[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 20]
[Senate]
[Pages 27586-27589]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




     MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, VETERANS AFFAIRS AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 3082, which the clerk will 
report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 3082) making appropriations for military 
     construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related 
     agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and 
     for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Johnson/Hutchison amendment No. 2730, in the nature of a 
     substitute.
       Udall (NM) amendment No. 2737 (to amendment No. 2730), to 
     make available from Medical Services $150 million for 
     homeless veterans comprehensive service programs.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business 
for 5 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am here to discuss a very important 
matter that I had intended to bring up in the Judiciary Committee last 
week but the agenda did not allow it. It is about the oversight of the 
Department of Justice and the responses provided by Attorney General 
Holder to questions from the Judiciary Committee. Two weeks ago, 
Chairman Leahy--and I thank him for participating--and I sent a letter 
to the Attorney General asking him to stand by his statements made 
during his confirmation and answer a number of outstanding requests for 
information. That list includes questions submitted by members of the 
Judiciary Committee to an FBI oversight hearing over 1\1/2\ years ago. 
We all agreed no committee should have to wait that long to get answers 
to oversight questions.
  Last Friday, the Judiciary Committee received answers from the 
Attorney General following his June 17, 2009, testimony. I hoped he 
would uphold his commitment he made during his confirmation hearing to 
``fully and in a timely fashion'' answer Judiciary Committee inquiries.
  The questions I submitted to Attorney General Holder addressed a 
number of important issues, including a series of 24 questions related 
to the Department's involvement with the termination of Inspector 
General Walpin at the Corporation for National and Community Service. 
The answers I received were totally inadequate. Instead of answering 
the 24 questions, the Department responded with a five-paragraph 
recitation of publicly available facts and information. The Department 
also said it would respond under separate cover to the document 
requests. I appreciate the Department's comments

[[Page 27587]]

that it intends to respond to my requests, but I am very concerned this 
is more of the same problem Chairman Leahy and I were trying to get at 
with our letter 2 weeks ago.
  My questions were more than just requests for documents and asking 
for a recitation of public facts. They were serious inquiries about the 
role the acting U.S. attorney played in the termination of that 
inspector general. I requested specific answers to questions that have 
arisen in my investigation. For example, I asked about communications 
between the U.S. attorney and the Office of Professional Responsibility 
and whether the referral by the U.S. attorney complied with the ethical 
requirements outlined in the U.S. Attorneys' manual for misconduct by 
non-Department of Justice attorneys and judges. While this is only one 
example of the questions I asked, none of the questions were 
specifically answered.
  While the Department did say it was going to provide the documents I 
requested under separate cover, the response seems to indicate that all 
my questions were answered. They were not answered. I intend to get 
these answers.
  This is a prime example of what is wrong with the inadequate 
responses to all our questions. They avoid the question and filibuster 
with public facts.
  I have previously stated that unless the Department of Justice starts 
answering our questions completely and in a timely manner, I will start 
holding up nominees. I have done nothing but patiently work in good 
faith with the chairman and the Department to get answers. Yet despite 
these threats, it is business as usual.
  This culture of not answering questions timely, in an evasive manner, 
and punting document requests to future separate cover letters is 
unacceptable. We have a constitutional duty to oversee the bureaucracy, 
and the executive branch is thumbing its nose at the Congress. I know 
Chairman Leahy agrees oversight is an important part of what the 
Judiciary Committee does. I hope he will continue to work with all 
members to get answers from the Attorney General. He has surely helped 
me.
  I am tired of wasting time having to raise these concerns publicly, 
but shaming the Department seems to be the only way they will respond, 
and even that doesn't work all the time. This administration rode into 
town on a campaign of accountability and transparency. Attorney General 
Holder told all of us he respected congressional oversight. Yet in his 
first set of oversight questions submitted by the committee, he gave us 
the same nonresponse we have seen from the Department. That is not the 
accountability or transparency the American taxpayers deserve.
  This is yet another public warning to the Department. It is time to 
start responding fully to our requests in a timely manner or face the 
consequences. I hope the Attorney General and his staff will hear this 
and provide complete answers to our questions prior to his scheduled 
appearance in the Judiciary Committee later this month.
  I see my colleague, Senator Kyl. I think he has interest in this 
oversight matter as well.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 
minutes to continue the discussion Senator Grassley has commenced.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise to join in the comments Senator 
Grassley has offered. I voted for Attorney General Holder, and we had 
several conversations about being forthcoming in responding to our 
requests for information. I thought at the time he would be able to 
work with us and provide those kinds of answers and support. I have 
been disappointed, as has Senator Grassley.
  A couple of examples: June 17, we had a hearing at which Attorney 
General Holder was present. It was an oversight hearing. He was asked a 
number of questions. He took many of those questions for the record 
which, of course, is perfectly fine. But his answers were not submitted 
to us for another 4\1/2\ months. It was October 29 when we received the 
answers.
  I wish to cite two examples of questions and answers which 
demonstrate the unresponsiveness of the Attorney General.
  I asked him to identify the legal basis the Department of Justice 
could invoke to prevent a Gitmo detainee from being released into the 
United States if found not guilty in a Federal court--an important 
question because the administration apparently intends to bring Gitmo 
detainees to the United States for trial. Here is the response:

