[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 146 (Thursday, September 19, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6192-S6199]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

     VETERANS BENEFITS CONTINUITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY SUPPLEMENTAL 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2024

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the bill by 
title.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 9468) making supplemental appropriations for 
     the fiscal year ending September 30, 2024, and for other 
     purposes.


[[Page S6193]]


  

  Mr. SCHUMER. I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The Republican leader is recognized.


                               Hezbollah

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, since October 7, the Israeli military 
has achieved remarkable success in destroying Hamas's capacity to wage 
war and in targeting Hezbollah terrorists, but Israel's operations 
against the Iran-backed terrorists surrounding it have also succeeded 
in exposing some of the most malignant and persistent biases of Western 
media against the Jewish State of Israel.
  We need to look no further than the astonishing willingness of the 
most prominent outlets in America to parrot the terrorists' preferred 
casualty figures, produced by Hamas's own health ministry, or the haste 
of even the nation's so-called paper of record to attribute to Israel a 
devastating rocket strike on a hospital that careful observation showed 
to be the work of the terrorists themselves.
  To deny the role of careless coverage and outright bias in the 
groundswell of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic hate across the West is 
willful ignorance.
  Consider just this morning's example, courtesy of taxpayer-funded 
National Public Radio. In its coverage of an apparent Israeli operation 
to target Hezbollah terrorists via their specialized communications 
networks, NPR described Hezbollah as a ``Lebanese militant and 
political group,'' but the most accurate descriptor of Hezbollah--a 
terrorist organization--was conspicuously absent; but NPR editors did 
manage to include a quote from a man on the street accusing Israel of 
terrorism.
  Well, as intrepid journalists so often remind us, context matters, 
and it matters especially in the work of an organization that takes 
Federal Government funding and whose CEO has declared that ``reverence 
for the truth might be a distraction.'' So let's establish some 
context.
  Hezbollah is arguably the world's most dangerous terrorist group. The 
U.S. Government and more than 60 other countries recognize this 
essential characteristic. Hezbollah is funded, trained, and equipped by 
Iran, and with Iran's help, Hezbollah has conducted terror attacks all 
around the world--from bombings in Argentina and Greece to backing the 
ghoulish Assad regime in the Syrian civil war.
  Until 9/11, Hezbollah was responsible for the deadliest terror 
attacks against the United States, killing 321 Americans in bombings of 
the U.S. Embassy, marine barracks, and annex in Beirut back in 1983 and 
1984. They also coordinated with the IRGC and its master terrorist, 
Qasem Soleimani, to kill hundreds of U.S. servicemembers in Iraq; and, 
of course, Hezbollah continues to threaten U.S. personnel in Iraq and 
Syria today.
  But, of course, one of Hezbollah's primary reasons for existence is 
the murder of Jews and the destruction of the Jewish State.
  To the extent that it is a political entity, it has corrupted and 
strangled Lebanon's fragile democracy; and it is Hezbollah's efforts to 
threaten Israel with tens of thousands of rockets and missiles and its 
terror tunnels to facilitate the infiltration of Israel that has put 
Lebanon in the spotlight.
  So it may be worth mentioning that, perhaps, the most carefully 
targeted series of simultaneous attacks against terrorist operatives in 
human history comes in response to this all-consuming campaign, which 
has turned Lebanon into the staging area for war on Israel's existence.
  So how is that for context?
  It is my understanding that the senior Senator from Vermont has said 
he will introduce joint resolutions of the disapproving of U.S. 
security assistance to Israel. Such a signal would only empower and 
embolden terrorists like Hamas and Hezbollah. Each of our colleagues 
deserves a chance to go on the record right away to reject this 
extremism.


                             Harris Policy

  Now, Mr. President, on a different matter, I spoke yesterday about 
how working Americans are having a tough time figuring out where Vice 
President Harris stands on leftwing climate policy. She has played both 
sides of issues that carry real consequences for the livelihoods and 
family budgets. Unfortunately, it doesn't stop at the Green New Deal. 
Voters consistently report that border security is among their top 
concerns--and with good reason.
  In the last 4 years, humanitarian chaos and a security crisis at the 
southern border has set all the wrong records. Since the Biden-Harris 
administration took office, the CBP has recorded more than 9.9 million 
encounters with illegal aliens, and this doesn't include the nearly 2 
million known ``got-aways.'' In the past fiscal year alone, the CBP has 
encountered 2.3 million people attempting to illegally enter our 
country.

  The Democratic nominee for President also happens to be the current 
administration's point person responsible for this exact issue. You 
might expect the border czar to have taken command and left a clear 
idea of where she stands on the issue. Ah, but think again.
  Back in 2020, she described President Trump's border wall as a 
``complete waste of taxpayer money'' that ``won't make us any safer''; 
but, recently, she said that she would sign Senator Lankford's border 
bill into law if it landed on her desk. Remember, this is the bill that 
would have unlocked hundreds of millions of dollars to fund the 
construction of that wall.
  In 2019, when she first ran for President, our former colleague 
expressed support for decriminalizing illegal border crossing. 
Apparently, this was a longstanding view. In her maiden speech in the 
Senate, she proclaimed:

       I know what a crime looks like, and I will tell you: An 
     undocumented immigrant is not a criminal.

