[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 9512-9522]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




NOMINATION OF CAROLYN HESSLER-RADELET TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE PEACE CORPS

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kaine). Under the previous order, the 
Senate will proceed to the consideration of the following nomination, 
which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read the nomination of Carolyn Hessler-Radelet, 
of Virginia, to be Director of the Peace Corps.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I will vote to confirm the President's 
nominee for Director of the Peace Corps. However, I want explain why I 
objected to any unanimous consent request relating to this nomination 
in March and why I have withdrawn my objection. I objected because I 
was informed by the Peace Corps inspector general that she was having 
difficulty accessing records from the agency. The nominee is the acting 
director of the agency. The records relate to sexual assaults reported 
by Peace Corps volunteers.
  The inspector general is entitled to access these records under the 
Inspector General Act and the Kate Puzey Act. Both acts reinforce the 
principle that agency operations should be monitored by an independent 
and objective inspector general. The Kate Puzey Act requires the agency 
to better respond to volunteers who report sexual assault and implement 
certain protections for victims of sexual assault. To ensure that these 
protections are actually implemented, it also requires the inspector 
general to conduct ``a case review of a statistically significant 
number of cases'' of sexual assaults reported by volunteers.
  However, the agency has gone out of its way to interpret the Kate 
Puzey Act as conflicting with the Inspector General Act. In fact, the 
agency repeatedly stated that certain provisions of the Kate Puzey Act 
override the Inspector General Act. That was never the intent of 
Congress. But the Peace Corps withheld most of the information that the 
inspector general requested from the agency.
  Fortunately, the Peace Corps and the inspector general recently 
agreed on a memorandum of understanding, MOU. This MOU was agreed to 
only after I placed a hold on the Acting Director's nomination, and 
only after I sent three letters to the agency about the dispute, along 
with several other Members. Under the MOU, the Peace Corps has agreed 
to provide the inspector general with more information than before. For 
the time being, the inspector general believes that the MOU will allow 
her to carry out her oversight duties.
  However, the inspector general has made it clear to me that the MOU 
has many shortcomings. Most importantly, the Peace Corps still refuses 
to acknowledge the inspector general's legal right to access the 
records in question. In addition, the MOU can be terminated by either 
party at any time. So the inspector general believes that she would be 
back at square one if the parties ever disagree in the future on the 
amount of information she needs to independently evaluate how the 
agency handled a specific case of sexual assault.
  Still, the MOU represents progress. So I am voting in favor of this 
nomination. The law says that the inspector general is entitled to full 
and timely access to the records in question. So I will monitor this 
situation closely. And I will count on the nominee to guide the agency 
into full compliance with the law.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and 
consent to the nomination of Carolyn Hessler-Radelet, of Virginia, to 
be Director of the Peace Corps?
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motions to 
reconsider are considered made and laid upon the table, and the 
President will be immediately notified of the Senate's actions.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.