       Where we have legal detention authority, as the President 
     has stated, we will not release anyone into the United States 
     if doing so would endanger the national security of the 
     American people. There are a number of tools at the 
     government's disposal to ensure that no such detainee is 
     released into the United States, all of which are currently 
     being reviewed by the Special Interagency Task Force on 
     Detention Policy created pursuant to Executive Order 13493.

  I asked the Attorney General to identify the operative legal 
authority that could be used to detain acquitted detainees. He 
responded by saying the administration probably would not release 
someone ``where we have legal detention authority.'' It is like a cat 
chasing its tail. What is legal authority? That was the question. Do 
you have legal authority? Releasing a detainee into the United States 
obviously could have grave consequences. I think we deserve more than 
just the Attorney General's vague and rather meaningless reference to 
tools at our disposal.
  Similarly, I asked the Attorney General to explain whether the crimes 
committed by those presently held in U.S. prisons for conviction on 
terrorism charges are comparable to the terrorist acts of high-value 
detainees at Gitmo. The reason I asked was, they said we have several 
convicted terrorists in our prisons here in the United States. My 
question was, Well, but are those really serious crimes as opposed to 
the 9/11-related crimes committed by those we are holding at Gitmo?
  His response was:

       A number of individuals with a history of, or nexus to, 
     international or domestic terrorism are currently being held 
     in federal prisons, each of whom was tried and convicted in 
     an Article III court.

  We knew that.

       The Attorney General considers all crimes of terrorism to 
     be serious.

  Well, so do I. I am glad the Attorney General considers all crimes of 
terrorism to be serious. But that does not answer my question: How do 
these crimes compare to the crimes of those high-value detainees at 
Gitmo?
  So these are examples of the kind of nonresponses we get from the 
Attorney General when we ask questions.
  Let me close with one final point, and then if Senator Grassley would 
have anything else to say, I will certainly yield to him.
  We know for several weeks we have had on the Judiciary Committee 
agenda a bill called the media shield bill. It is a bill that has a lot 
of problems with it. Many members of the past administration had 
written in opposition to the bill, pointing out the problem of 
convicting people who were engaged in espionage or acts of terror 
against the United States, in the event this legislation were to be 
passed.
  So I was curious about this Attorney General's views on that. He 
finally got us a views letter last week, and he said ``the result of a 
series of productive and cooperative discussions with the sponsors and 
supporters of the legislation'' is how they put this latest draft 
together. Obviously, absent is any discussion with those of us who have 
expressed our longstanding concerns.
  This is one of those matters I had raised with the Attorney General 
at his confirmation hearing, and his reply was:

       The concerns you raised are legitimate ones.

