 
put a list of these illnesses together that exposure to Agent Orange 
was likely responsible for. If you had one of these illnesses and you 
were boots on the ground in Vietnam, you automatically qualified. You 
didn't have to fight in court. You didn't have to get lawyers or do any 
of that. That was then.
  Now, even though Secretary Shulkin--and I don't know how many 
Secretaries have come and gone. The President can't seem to keep 
Secretaries of the VA or staff of the VA because of the erratic policy 
he follows with veterans. The President of the United States goes to 
New York and makes a great speech about veterans, and we all applaud 
that, but then he is not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. 
These are four illnesses Secretary Shulkin thought--you heard the term 
I used earlier, which is the term he used--he used the term about these 
conditions that it was ``imperative'' that we do something.
  I understand as well as anybody how important it is to protect 
taxpayers. I also remember less than 2 years ago that Congress gave a 
tax cut--hundreds of billions of dollars, and 70 percent of it went to 
the richest 1 percent of people in this country--and we can't come up 
with a few billion dollars to help veterans who are dying from these 
four illnesses? We can't expand this list and give them healthcare as 
we try to comfort them at the VA in Cleveland and Dayton and Cincinnati 
and Columbus and in Atlanta--all over? This is no end run around 
process. These aren't four illnesses I heard somebody talk about in 
Steubenville or Cleveland that ought to be covered. These are four 
illnesses the VA has looked at, the scientific community has looked at, 
the medical community has looked at, and Secretary Shulkin--who served 
as Secretary of the VA, appointed by President Trump, initially was 
acting under President Obama--we can't give them the benefit of the 
doubt? This is no end run. We can't give them the benefit of the doubt 
and say, yes, we should cover this. I hope the chairman of the 
Veterans' Committee--that at some point we can sit down and talk and he 
can reconsider.
  Why do we think we need to protect President Trump, who, like me, 
didn't serve in the military? For me, it--I will not get into that. But 
why can't we help these veterans and give them the benefit of the 
doubt, cover these illnesses, and move forward with the VA taking care 
of people the way we should?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.