                            The Environment

  Mr. ENZI. I rise to talk about the new regulations President Obama 
proposed this week that are obviously aimed at the coal industry, but 
let's be frank, these regulations go far beyond the President's 
campaign to put coal out of business. These regulations target energy 
to make it less affordable and less abundant. Once again we are seeing 
how consumers, students, and low-income families are getting priced out 
of the economy because of government policy. The more the government 
dictates and promotes a one-size-fits-all solution, the more it hits 
folks in their pocketbooks.
  I don't think I have ever met a single person who said they were 
anti-environment. I cannot think of a single person who likes dirty 
water or polluted skies, but if we listen to my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle, we would assume Republicans have made it their 
life's work to kill the planet. It makes for great sound bites and it 
can help rally their base; it does not, however, contribute much to the 
discussion at hand or make much of a difference.
  Actions have consequences and these proposed regulations will have a 
real, tangible, measurable impact on the economy at a time when job 
creation should be our focus. The truth is coal powers America. Almost 
70 percent of all energy produced in this country came from the ground 
and most of it was coal.
  Even electric cars are powered by coal, but sadly you won't see that 
on a bumper sticker. That is what I call an inconvenient truth. If we 
were to shut down our coal facilities for even a single day, I think 
even my colleagues from the other side of the aisle would quickly be 
calling for these plants to be turned back on.
  In my State coal is one of our largest employers. It provides high-
paying jobs to our residents, as it does to folks all across the 
country. The revenue from energy production even provides scholarships 
for our students to get an education. For our State coal is not just an 
energy source, it is a livelihood.
  The President may want us to run from coal, but I think we should be 
running toward it. George Washington Carver developed over 100 products 
from peanuts. Think what we could do with coal if we spent more time 
and resources developing our most abundant resource instead of trying 
to destroy it. American ingenuity would lead to our next energy 
revolution. But that is not happening. Instead, a project that the 
University of Wyoming and the private sector were working on to produce 
cleaner energy from coal was canceled because of the President's 
efforts to kill coal. There is no future in selling the products that 
would be developed to enhance coal.
  We have to trust American ingenuity. No one likes to sit in the dark, 
and I imagine most folks like being able to run their air-conditioner 
in the summer. States that rely on coal for their power see an average 
of 30 percent lower electricity costs than States that use other fuels. 
An increase of that size would be noticed by almost everyone regardless 
of political affiliation.
  We could learn a thing or two from Germany. They are going back to 
coal after experimenting with alternative sources. They realized that 
coal is readily available and will help them bring down energy prices.
  Incidentally, coal is the only energy source you can stockpile for 
emergencies.
  The plain fact is that this President is proposing a cap-and-tax 
proposal that already failed in Congress. My colleagues then realized 
that it is an extremely expensive idea, and the increased costs would 
be passed along to consumers, who must pay to use more

[[Page 9513]]

expensive energy sources. But the fact that Congress rejected this 
proposal seems to have encouraged the administration to yet again 
sidestep Congress and implement another costly backdoor regulation. 
Even some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say they are 
angry about this tax imposed on the people without approval from their 
representatives in Congress.
  I have heard comments about how courageous the President is for 
finally going after coal. It is not as if the President ever hid his 
disdain for energy that comes from the ground. He has been targeting it 
with redtape his entire Presidency. These ideas are purely political 
and will have a heavy impact on the economy with little or no 
measurable impact on the environment.
  The Wall Street Journal pointed out in a recent editorial that 
``based on the EPA's own carbon accounting, shutting down every single 
coal-fired power plant tomorrow and replacing them with zero-carbon 
sources would reduce the Earth's temperature by about one-twentieth of 
a degree Fahrenheit in a hundred years.''
  Let me repeat that. The Wall Street Journal pointed out in a recent 
editorial that ``based on the EPA's own carbon accounting, shutting 
down every single coal-fired power plant tomorrow and replacing them 
with zero-carbon sources would reduce the Earth's temperature by about 
one-twentieth of a degree Fahrenheit in a hundred years.''
  When government tries to pick winners and losers in any part of the 
market, everyone loses. Just look at how great our health care system 
is doing.
  If we as a body allow the President to get his way on this 
regulation, we will be looking at billions in annual economic losses. 
Hundreds of thousands of people will lose their jobs. We will burden 
our businesses with billions of dollars in costs, all of which will be 
passed on to the consumers in the form of double-digit energy price 
increases. If you are elderly, a low-income or even middle-class family 
or living on a fixed income, are you willing to pay this energy tax 
that won't make a dent in CO2 emissions? I can't imagine you 
would be. These new regulations will only succeed in making the 
pocketbooks lighter and the country darker.
  When we have affordable and abundant energy, America stays 
competitive with the rest of the world. Low-cost energy could help 
create more than 1 million jobs over the next decade, and it could lure 
more investment into American manufacturing. The cost of energy is a 
big factor in manufacturing. We all say we need to put people back to 
work. Driving up costs to consumers and businesses doesn't seem to 
benefit anyone.
  I hope my colleagues from the other side of the aisle will join me 
today and say enough is enough. The President is proposing to leave a 
permanent stain on our economy. We should not be putting people out of 
work or driving up energy prices.
  I hope every American will call on their representatives to oppose 
this President's proposal. It is our constituents who keep us 
accountable.
  The Republican leader has already introduced legislation to stop this 
reckless move by the EPA, and I am proud to join him in that effort. 
Our bill is simple. It requires that the President prove that this rule 
will not cause job losses, that it will not increase energy rates, and 
that it will not hurt our country's economic output. We know the 
President's regulations will put America at an economic disadvantage, 
but I worry we won't get a vote on this commonsense bill--or even done 
as an amendment--and that is a real shame because I think a majority of 
this body would support the bill and oppose the President's proposal.
  I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.