  So I am glad my concerns were legitimate.
  He also said at his hearing that he would--I am quoting now--``work 
with both Republicans and Democrats on this Committee on a federal 
media shield law.''
  Further, during my questioning of Attorney General Holder on the 
media

[[Page 27588]]

shield bill, he again stated his willingness to ``work to address the 
concerns raised in'' views letters issued in the 110th Congress.
  In response to my questions, he testified:

       I want to talk to you and to people who worked on this bill 
     and who might have a contrary view of it.

  I never heard from him again. I met with him on May 4 to reaffirm my 
strong interest in the legislation. I never heard from him after that 
meeting.
  This is despite the fact that in response to a question I asked, 
Attorney General Holder testified:

       I want to talk to you and to people who worked on this bill 
     and who might have a contrary view of it. As I said before, I 
     guess in my opening statement, you know, knowledge doesn't 
     reside only in the executive branch. The experience that 
     you've had with this, the obvious knowledge that you have of 
     these issues are the kinds of things that I need to be 
     educated about. It may change my mind, frankly.

  Well, maybe it would have. But by not talking to me, he was able not 
to change his mind.
  I heard that a new version of the bill had been written, and I 
reviewed it. So, finally, on November 2 I called the Attorney General 
myself to express my concerns about it. I asked if I could get an 
explanation of why this version satisfied all of the objections that 
had been previously raised, and I interpreted his response to be that 
he would testify before the committee if he were called upon to do so.
  Well, 2 days later, as I said, this views letter was sent to us. To 
put it charitably, it is extraordinarily light on analysis.
  I, as I said in the beginning, voted for Attorney General Holder. I 
thought at the time he would keep the commitments he made to us under 
oath at his confirmation hearing. He assured us he wanted to work with 
us and he would be forthcoming and cooperative.
  Mr. President, I think it is time for the Attorney General to keep 
the commitments he made in his confirmation hearing.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, two things. I thank the Senator from 
South Dakota for giving us this opportunity to make this point. I hope 
the Attorney General will respond to our questions. We are just doing 
our constitutional job of oversight, checks and balances of our system 
of government.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, the MILCON-VA appropriations bill is very 
important to America's military forces and veterans.
  On Wednesday, the Nation observes Veterans Day. There is no reason 
this bill should not be completed before Veterans Day. But if we are to 
achieve that goal, we cannot wait until Tuesday to start the debate and 
amendment process.
  We have a choice. We can go home for Veterans Day with a speech in 
our pockets or we can go home for Veterans Day with a solid 
accomplishment for our veterans: passage of the fiscal year 2010 
MILCON-VA appropriations bill, to our credit. I vote for the latter, 
and I urge my colleagues to join with me in working to make progress on 
this bill today so we will be able to move to final passage tomorrow.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be 
set aside.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                Amendment No. 2733 to Amendment No. 2730

  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2733 and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Johnson] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2733 to amendment No. 2730.

  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To increase by $50,000,000 the amount available for the 
Department of Veterans Affairs for minor construction projects for the 
purpose of converting unused Department of Veterans Affairs structures 
  into housing with supportive services for homeless veterans, and to 
                           provide an offset)

       On page 52, after line 21, add the following:
       Sec. 229. (a)(1) The amount appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this title under the heading ``construction, 
     minor projects'' is hereby increased by $50,000,000.
       (2) Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made available 
     by this title under the heading ``construction, minor 
     projects'', as increased by paragraph (1), $50,000,000 shall 
     be available for renovation of Department of Veterans Affairs 
     buildings for the purpose of converting unused structures 
     into housing with supportive services for homeless veterans.
       (b) The amount appropriated or otherwise made available by 
     title I under the heading ``Homeowners Assistance Fund'' is 
     hereby reduced by $50,000,000.