  But, according to her campaign, she no longer believes that.
  On other aspects of border policy, her campaign has declined to say 
whether her earlier commitments still hold true.
  Vice President Harris has bragged that she was ``one of the first 
Senators, after President Trump was elected, to advocate for a decrease 
in funding to ICE.'' Is she still proud of that stand? The Harris 
campaign won't say. This is especially puzzling given her stated 
support for the Lankford border bill, which increases the funding for 
ICE. Does she not know what is in the legislation she says she now 
endorses?
  In this body, she introduced legislation to decrease detention by at 
least 50 percent and end funding for new detention facilities. Would 
she sign a bill like that today? Her campaign is mum on the issue. And 
they are similarly tight-lipped on the Vice President's 2019 statement 
of support for taxpayer-funded gender transition treatment for persons 
in immigration detention facilities.
  Now, this isn't to say that the American people are at a total loss 
for clues on where the Vice President stands. She has repeated often on 
the campaign trail that ``my values have not changed,'' and it is 
useful to note who has taken her word for it. The executive director of 
a progressive immigration group recently put it this way:

       We all know and trust Harris to make the right decisions 
     when she's in office.

  When it comes to campaign strategy, some of our Democratic colleagues 
are even saying the quiet part out loud. The senior Senator from 
Vermont, self-described Democratic Socialist, said:

       I don't think she's abandoning her ideals. I think she's 
     tried to be pragmatic and doing what she thinks is right in 
     order to win the election.

  The senior Senator from Hawaii reiterated this point. He has said:

       I certainly don't think we should be demanding that she 
     take unpopular positions in key States.

  Sitting Democratic Senators are calling it like it is: Our former 
colleague is saying what needs to be said to appeal to independent 
voters, but when it comes to her progressive agenda, she is dyed in the 
wool. She just needs to wait until the election to let the mask come 
off.
  So for voters who are trying to make sense of where the Vice 
President stands, it really comes down to this: If Washington 
Democrats' leftwing base

[[Page S6194]]

isn't afraid of her flip-flops, then it is safe to say that working 
Americans should be.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lujan). 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.


                       Senate Legislative Agenda

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, it was another installment of show-vote 
summer in the Senate this week. Really, the Senate is starting to feel 
like an arm of the DNC. I say ``show vote'' because, of course, this 
week's vote and the other show votes we have taken this summer had 
nothing at all to do with legislating. These were not attempts to pass 
bills; these were future campaign talking points and television 
commercials.
  Had the Democrat leader really wanted to pass legislation, I can 
think of a number of bills he would have brought up. But he isn't 
actually interested in getting anything done; he is interested--he 
hopes--in getting votes in November.
  With rare exceptions, the Senate has spent essentially the entire 
summer confirming Biden nominees and conducting show votes, and that is 
not because there hasn't been important legislation for us to take up. 
In fact, it is quite the opposite. The Senate has crucial legislation 
it should have been considering: the National Defense Authorization 
Act, for one thing--one of the most important pieces of legislation we 
consider each year--defense appropriations, veterans appropriations, 
all appropriations.
  The end of the fiscal year is almost upon us. We have 11 days left. 
Yet we haven't taken up a single appropriations bill on the Senate 
floor. And that is not because the Appropriations Committee hasn't been 
doing its work--again, quite the opposite. By the beginning of August, 
the Senate Appropriations Committee had passed 11 out of the 12 yearly 
appropriations bills, several of them unanimously. Just yesterday, 
Senator Collins, vice chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, was 
on the floor urging the Democrat leader to take action on the 
appropriations bills.
  There is zero--zero--reason why we shouldn't have taken up these 
bills on the Senate floor. The only reason we haven't is because the 
Democrat leader has been more interested in scoring political points 
than in doing the job we were all sent here to do. I hope these 
hypothetical political points were worth the cost to our military that 
comes with continuing resolutions, which is what we are going to be 
forced to resort to now to keep the government running.
  In a properly functioning Senate, committee work would be reflected 
on the Senate floor--for example, by taking up the appropriations bills 
that the committee has produced. But in the Schumer Senate, leadership 
is top down. So the actual work of the Senate and the hard work of the 
committees have taken a back seat to the Democrat leader's political 
machinations. As I said, he is currently ignoring the National Defense 
Authorization Act and 11 appropriations bills--all passed out of the 
committee, all available for floor consideration, in some cases for 
months.
  In addition to ignoring committee work, the Democrat leader is also 
happy to interfere with or go around committees when it suits him. The 
Commerce Committee's final release of the Federal Aviation 
Administration reauthorization bill was delayed for months--months--
because the Democrat leader objected to an amendment that was likely to 
pass in committee on a bipartisan basis. Rather than letting the 
democratic process play out, the Democrat leader chose to call a halt 
to committee consideration of the bill, bringing the Commerce 
Committee's work to a standstill literally for months.
  While he did finally allow the Senate to take up the bill, we passed 
the bill a total of 8 months after the previous reauthorization had 
expired--again, solely because the Democrat leader didn't like an 
amendment that was likely to pass with bipartisan support.
  I was not surprised to learn last week that the leader may proceed 
right to an informal conference on the National Defense Authorization 
Act, bypassing consideration of the Senate version of the bill on the 
floor of the U.S. Senate--again, one of the most consequential pieces 
of legislation that we do on an annual basis and which should have 
allowed every Member to have a voice through an amendment process on 
the floor, but he has made it very clear that Member input is not one 
of his priorities.
  As if the Senate weren't dysfunctional enough, if Democrats win the 
majority, the Democrat leader intends to destroy perhaps the most 
important Senate rule we have--the Senate filibuster--permanently 
diminishing, if not eliminating, any meaningful voice for the minority 
in the U.S. Senate, which is what this institution was created to 
represent.
  My great hope is to see a properly functioning Senate again, one 
where, for starters, we actually take up each year's appropriations 
bills after they come out of the committee. I want to see a Senate 
where committee work is recognized and serves as the basis for the 
floor schedule and where committee chairmen are empowered; a Senate 
where Members have the opportunity to have their voices heard through a 
robust amendment process, from committee to final consideration here on 
the floor of the Senate; and a Senate where the role the Senate plays 
in the legislative branch is respected and protected, starting with 
safeguarding the filibuster rule, which helps preserve the Senate's 
role as the, as the Founder said, cooling saucer of democracy.
  I don't have much hope that we will see this type of Senate if 
Democrats are reelected and the current Democrat leader continues in 
his role, but it is the kind of Senate that I will continue to work for 
and that I hope a majority of Senators aspire to. In the meantime, I 
guess we will continue with the Democrat leader's show votes.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Government Funding

  Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, it has been my privilege to represent the 
people of Montana in Congress now for more than a decade. I have seen 
Congress wrestle and struggle with many challenges during my time here. 
I have heard my constituents voice concerns--and deservedly so--about 
many of them. But, by far, one of the worst habits that Congress has is 
its failure to follow its own budget process. In fact, it is not an 
understatement to say that the budget process has completely collapsed 
in both Chambers. And I hear about this back home, and rightfully so.
  Wherever I go in Montana, folks tell me they are tired of the 
dysfunction here in Congress and especially its lack of fiscal 
discipline. For a body that was elected to represent the will of the 
people, we are doing the exact opposite. This is simply not what our 
constituents sent us here to do.
  Too many families in our country are living paycheck to paycheck and 
working sometimes multiple jobs to make ends meet. And, most 
importantly, they are sacrificing to do so.
  When they elect their representatives, they expect good, responsible 
governing. They expect Congress to operate more like they do when it 
comes to budgeting and spending and living within their means. Yet, 
year in and year out, Congress does anything but.
  Let me read you the tale of the tape. The last time Congress enacted 
all 12 appropriations--that is, you could say, passing the budget. That 
is all the appropriations bills. The last time they met the goal of 
getting it done by September 30, the end of the fiscal year of the 
Federal Government, was 1997. That was nearly three decades ago.
  And it is not like we wake up on the 1st of January every year and 
wonder: When are they going to schedule September 30? When is September 
30 going to fall this year?
  It is not like they surprise us, and we say: Oh, my word, it is 
September 30.
  It is no surprise--27 consecutive years.

[[Page S6195]]