                                 D-day

  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, a momentous occasion is occurring 
tomorrow; that is, the 70th anniversary of D-day. Seventy years ago 
tomorrow, as the American people slept in their beds, the greatest 
naval invasion in history was underway.
  On D-day, June 6, 1944, tens of thousands of American soldiers, 
sailors, and airmen joined allies from around the free world to begin 
what General Eisenhower called a great crusade--one that sought to free 
a continent. They came by amphibious landing craft, and I think my 
colleague from Louisiana is going to talk more about that in a moment. 
They also came by gliders laden with men and materiel and by parachutes 
deployed deep behind enemy lines. At beaches called Omaha and Utah and 
at the cliffs of Pointe du Hoc, they struck a mortal blow to the Nazi 
regime. Thousands would give their lives that day for that noble cause.
  Like many in this Chamber, I have seen the American cemetery over 
there with rows of white crosses and Stars of David. They are a stark 
reminder of the price those brave heroes paid for all of us. These men 
did not go into battle alone. General Eisenhower said to the Allied 
Expeditionary Force on the eve of the battle, ``The hopes and prayers 
of liberty loving people everywhere march with you.'' Eisenhower was 
not exaggerating. As word of the invasion spread through the predawn 
hours of Tuesday morning, people gathered all over this country in 
churches, synagogues, meeting houses, public places large and small, to 
seek God's blessing on men who were even then in harm's way.
  As the battle raged on that day, President Franklin Roosevelt spoke 
to the Nation. He did not choose to address the American people with a 
speech; instead, he delivered words of prayer by radio address as the 
fate of Europe and, indeed, the entire free world hung in the balance. 
It is a very powerful prayer, transcending all faiths. It is a prayer 
that tells the story of why America fought and makes evident the 
sacrifices we were willing to make to see through to victory with God's 
help. It is a prayer that speaks to the horrors of war and the beauty 
of peace. It is a prayer that captures--perhaps better than anything 
else written since--the magnitude of what happened that day as we hit 
the beaches of Normandy.
  I hope that prayer will never be forgotten, and that is why Senator 
Landrieu and I believe that prayer should be added as part of the World 
War II monument pursuant to bipartisan legislation we have been working 
on for a few years. I previously cosponsored it with Senator Lieberman 
and now with Senator Landrieu. It has gone through the Energy Committee 
twice with unanimous votes. It is called the World War II Memorial 
Prayer Act of 2013. This legislation also passed the House of 
Representatives by a significant vote, 286 to 26.
  I would like to recite that prayer now with my colleague from 
Louisiana. I would like her to begin this prayer. After nearly 70 
years, it still has the power to bring us together as a people and 
remind us that while we may have differences at times, there are so 
many things that do unite us.
  Mr. President, I defer to my colleague from Louisiana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for sharing this 
moment with me on the Senate floor and allowing me to work closely with 
him to present this bill to the Senate today. He has worked on this for 
several years, and I am pleased to join him for any number of reasons.
  One thing I wish to mention before I share the reading of this prayer 
with him is that the official World War II museum happens to be located 
in New Orleans, LA. It was initiated by the great historian Stephen 
Ambrose. It has been promoted by an extraordinarily stellar group of 
civic and political leaders in our Nation. Former Senator Stevens and 
Senator Inouye joined arms together as brothers in the Senate and 
helped us to establish this official museum. It is almost complete.
  On the eve of D-day, it is particularly striking that the two of us 
would be here to remember this prayer and to say to the country that 
this prayer, in our view, should be on the memorial here in DC.
  I am also hoping, just as a suggestion, that it will be placed 
somewhere