  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, this August I had the opportunity to 
accompany Secretary Shinseki in South Dakota to meet with the many 
South Dakotans who have served our Nation. During this trip, the 
Secretary outlined for me his ambitious plan to end homelessness among 
veterans and impressed upon me how this is one of his top priorities 
for the VA.
  The fiscal year 2010 MILCON-VA bill before us provides a significant 
amount of resources to help him accomplish that goal, including over 
$500 million for direct homeless programs. However, after returning 
from the August recess, I began to look into other efforts the VA could 
undertake to further address this issue. As many of you know, the VA 
has 153 hospitals, many on expansive campuses which include numerous 
buildings, some used and others sitting empty.
  The amendment I have just offered would add $50 million to the VA's 
minor construction account specifically for the VA to renovate unused, 
empty buildings sitting on VA campuses for the purpose of providing 
housing with supportive services for homeless veterans. In today's 
economic climate, many of the community organizations and nonprofits 
that run homeless shelters for vets cannot come up with the capital 
needed to renovate unused VA buildings. This amendment would allow the 
VA to make those renovations and then pursue public-private ventures 
that address the problem of homelessness among vets.
  The amendment is fully offset and does not exceed the subcommittee's 
allocation for budget authority or outlays. I would urge all of my 
colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Byrd and 
Feinstein be added as cosponsors.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence 
of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FRANKEN. 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.


                Amendment No. 2745 to Amendment No. 2730

  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment and to call up my amendment No. 2745.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Franken], for himself and 
     Mr. Johnson, proposes an amendment numbered 2745.

  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

[[Page 27589]]



(Purpose: To ensure that $5,000,000 is available for a study to assess 
    the feasibility and advisability of using service dogs for the 
    treatment or rehabilitation of veterans with physical or mental 
                       injuries or disabilities)

       On page 52, after line 21, add the following:
       Sec. 229.  Of the amounts appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this title for the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs, $5,000,000 shall be available for the study required 
     by section 1077 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 2010.

  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, the amendment I offer today would fund a 
vital new initiative within the Department of Veteran Affairs that was 
authorized by the recent National Defense Authorization Act. This 
initiative is a VA program and study for the provision of service dogs 
to disabled veterans, which began as an amendment I offered to the 
Defense authorization bill and is now a provision in the enacted law.
  This 3-year program will study the benefit of using service dogs to 
help treat veterans with physical and mental injuries and disabilities. 
It is meant to provide the VA with one more tool to raise the quality 
of life for those who have given so much to our Nation.
  Under this program, the VA will partner with nonprofit organizations 
that provide service dogs free of charge to veterans. The government 
will offset some of the costs of providing the dogs, which are 
currently funded largely through private donations. This will allow 
roughly 200 veterans to be paired with dogs and to participate in the 
study. In this way, the program will amount to a public-private 
partnership where donors to those nonprofits will know their money will 
go further, thanks to public matching funds.
  The veterans who participate in the study will be veterans with 
physical disabilities and with mental disabilities such as PTSD. It was 
one such veteran, CPT Luis Montalvan, who initially sparked my interest 
in this effort. I met Luis, who had been injured while serving in Anbar 
in Iraq, along with his service dog Tuesday, at an inaugural event. 
Luis explained to me that he could not have been there if it weren't 
for Tuesday who eases his PTSD in numerous and very impressive ways.
  After meeting Luis, I undertook research and learned about all of the 
benefits that service dogs can provide individuals with disabilities. I 
saw the wonderful work of the nonprofits which give their time and the 
donors who give their money to undertake the intensive training and the 
provision of these dogs. I learned there were more veterans out there 
who feel they could benefit from such a service dog if they had access 
to one.
  I introduced my legislation shortly after coming to office. The VA 
program it establishes will study--scientifically--the benefits to 
veterans of the service dogs, so we are proceeding based on evidence. 
The VA will also provide funds to veterans who participate in the study 
to cover some of the costs of maintaining their service dogs.
  Today I am offering this amendment to the Military Construction and 
Department of Veterans Affairs appropriations legislation so the fully 
authorized VA initiative may now be fully funded. The amendment is 
straightforward and reasonable. My amendment today would simply make $5 
million available for this study that passed by unanimous consent. In 
this way, we can both provide more service dogs to the veterans who 
want them, and we can study the benefits they can provide to those 
veterans and the most effective ways to provide those benefits.
  Our Nation owes a profound debt to those who have served in the 
military. For those veterans with disabilities, we need to make sure 
the VA has as many effective tools for raising their quality of life as 
possible. My amendment would make sure that one of those tools is 
funded.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. JOHNSON. 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.

                          ____________________