  Even sadder is how Congress has ignored the Budget Act. The Budget 
Control Act became law in 1974. This law put into place the modern 
budget process. It was enacted, ironically, to give Congress more 
control over Federal spending and the budget process. Theoretically, 
this would give our constituents a stronger say in how their tax 
dollars are spent.
  But what has Congress done with that authority? Since the Budget 
Control Act became law, 50 years ago, Congress has been out of 
control--though the Budget Control Act was passed 50 years ago. 
Congress rarely even passes a budget resolution anymore, which is 
supposed to start the budget process every spring.
  This resolution is supposed to provide a roadmap for how we approach 
the appropriations process. Without this roadmap, Congress inevitably 
finds itself in a spending train wreck, and our constituents, by 
default, have little say in how their tax dollars are spent. That is 
exactly what has happened year after year after year--27 consecutive 
years, in fact.
  In the past 50 years since the Budget Control Act was passed, 
Congress has only enacted all 12 appropriations on time 4 times: 1977, 
1989, 1995, and then 1997. Again, back to 1997, we will now have a 27-
year consecutive losing streak as we will go past September 30 without 
having appropriations passed. This year, Senate Democratic leadership 
hasn't brought a single appropriations bill to the floor, and we are 
just 12 days from the beginning of the new fiscal year.
  Continuing resolutions that fund the government at current levels are 
now the norm. In fact, between 1977 and last year, Congress passed 200 
continuing resolutions--200--and, thus, the threat of a government 
shutdown is always looming.
  All this forces Congress to fund the government through what we call 
Omnibus appropriations. And for those watching back home, that means, 
instead of giving each appropriator and appropriations bill a hearing 
and the scrutiny it deserves, most of the spending bills are all lumped 
together into one or two giant bills, often thousands of pages long 
each.
  No one has time to read the entire bill before we pass it. So it is 
usually chock full of wasteful spending on pet projects that we 
inserted, literally, in the dead of night. Since 1982, Congress has 
passed 36 Omnibus appropriation bills. That is just short of one per 
year. Since that time, Omnibus appropriations bills have served as a 
legislative vehicle for more than half of the Federal Government's 
appropriations.
  In short, our broken budget process has created an incredible amount 
of uncertainty. In fact, the only thing that is certain in the whole 
mess is that this broken process has exacerbated the Federal 
Government's out-of-control spending.
  There is no way to run a household this way or a small business--not 
to mention the government--and the American people know it.
  So why is all this important? As I mentioned, Congress doesn't have a 
revenue problem. It is not a revenue problem. Look at our deficits and 
our debt. This is not a revenue problem. It is a spending problem, no 
matter how you look at it.
  Our failed budget process is not only the cause for the fiscal 
disaster, it is also playing a very significant role. The last time the 
government had a budget surplus was 23 years ago, back in 2001. The 
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that the budget deficit 
for this year will be around $2 trillion. That is unprecedented. In 
fact, the deficit over the next decade will now total a staggering $22 
trillion. That is the deficit added on top of the current debt. Even 
more frightening is the fact that Medicare will be broke by 2031 and 
Social Security, by 2034. By 2035, CBO estimates that debt held by the 
public will top $50 trillion and be the equivalent of 122 percent of 
our GDP.
  These are staggering numbers. We can't ignore this crisis. To start 
the long process of fixing it, we need to start with serious reforms in 
the budget process.
  The people of Montana know I am not a creature of Washington, nor, 
frankly, do I care to be. I am not a career politician. I did not work 
my way up through the ranks of State legislatures. My experience is in 
the private sector.
  Anyone who has been in Montana knows that while Montana is the most 
beautiful State in our country, the strength of our great State lies 
with its people. They are hard-working folks. They believe in an honest 
day's work for an honest day's pay. They never hesitate to share a good 
dose of common sense--something that I find severely lacking here in 
Washington, DC.
  Montana common sense combined with my private sector background 
taught me a number of principles I think we can apply to our budget 
process.
  For starters, let's hold Members accountable, and performance needs 
to be scrutinized. When structural failure persists, it has to be 
addressed. For that reason, if Members of Congress can't pass all 12 
appropriations bills on time, suspend their pay. Don't shut down the 
government; shut down the pay of Members of Congress. In fact, shut 
down their pay, shut down their travel, force them to stay here in 
Washington, and believe me, this will get resolved rather quickly. 
Because we all know, if you don't do your job, you don't deserve to be 
paid, especially when the American people are the folks paying us. That 
would put an end to government shutdowns.
  Let's be honest. Shutting down the government only punishes the 
American people and increases costs. It is exactly the wrong thing we 
need to do. But put the pain on Congress, and that will start to change 
things around here in a hurry.
  Second, Congress should address all spending, including discretionary 
and nondiscretionary programs. Think about it. Discretionary spending 
is utterly dysfunctional, and there are virtually no forcing mechanisms 
to require Congress to actually deal with the autopilot spending that 
accounts for nearly 70 percent of Federal spending. Avoiding the tough 
challenge of the mandatory spending means our national debt will just 
continue to soar to new, incomprehensible heights, and that puts our 
kids and our grandchildren on the hook. This will require bipartisan 
cooperation to save these programs for future generations.
  Speaking of bipartisanship, the reforms we make must work whether we 
have unified government or divided government. Right now, it is about 
impossible to pass a bicameral budget during divided government. This 
just leads to the unwanted, behind-closed-doors mad dash as the 
expiration date of the latest continuing resolution approaches, which 
leads to my final and maybe my most important point.
  Any reforms to our broken budget process must be bipartisan. There 
are always going to be disagreements around how taxpayer dollars should 
be spent, but we should be able to agree on a workable, durable process 
to make those decisions. To that end, we need to build on the good work 
of my late friend and former colleague, the late Senator Mike Enzi from 
Wyoming.
  During more than two decades serving in the Senate, Mike worked 
tirelessly on this issue. Many of his proposals deserve a strong look 
if Congress is ever to find a solution. I believe two deserve 
particular attention. The first would reorient the budget resolution to 
a 2-year cycle. That would allow Congress more time to not only develop 
but also enforce the budget. I also believe Senator Enzi's proposal to 
create a new special reconciliation process that could only be used for 
reducing the deficit also warrants consideration.
  There are many others. I know a number of my colleagues have weighed 
in on this issue as well. I welcome their ideas.
  The question I pose today to Members on both sides of the aisle is, 
When are we going to get serious about addressing this calamity? How 
many more times are we going to kick the can down the road? How many 
more shutdowns? How high must our deficits and debt climb before we say 
enough is enough?
  Mr. President, I humbly submit today that we did reach that point, 
actually, long ago. It is past time to bring the common sense of 
Montanans to bear on the Nation's budget process. Now is the time for 
serious budget reform.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
permitted

[[Page S6196]]

to speak for up to 20 minutes and that Senator Paul be permitted to 
speak for up to 10 minutes prior to the scheduled rollcall vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 5074