[[Page 9514]]

significantly in this fabulous, extraordinary, beautifully designed and 
beautifully executed museum that tells the story of the war--not how it 
was won but why it was fought. Why it was fought is the most important 
lesson for our country and the people of the world to know. Some of 
that is expressed in this prayer. More of that is expressed in the 
museum itself.
  The Senator from Ohio would want to know that hundreds of citizens 
from New Orleans and Louisiana are actually on their way by boat to 
Normandy, and, of course, many of our elected officials, including the 
President, will be celebrating the 70th anniversary.
  The reason this museum is in New Orleans is because the Higgins boats 
were actually built in New Orleans, and it is unusual that such a small 
city would have contributed so much. Eisenhower himself said that 
without these landing craft, we never could have gotten to the Normandy 
beach. They were built by an entrepreneur who had a small factory at 
the time that then grew, with 43,000 people employed. Men, women, 
African-Americans, and disabled workers were all being paid the same.
  There is a remarkable story about the boats themselves that landed at 
Normandy, but this effort today is about a memorial prayer that I think 
we should remember and be reminded of.
  I will begin by reciting this prayer which was given by President 
Roosevelt, and he asked the American people on that day to join him in 
this prayer.
  He said:

       Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our nation, this day have 
     set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our 
     Republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free 
     a suffering humanity.
       Lead them straight and true; give strength to their arms, 
     stoutness to their hearts, steadfastness in their faith.
       They will need Thy blessings. Their road will be long and 
     hard. For the enemy is strong. He may hurl back our forces. 
     Success may not come with rushing speed, but we shall return 
     again and again; and we know that by Thy grace, and by the 
     righteousness of our cause, our sons will triumph.
       They will be sore tried, by night and by day, without 
     rest--until the victory is won. The darkness will be rent by 
     noise and flame. Men's souls will be shaken with the 
     violences of war.
       For these men are lately drawn from the ways of peace. They 
     fight not for the lust of conquest. They fight to end 
     conquest. They fight to liberate. They fight to let justice 
     arise, and tolerance and goodwill among all Thy people. They 
     yearn but for the end of the battle, for their return to the 
     haven of home. Some will never return. Embrace these, Father, 
     and receive them, Thy heroic servants, into Thy kingdom.

  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, the prayer continues:

       And for us at home--fathers, mothers, children, wives, 
     sisters, and brothers of brave men overseas, whose thoughts 
     and prayers are ever with them--help us, Almighty God, to 
     rededicate ourselves in renewed faith in Thee in this hour of 
     great sacrifice.
       Many people have urged that I call the nation into a single 
     day of special prayer. But because the road is long and the 
     desire is great, I ask that our people devote themselves in a 
     continuance of prayer. As we rise to each new day, and again 
     when each day is spent, let words of prayer be on our lips, 
     invoking Thy help to our efforts.
       Give us strength, too--strength in our daily tasks, to 
     redouble the contributions we make in the physical and the 
     material support of our armed forces.
       And let our hearts be stout, to wait out the long travail, 
     to bear sorrows that may come, to impart our courage unto our 
     sons wheresoever they may be.
       And, O Lord, give us faith. Give us faith in Thee; faith in 
     our sons; faith in each other; faith in our united crusade. 
     Let not the keenness of our spirit ever be dulled. Let not 
     the impacts of temporary events, of temporal matters of but 
     fleeting moment--let not these deter us in our unconquerable 
     purpose.
       With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces 
     of our enemy. Help us to conquer the apostles of greed and 
     racial arrogances. Lead us to the saving of our country, and 
     with our sister nations into a world unity that will spell a 
     sure peace--a peace invulnerable to the schemings of unworthy 
     men. And a peace that will let all of men live in freedom, 
     reaping the just rewards of their honest toil.
       Thy will be done, almighty God. Amen.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Amen.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, that was the prayer that Franklin 
Roosevelt gave on that fateful day. Of course, many of the men who 
fought that day have gone on to their eternal reward, and some of them 
will mark tomorrow with quiet remembrances with families and friends.
  Senator Landrieu has noted that there will be people from Louisiana 
going over to the D-day celebrations--it sounds like some by boat--also 
from Ohio and from all over the country. Our President will be there. 
Some will go there to retrace their steps and to see where they were on 
those beaches. Others will go just to see the cemeteries and remember 
their fallen comrades. There is a 93-year-old gentleman from Ohio named 
Jim Martin. He will be there too. He will be jumping from an airplane 
at 93 years old and parachuting onto the same soil he took back from 
the Nazis 70 years ago. On behalf of all of us, I wish Jim Godspeed.
  There is very little we can add to the legacy they have created for 
themselves, but we can honor it and we can remember it, and that is 
what this bipartisan legislation is all about. Again, I crafted it 
originally with then-Senator Joe Lieberman and now have joined with 
Senator Landrieu to introduce it in this Congress. It directs the 
Secretary of the Interior to install in the area of the World War II 
Memorial a plaque with the inscription of the prayer we have just read.
  Last Congress, the House of Representatives passed this legislation 
with an overwhelming vote of 386 to 26, and after a hearing on May 29, 
they are moving forward with doing so again. Today, on the eve of this 
historic anniversary, it is time for the Senate to lead the way toward 
enshrining this singular moment in the history of our great country.
  Senator Landrieu and I intend to call up Calendar No. 339 later this 
afternoon, and we hope in doing so we will achieve unanimous consent to 
be able to have the Senate proceed to consideration of this 
legislation, and then ask unanimous consent for it to be passed by this 
body. This is legislation we have worked on carefully. It has gone 
through the process of working with the Department of the Interior. We 
have ensured that it is consistent not just with the Department of 
Interior but also specifically with the Commemorative Works Act. It is 
something that, again, has been bipartisan and something that helps to 
bring this Congress and this country together during a critical time.
  I thank my colleague from Louisiana for working with me. I think it 
is an incredibly important opportunity for us, on the eve of the 70th 
anniversary, to pass this legislation here in the Senate, thereby doing 
something positive for the future by telling them the importance of the 
past. This prayer is certainly part of that.
  I yield for my colleague from Louisiana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, let me join my colleague in asking for 
unanimous consent for this particular individual bill to pass by 
unanimous consent. It would be lovely if we could do this today because 
of the timing of our D-day celebration tomorrow. For the information of 
our colleagues who have other bills pending that are called lands 
bills, we are still working on a smaller package in addition to this. 
But we felt that this has such significance and importance and it is so 
timely today that it would really be important for us to do this.
  So I hope our staffs can clear this on both sides and we can get this 
done before close of business today.
  I thank the Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Louisiana and I 
look forward to being back on the floor shortly to propound the 
unanimous consent request to pass this legislation and to do so prior 
to this momentous 70th anniversary tomorrow.
  I yield back my time, and I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page 9515]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Veterans Care