  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I want to compliment my good friend from 
Montana, Senator Daines, who was on the floor just now talking about 
government accountability. That is what I am going to talk about--
government accountability. We need much more of it, and we need much 
more of it in the Veterans Administration.
  So today, what I am going to be doing is I am going to ask for 
unanimous consent on my bill, the PRO Vets Act, that we all need to 
move forward, both on funding the VA--I am going to talk about this 
shortfall--but also on having some reforms to the VA. They are very 
simple.
  I will be really disappointed if any of my colleagues come down here 
and block my unanimous consent request. That is just me asking all my 
Senate colleagues to pass this bill right now. But when you hear about 
it, you will say: Why wouldn't we pass that? Holy cow. The VA needs a 
little accountability--actually, a lot of accountability.
  But here is what is going on. A little context of my legislation--
which, by the way, right now already has 15 cosponsors. We just put 
this together 2 weeks ago, given the crisis at the VA, and it has 15 
cosponsors.
  Just 6 weeks ago, Congress was officially informed and many of us 
were surprised--by the way, I sit on the Veterans' Affairs Committee, 
so I am very focused on these issues. Our committee was informed that 
the VA was experiencing a $15 billion shortfall and that by the end of 
this week, tomorrow, they need an additional $3 billion or veterans 
across the country, including in my State--the great State of Alaska 
has more veterans per capita than any State in the country, so we love 
our veterans; it is a very important constituency of mine--they 
wouldn't get their benefits unless we act real quick.
  The House acted 2 nights ago, and we are going to get this money 
done. We will get it. We want to make sure our veterans have their 
benefits. But in exchange, we are asking: Hey, what is going on over at 
the VA? I mean, we see this all the time--mismanagement, last-minute 
requests for money, illegal bonuses up to $11 million just a couple of 
months ago paid out to people in the VA who don't deserve it.
  My bill is very simple. It is going to bring accountability to the 
VA--of course, that is a vital institution for our veterans and our 
country--with some more oversight and accountability. It is not 
complicated at all. It is basically two things. We are going to fund 
this short-term $3 billion amount of money the VA says it needs ASAP, 
even though they didn't inform us until 6 weeks ago.
  By the way, the total amount they need in terms of how they screwed 
up the budget is $15 billion. That is a lot of money.
  So it just says--the bill requires two things. It institutes a 3-year 
requirement for the Secretary of the VA to submit quarterly, in-person 
budget reports to Congress to encourage greater oversight and financial 
accountability--that is pretty simple--and the Secretary should come to 
us quarterly with these budget estimates and brief our committee, the 
VA Committee, in person--easy--and for any future financial shortfalls, 
which we are experiencing right now, it would result in the withholding 
of bonuses for senior VA and OMB personnel who worked on that budget. 
That is it. That is it, Mr. President.
  Most people would say, ``Hey, that is pretty good reform; it is not 
too much,'' but, remarkably, I think one of my Senate colleagues is 
going to come down here and object.
  So we are going to throw $3 billion at the VA, and we just have 
simple reforms: The Secretary comes quarterly to the committee and 
says: Hey, we are not going to blow through the budget again. Here are 
our quarterly estimates.
  By the way, if you are part of the team at a senior level that 
screwed up the budget, you don't get a bonus.
  What is wrong with that? Maybe my colleagues won't object. That is 
it. That is the bill, because we are going to give the VA, again, 
additional money that they didn't plan for.
  This is not the first time this has happened. As a matter of fact, I 
have been on the VA Committee going on 10 years. I really like the 
committee. As I mentioned, veterans in Alaska, veterans in America are 
so important. But the VA in DC often screws up the budget. It often 
comes up with scandals. Heck, like I said, just a couple of months ago, 
$11 million went out to senior VA officials for bonuses that they 
didn't deserve.
  In a hearing yesterday, I asked: Has anyone been held responsible for 
that?
  No.
  Anyone held responsible for this budget oversight?
  No.
  So, as I mentioned, there have been a lot of these kinds of scandals. 
Some of you might remember the VA secret waiting list at the Phoenix 
Veterans Affairs Health Care System.
  CNN described the secret waiting list as the following:

       The secret list was part of an elaborate scheme designed by 
     Veterans Affairs managers in Phoenix who were trying to hide 
     that 1,400 to 1,600 sick veterans were forced to wait months 
     to see a doctor.

  Forty of them died waiting. Pretty scandalous.
  The hospital in Colorado had a budget overrun in 2016, and Congress 
had to do what we are doing right now--jump in immediately, at the last 
minute. That was budgeted--it was three times the amount it was 
budgeted that they ran over to build that hospital. But we again 
acted--hundreds of millions of dollars at the last minute because of VA 
mismanagement.
  Here is the thing: The Congress--even the Veterans' Affairs 
Committee--is becoming numb to these kinds of shortfalls and these 
kinds of dysfunctional approaches to management for our veterans.
  Let me be clear. I work with the VA in Alaska all the time. The 
people on the ground helping our veterans--the vast, vast majority do a 
great job. But the problem seems to be here in DC, with this giant 
bureaucracy.
  Last week, the inspector general--President Biden's inspector general 
for the VA, in front of the House, testified along the following lines 
about a report they just had in terms of an investigation of the VA. 
They said: Our staff--the inspector general's staff--``routinely finds 
breakdowns in processes, infrastructure, governance, leadership, and 
other failings that erode the foundational elements of accountability'' 
at the VA.
  Last week, the IG of the VA said that.

       These breakdowns impede [the] VA's efforts to make certain 
     that patients receive timely, high-quality healthcare and 
     that veterans and other eligible beneficiaries are afforded 
     the compensation and services they are owed.

  So here is the Biden administration IG, inspector general, saying: We 
have big problems at the VA.
  Now we are seeing it with another cost overrun.
  Like I said, $15 billion budget shortfall for the VA right now. We 
only heard about it 6 weeks ago; and I, with several members of the VA 
Committee, 6 weeks ago as soon as we heard about this, sent a letter to 
the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee at the end of July 
saying: Hey, we need an immediate hearing, right now. Let's do it right 
now and have the Secretary testify in person to tell us what the heck 
is going on. What are you doing over there? OK?
  The chairman didn't do that. He waited till yesterday to hold the 
hearing. The Secretary didn't show up to come testify, and we heard all 
kinds of things from the witnesses from the VA.
  But what we didn't hear is anything about accountability. We did hear 
this, by the way, and if--I think most Americans, most Alaskans, would 
find this stunning. The VA has a new rule. We went through a pandemic 4 
years ago. People were doing remote work. Guess what? Most of the 
Federal Government is still doing remote work. Most Federal employees 
still, like, work in their pajamas next to a computer at home.
  The VA's new rule is that you are required to come into the office 
twice in a pay period. Excuse me, what? Some of those VA workers in DC 
work at home in their pajamas. Can you believe that, America? We have 
these big, beautiful Federal buildings here and

[[Page S6197]]

nobody comes into them. I mean, come on.
  So maybe the Secretary was teleworking yesterday, part of his rule 
that you only have to come in twice a month to work. So we need 
accountability. We need accountability.
  Now, as usual, the VA and other bureaucrats are saying, hey, this is 
actually a good thing that we have a $15 billion shortfall. This is a 
good thing because more veterans are getting benefits.
  Well, listen, I voted for the bill that is helping our veterans with 
regard to burn pits. I voted for all that legislation, and it is good 
that we are getting veterans to have more benefits that they have 
earned, but that doesn't excuse the VA mismanagement of its budget or 
the idea that Congress, if it is going to appropriate more money at the 
last minute, which is what we are going to do--and I am supporting 
that--that we apply accountability.
  Here is what the legislative director for the VFW supplied in written 
testimony to the House last week:

       ``Since news of the funding shortfall became public, the 
     communications on the matter from the VA has been 
     inappropriately positive''--

  So this is the VFW saying: Hey, VA, don't spin this.
  That it is positive because the VA is ``delivering more benefits than 
ever,'' as if the VA's miscalculation that now threatens the delivery 
of all compensation, pension, and education benefits is somehow a 
positive thing.
  So the VFW is looking straight at the VA saying: Don't spin this. The 
$15 billion shortfall you just told us about, we have got to rush to 
fund it or veterans across America are going to lose their benefits? 
That is not positive. No matter how they spin it, it is not positive. 
It is called mismanagement.
  So, again, all I am asking for as part of the money that we are going 
to appropriate on an emergency basis for the VA is to simply pass my 
vets act, my Pro Vets Act.
  And, again, here is all it does: The Secretary of the VA has to come 
in quarterly to the committee, in person, out of your pajamas, and tell 
us what the budget is so we don't have this again.
  And if you are part of the VA or OMB team that put forward a budget 
that the VA went over, you don't get a bonus. That is eminently 
reasonable. Reasonable, Mr. President. And I hope my colleagues here 
will support it.
  So I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be 
discharged from further consideration of S. 5074, and the Senate 
proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the bill be 
considered read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider 
be consider made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. I share my 
colleague's focus on making sure we never have shortfalls that deny our 
veterans the care and benefits they were promised. And we are going to 
vote in just a bit on a VA supplemental package to make sure the VA has 
the resources it needs. And it even includes reporting requirements 
similar to what is proposed here.
  As we implement laws like the PACT Act, which makes worthwhile 
expansions of our veterans' care, there is going to be some growing 
pains. That is frustrating, but it is not unheard of.
  The important thing--and I think we all agree here--is meeting those 
needs and keeping our word to our veterans and their families, and I 
would say, as a daughter of a veteran, I take that responsibility very 
seriously.
  Now, while I am not convinced all of the elements of this proposal 
are the most effective way to work with VA on these issues right now, I 
do sincerely appreciate where my colleague is coming from and I am 
willing to work with him on this.
  So I look forward to continuing this conversation and working in a 
bipartisan way to make sure the VA is working for our veterans. But 
right now, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. While I have worked closely with my colleague from 
Washington on the Veterans' Affairs Committee in the Senate, I know she 
is committed to veterans, and I want to work with her on these matters. 
I will say, though, I would disagree with her on one major issue. She 
mentioned growing pains and the PACT Act has expanded veterans' 
benefits. And that is good; I voted for that bill. But this isn't about 
growing pains. This is about what the IG just testified to the House on 
last week, and it is systemic problems of accountability at the VA.
  And to be honest, if you are on the committee, you know that more 
than anybody because we see it all the time. So I am disappointed that 
simple reforms, accountability, the Secretary coming in quarterly, in 
person, not teleworking like 99 percent of the VA currently does--and 
shouldn't do, by the way--telling Congress where they are in the budget 
so you are not going to have another overrun.
  And then if you made the mistake--and there is a big budget overrun, 
you don't get a bonus. Very simple. I am really disappointed that we 
can't undertake basic, simple accountability reforms when we are, once 
again, at the last minute, scrambling to make sure due to the VA's 
mismanagement, Congress is coming in with additional money making sure 
our veterans get their benefits, that is not the way to run a really 
important Federal bureaucracy and organization like we have at the VA. 
And I am disappointed that my bill is not being passed right now, in 
addition to getting the additional funding to the VA for our veterans.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.