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I believe every Member of this Senate and 
every American understands the very deep debt of gratitude we owe to 
the men and women who put their lives on the line to defend this 
country. That should not be a political issue. It should not be a 
partisan issue. I think all of us have been appalled by what we read 
about in Phoenix and in other locations about people manipulating data, 
pretending veterans were getting care in a timely manner when that was 
not the case.
  It is my strong belief, as chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs 
Committee, that every veteran in this country is entitled to high-
quality medical care and that they should get that care in a timely 
manner. I am going to do everything I can to make that happen.
  We live, as everybody knows, in a politically divided country and a 
divided Congress. Reaching agreements is not easy and, quite frankly, 
does not take place very often in the Senate. Unfortunately, for 
whatever reason--without casting blame--it just does not happen. The 
American people understand that and are not happy about that. So 
reaching a compromise among people who look at the world very 
differently is not easy, but in this process, Senator John McCain of 
Arizona and I have tried our best to come forward with an agreement. It 
is an agreement which I am sure he is not 100 percent happy about and I 
can fully assure you I am not 100 percent happy about. I would have 
written a very different bill. I thank Senator Harry Reid for his 
strong support for this process, and Chuck Schumer, Patty Murray, and 
Dick Durbin for pushing this effort forward. I hope we will be back on 
the floor to continue the effort to deal with the many unmet needs of 
veterans, but right now we have a crisis on our hands and it is 
imperative we deal with that crisis.
  To my mind, the essence of the crisis is that we have learned in many 
parts of this country--not all parts but in many parts of this 
country--veterans cannot get the timely care they need. They cannot 
walk into a VA facility and within a reasonable period of time get the 
treatment they need.
  So this bill, in a significant way, begins to address that important 
issue. Let me very briefly tell you how it does that.
  For a start, there are many locations around the country where we 
need new facilities, we need refurbished facilities, we need expanded 
facilities. In fact, there are 26 locations in 18 States where that is 
the case. This legislation would allow the construction of 26 major 
medical facility leases in 18 States around the country. I believe that 
will help us in many parts of the country in providing the quality, 
timely care our veterans deserve.
  In my view, there are areas of the country where we simply do not 
have the doctors, the nurses, and the other staff we need to provide 
the care our veterans deserve. Many primary care physicians get burned 
out by working 12, 14 hours a day. They quit. The turnover rate is too 
high. It is my view that the VA, by and large--and this is echoed by 
the views of the veterans community itself in independent studies--that 
when people get into the VA, the quality of care is good. But I will 
tell you, if we do not have the primary care physicians, the other 
physicians, the nurses we need to treat veterans, they are not going to 
get the care they need.
  This legislation will target $500 million in unobligated balances for 
the hiring of new VA doctors and nurses. I see that as a significant 
step forward.
  One of the great embarrassments or shocks that all of us feel is that 
within the military we have seen in recent years horrendous accounts of 
sexual assault. What this legislation does is say to those women and 
men who were sexually assaulted in the military that when they get into 
the VA, there is going to be quality care for their needs.
  This legislation also touches on a couple of issues that are not 
directly related to health care but have overwhelming support in the 
House and the Senate.
  We have heard from many young veterans who are in college as a result 
of the post-9/11 GI bill who right now cannot afford it because they 
are not getting instate tuition. This legislation addresses that issue.
  I have talked, as I know Senator McCain has, to Gold Star Wives. 
These are the women who have lost their husbands in combat who, I think 
for not a sensible reason, are unable to take advantage of the post-9/
11 GI bill. They want to get their lives together. They want to be able 
to go to college or whatever. This bill addresses that issue.
  There is another provision which was strongly supported by Senator 
McCain and other Republican leaders--and Senator McCain, I am sure, 
will go into it at great length, but essentially what this provision 
does is say if someone is 40 miles or farther away from a VA health 
care facility--a medical center, a CBOC or whatever it may be--they 
will be able to go to the doctor of their choice, under the strict 
supervision of the VA.
  What this will do is prevent people from, in some cases in very rural 
areas--I think this is mostly a bill for people in very rural areas who 
now have to travel long distances to get their health care--this will 
make their lives easier. This is a 2-year trial project. We will see 
how it turns out, but that is in the bill as well.
  The last point I wish to make is I do not think there is any 
disagreement in the Senate nor among the American people that when we 
have incompetent people in the VA or worse--dishonest people in the 
VA--they should be removed from their jobs immediately and that the 
Secretary of the VA should have the power to get rid of them. I do not 
think there is any debate about that.
  Where there has been some debate is that in my view those employees 
deserve due process. I say that because I do not want to see a 
situation where a new President comes in and for political reasons 
fires 400 top executives because they are Democrats or because they are 
Republicans or whatever. I do not want to see a situation where 
somebody is fired because she is a woman or Black or Hispanic or maybe 
gay, and maybe that is the underlying motive and that person has no 
course of appeal.
  So what we have done is developed a very expedited process in terms 
of dismissal. We say if someone is dismissed, they are off the payroll 
tomorrow, they are gone, but they are going to have a week to file an 
appeal, and the appropriate body will have 3 weeks to rule on their 
appeal. I think that makes sense. I think when you think about it, it 
does make sense.
  There are a few other important provisions. It is important, in my 
view, for the Nation to take advantage of the expertise that is out 
there in the private sector. How do we develop information technology 
for people accessing the VA? We want to do that. We have a commission 
that would help us do that. We have another Presidential commission 
that will help us with construction, which has been an ongoing problem 
in the VA.
  That is a brief overview of what is in the legislation. Does it solve 
all of the problems facing our veterans? Absolutely not. Should we come 
back and continue to deal with this issue? Absolutely. But I think, 
given the crises we have right now, this is an important step forward.
  I thank Senator McCain. Senator McCain's views on many issues are not 
my views. We look at the world differently, but that is what democracy 
is about. Our job was to sit down and work out the best agreement. We 
did. I think from day one Senator McCain showed absolute good faith in 
this, a desire to reach a compromise. I hope he feels I did the same. 
We are where we are today.
  So with that I yield the floor for Senator McCain and thank him very 
much for his efforts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Presiding Officer.
  I would like to say to the Senator from Vermont that I respect a 
great

[[Page 9516]]

deal the work he has done on this legislation. I respect his commitment 
and his leadership of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. I respect the 
fact that Bernie Sanders is known as a fighter, and it has been a 
pleasure to do combat with him.
  But I also would like to say that at the end of the day with strongly 
held views on different aspects of this issue, we were able to come 
together in a way that will help to relieve this terrible tragedy that 
seems to have befallen our Nation's veterans. It started in Phoenix, 
AZ, as my colleagues know, but it has spread all over the country. It 
begins with the terrible story of perhaps 40 veterans having literally 
died for lack of care.
  I do not need to go through all of the different problems that have 
surfaced in the ensuing days since that began, but there should be no 
doubt in anyone's mind that we should accept the word of the inspector 
general who said these are systemic problems. This is not a scheduling 
problem. These are systemic problems that need to be addressed.
  Our hope--as we concluded this legislation--was that perhaps we could 
put some of our other differences aside that have beset this body and 
move forward and address this legislation as quickly as possible and 
begin to repair the damage because we have, for all intents and 
purposes, in some ways betrayed the brave men and women who were 
willing to go out and sacrifice for the well-being and freedom of the 
rest of us.
  So, again, I say to Senator Sanders, I appreciate his leadership and 
I appreciate the fact that we both had to make some very tough 
compromises, but I have found in my experience that when tough 
compromises are made, usually that is a sign of bipartisanship and a 
sign that it is a good piece of legislation. I know that is not the 
popular thing to say nowadays in today's political environment, but I 
do not believe, if compromises had not been made, that we would be 
bringing to the floor of the Senate--and working with the House's 
chairman Jeff Miller over there--that we would be doing what we are 
introducing today.
  I would also like to say a word about two other individuals; that is, 
Senator Burr, the ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, 
whom I admire enormously--he has worked tirelessly on behalf of the 
veterans and he is a most respected member of our conference--and of 
course our most unique treasure, Dr. Tom Coburn, who had been my 
nominee to take over the Veterans' Administration, which almost 
destroyed a long and beautiful friendship, but Dr. Coburn is the 
conscience of our conference. He is the person whom we look up to and 
admire the most for his integrity, for his honesty, his intelligence. I 
thank both Senator Burr and Dr. Coburn for their enormous work. In some 
ways, I am sort of the spokesperson, when they did a great majority of 
the work.
  As Senator Sanders pointed out, I would like to just cover several 
aspects of this legislation and try to explain a little bit why some of 
these provisions are there.
  Of course, a top priority for me for many years has been to give the 
veteran a choice. We ought to give the veteran a choice--the same 
choice as people who are Medicare recipients, those who have TRICARE; 
that is, the military health care program--where if they are outside of 
40 miles from the nearest VA facility, if there is a wait time which is 
unacceptable, then they should be able to go to the health care 
provider right near their home, not have to get in a van and ride for 2 
or 3 hours for routine medical care.
  I also want to emphasize what I hope my colleagues understand, that 
this is in no way a comment on the Veterans' Administration--I will 
leave that to others and other judgments--because there are things done 
in the veterans health care system that only the veterans health care 
system can handle: PTSD, traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury, 
prosthesis, war wounds, that only the VA can do. None of this that we 
are saying in any way denigrates or does anything that is 
uncomplimentary to the outstanding men and women who work in this 
system. We are proud of their work. It is the system that needs to be 