                            Veterans Affairs

  Mr. PAUL. As we have been discussing, the Veterans' Affairs is out of 
money. Now, this is not something that was unpredictable. I predicted 
this a year or two ago when we expanded benefits.
  I think it is the priority and it is the responsibility of America to 
take care of its veterans, but we still have to think about what we are 
doing. We can't say: Well, every veteran should have a Corvette and 
$200,000 a year because we don't have the money for that.
  So we try to link benefits to something we can afford and something 
within reason related to their service.
  When the PACT Act was passed, though, there were those of us saying: 
Hmm, if you allow something like high blood pressure to be associated 
with military service, you may have a problem. I am 61 years old. Sixty 
percent of people over 60 have hypertension. You think you might get 
too many people applying for things if you allow really common 
conditions like hypertension to be connected to these benefits.
  What we were talking about were burn pits. And burn pits you can 
convince me--and they have--that inhaling things from burn pits might 
damage your lungs, and you might have respiratory diseases or lung 
cancers. But saying hypertension is related to this allows Pandora's 
box, and now we have millions of people flooding through the doors to 
get benefits, and they are out of money.
  This is typical of Washington. This year, we will spend $6 trillion, 
and we will bring in 4. No American family can do that, no State does 
that, no city does that, no county does that.
  Washington's fiscal recklessness is putting the American dream out of 
reach for millions of Americans.
  Historically high rates of inflation from this debt have made every 
American poorer. As families across the country struggle to put food on 
the table, Washington seems content to spend money without regard to 
the consequences.
  But sometimes the consequences are too shameful to ignore. 
Congressional spending and mismanagement at the Department of Veterans' 
Affairs are the latest examples, with both resulting in a nearly $3 
billion shortfall, threatening the benefits of millions of veterans.
  Our veterans shouldn't have to pay the cost for the Federal 
Government's incompetence. This is why I ask the Senate to adopt my 
amendment today.
  My amendment would just simply offset the new money they need for the 
Veterans' Affairs that they didn't calculate well and didn't 
appropriate by taking it from somewhere else in the budget. To me, it 
seems eminently reasonable. Rather than borrow more money and put 
ourselves further into

[[Page S6198]]

debt--we have a $35 trillion debt--why don't we find something in the 
budget maybe that is not an emergency, take the money from there, and 
pay for the veterans benefits? My amendment would ensure the veterans 
receive their benefits without adding to the national debt.
  My amendment is simple. It pays for the veterans benefits by 
rescinding $2.9 billion in Department of Energy loan guarantees. The 
American taxpayer should not be asked to subsidize companies with vast 
resources, often multimillion-dollar owners, that are for this green 
energy that we are going to subsidize.
  Well, which is more important, subsidizing millionaire owners of 
green energy or paying for veterans' benefits? Why not take one to pay 
for the other?
  Unsurprisingly, these loans, these green loans that are out there, 
these gambles that have been taken by the Department of Energy, have 
come at an exorbitant cost. A 2015 GAO study revealed the extent of the 
Department of Energy's loan program failures. The report lists that 
five companies defaulted on similar Department of Energy loans, 
including Solyndra, Fisker, Abound Solar, Beacon Power, and Vehicle 
Production Group, costing the taxpayers $807 million.
  So these loans are not without risks. We cut these loans, we cut our 
risk, and we shift the money over to veterans. I think it is a pretty 
easy thing. It could be done in a few minutes.
  But if you will watch, if you will watch the vote, my guess is that 
nobody from the other side of the aisle will vote to transfer the money 
over to the veterans. They will just say: Borrow it, put it on my tab. 
Well, that is why you go to the grocery store and a steak costs $20 at 
the grocery store; this is why gasoline costs are up; this is why all 
your prices are up; this is why home prices are doubling, because they 
are diminishing the value of the dollar with all the borrowing.
  So today they will add another $3 billion. They don't care. They 
think money grows on trees. Here it is, $3 billion, take it. We care 
about the veterans, but we don't give a damn about the debt. You can 
care about both. I am for shifting money. Let's don't increase the debt 
today. Let's take $3 billion that would go to millionaires who own 
these companies and shift it over to the veterans. Pretty simple. How 
could anybody vote against it?
  But watch the vote. Everyone on the other side of the aisle is going 
to vote to borrow the money rather than pay for it by shifting the 
money. The VA shortfall was very foreseeable just as the failure of the 
DOE loans. The VA has been overwhelmed, receiving more than 2.4 million 
claims in 2023--the most ever, 39 percent higher.
  I warned them, when you pass this, when you allow hypertension to be 
associated with disability, you are opening Pandora's box, because 
everybody has got hypertension.
  You may recall, I stood here on the Senate floor and warned that the 
PACT Act would put veterans benefits at risk. Why? Because there truly 
are veterans that were damaged by burn pits. They inhaled the smoke, 
and they have chronic asthma, emphysema or cancer.
  But those deserving people are having the money taken by people who 
have high blood pressure. Everybody's got high blood pressure. So if 
you put them in there, what you are doing is stealing the benefits from 
the truly--the people who have lung damage from breathing in these 
fumes.
  It is always about, Oh, we care about everybody. Everybody should get 
money. It is free. No problem. We will just borrow it. Instead of 
saying: Why don't we try to conserve the resources for those who 
actually were injured by the burn pits? Instead, it is like: Oh, you 
got high blood pressure? Sign up. Come on down. We will get you some 
money.
  The PACT Act created a presumption of service connection for 
hypertension. The CDC estimates 116 million Americans have 
hypertension: 50 percent of men, 44 percent of women. Over 60 percent 
of all people have hypertension. If you include hypertension as a 
trigger for benefits, it broadens the category of recipients so much 
that it has contributed to the depletion of the funds.
  So instead of asking why we are short $3 billion--no one is asking 
why we are short. They are just, Put it on my tab. Put it on the 
Nation's tab. Borrow more money.
  Why don't we find out what the problem is? Why are we short on money? 
Because they decided to include hypertension as a trigger for 
disability.
  Because of Congress's inability to make difficult decisions, precious 
resources that ought to go to veterans exposed to toxic substances are 
at risk of going up in smoke. They are at risk of being diverted to 
people who weren't injured by the burn pits.
  Congress must take its oversight responsibility seriously, hold the 
VA accountable for fiscal mismanagement and corruption. In fiscal year 
2023, the VA issued 3 billion in improper payments. So we have Veterans 
Affairs $3 billion short of money, but we found out they gave $3 
billion to the wrong people. They made a mistake of issuing checks to 
the wrong people for $3 billion. Why wouldn't we ask the VA: Hey, we 
know you are short of money, but guess what. You have got to quit 
sending the money to the wrong people.
  Why wouldn't the people who are sending the money to the wrong people 
be punished, reassigned? Maybe they shouldn't work for the VA if they 
aren't competent enough to get the money to the people who are the 
right people.
  Over the past 3 years, it is estimated the VA has had $10 billion in 
improper payments. In May 2024, the VA's inspector general reported 
that the Department improperly awarded over $10 million in incentives 
to its own senior executives. So it has been determined by the 
inspector general that the VA paid their own executives $10 million in 
bonuses that shouldn't have been given to the executives, while the 
executives were overseeing $3 billion that went to the wrong people.
  There are resources that could have been devoted--these resources 
that were wasted and squandered could have been devoted to veterans, to 
their benefits. Instead, the VA shamefully squandered them.
  It is high time that the Members of this body face the 
incontrovertible fact that Congress's reckless spending has awful 
consequences. We have seen it in the form of inflation. This is what is 
happening to Americans. It is what is making all of us poor. And now we 
see that overspending threatens the benefits that were promised to 
veterans.
  We must use these failures as a warning. We must get serious about 
our spending and oversight responsibilities. I encourage my colleagues 
to vote for my amendment as a first step to ensuring our veterans 
receive the care they deserve.


                           Amendment No. 3289

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 3289 and ask that 
it be reported by number.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Paul] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3289.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To rescind funds from the Department of Energy loan programs 
                                office)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. OFFSET.

       Of the unobligated balances of the amount made available 
     under section 50141(b) of Public Law 117-169 (136 Stat. 2043) 
     (commonly referred to as the ``Inflation Reduction Act''), 
     $2,882,482,000 are rescinded.

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 
minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to each vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, you know, when it comes to supporting our 
veterans, the bottom line is, we have to live up to our word and get 
the benefits and care they were promised. I am pleased to say we have a 
long bipartisan history of coming together and putting our veterans 
first. That is what the bill before us is about.
  But this amendment would jeopardize all of that by making partisan 
cuts to unrelated programs. Our veterans should not be used as partisan 
leverage, simple as that.
  Now, I fully outright oppose this amendment on the merits. But even 
for colleagues who may feel differently, I would urge you to join me in 
voting against this amendment because we should all agree that veterans 
are not fair game for partisan poison pills. Our

[[Page S6199]]

promise to our veterans and their families is a sacred responsibility 
we have to live up to, not political leverage.
  I urge all of my colleagues who feel the same to join me in voting 
no.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, this amendment is simply about paying for 
veterans' benefits. It doesn't stop veterans' benefits. It actually 
pays for them by moving money from wasteful programs over to Veterans 
Affairs to pay for their benefits.
  It does this so we don't add to the debt. I mean, our veterans fought 
for our country, our national security. Our biggest threat to our 
national security now is our debt. I think our veterans would want us 
to do this in a responsible manner.
  This amendment makes the veterans' benefits paid for by taking money 
elsewhere in the budget. It is a responsible way to go.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 3289

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on adoption of amendment No. 
3289.
  Mr. PAUL. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Carper) 
and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kansas (Mr. Marshall), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), 
the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis), and the Senator from Ohio 
(Mr. Vance).
  The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 247 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Braun
     Britt
     Brown
     Budd
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     McConnell
     Moran
     Mullin
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Romney
     Rubio
     Schmitt
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tuberville
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--47

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Butler
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Casey
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Fetterman
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Helmy
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lujan
     Manchin
     Markey
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Welch
     Whitehouse

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Carper
     Marshall
     Rounds
     Tillis
     Vance
     Wyden
  (Mr. KING assumed the Chair.)
  (The PRESIDENT pro tempore assumed the Chair.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Booker). On this vote, the yeas are 47, 
the nays are 47.
  Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this 
amendment, the amendment is not agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3289) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate, equally 
divided.
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today, thanks to the PACT Act, more 
veterans are getting access to more benefits than ever before. But we 
need to provide additional funding to make sure we keep our promise to 
all of our veterans, which is why we now have a bill to provide $2.9 
billion in additional funding for the Veterans Benefits Administration 
to pay compensation and pension and readjustment benefits.
  This is funding that goes directly to our veterans and that they have 
been promised. But without this bill, in less than 2 weeks' time, the 
VA will be unable to issue payments to as many as 7 million veterans 
and their survivors and 800,000 veterans seeking readjustment benefits.
  Our veterans were there for us. We have to be there for them. 
Congress has a responsibility to ensure these veterans and their family 
members and survivors receive the benefits they have earned on time. It 
is as simple as that.
  I hope every single one of my colleagues will join me in standing 
with our veterans and vote to get this done.
  Mr. President, I yield back all time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Hearing none, under the previous order, the bill is considered read a 
third time.
  The bill was ordered to a third reading and was read the third time.


                           Vote on H.R. 9468

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass?
  The bill (H.R. 9468) was passed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.

                          ____________________