fixed. So I do not want anybody who is associated with the Veterans' 
Administration to believe we are criticizing them.
  We are talking about a system that must be fixed. It is urgent that 
it be fixed. Every single day that goes by a veteran is deprived of the 
care he or she has earned serving this country is wrong. That is why I 
urge my colleagues: If you have amendments, if you think you can make 
this bill better, we welcome it. We would be glad to discuss with you 
amendments to this legislation. We would be glad, if you know how to 
make it better.
  But in the meantime, can we sort of pledge that we are committed to 
seeing this thing all the way through? I would urge my colleagues to do 
that. Again, I know I speak for Senator Sanders when I say: If you have 
a way to make this bill, this legislation, better, come on in. But 
let's not get hung up on certain other aspects of our differences that 
have characterized what most people would view as gridlock in this 
body.
  I urge my colleagues to look at this compromise. It is a compromise. 
If you think you can make it better, we welcome your input. But also, 
we would like to have your commitment to seeing this through to the 
President's desk. I know that over on the other side of the Capitol 
they are working hard on this issue too.
  So we bring up, as I mentioned, veterans should have that card. That 
veteran should be able to go to a facility of his or her choice. 
Accountability. Senator Rubio and others, Congressman Miller and 
others, have introduced legislation. Senator Sanders has improved on 
it. This calls for the immediate firing--an immediate firing if there 
is evidence of work that is not in keeping with the standards we expect 
of our employees.
  During that period, under appeal, that person will not receive a 
salary. That person will have some due process: 7 days to appeal to the 
Merit Systems Protection Board and there are 21 days for that Merit 
Systems Protection Board to render a final decision. Yes, we should 
have, as many of our colleagues want, accountability. But that 
accountability also in this proposal allows for due process for someone 
to at least have their case heard.
  There is expedited hiring authority for VA doctors and nurses, and 
additional authority to hire new providers. There are unobligated funds 
out there. We are going to use unobligated funds to hire more doctors 
and nurses where they are needed. But I would also point out, in some 
cases doctors and nurses have to work harder where they are. Also, 
there are now pending, over the years, administration requests for 26 
major facility leases to be entered into.
  This has been the President's request. This has been a bipartisan 
agreement on the need for these facilities. I believe we should proceed 
with it. I would also point out to my colleagues, this legislation has 
some expenses. But the major expense is to move forward with the 
construction of these major medical facilities all over America. In the 
view of all, it is necessary.
  This improves the access to health care for individuals who are the 
victims of military sexual assault. Sexual assault is probably one of 
the most vexing issues we face in the military today outside of combat. 
We do not know exactly what causes some of this. We do know many times 
it is because of a lack of discipline. But there is no doubt this is a 
problem in the military that needs to be addressed; otherwise, mothers 
and fathers will be not agreeable--in fact reluctant--to have their 
sons and daughters serve in the military unless we address this issue 
of sexual assault.
  There are many efforts going on, in the Defense authorization bill, 
in the military, many other areas where we are working on this issue. 
But I think this provision in the bill will be very helpful in 
attempting to address that issue.
  A commission needs to be appointed on scheduling and care. We know 
one of the problems is scheduling, and this whole issue of phantom 
lists and waiting lists that disappeared. We have to get to the bottom 
of it. I think the

[[Page 9517]]

smartest people in America could help us on that. There is another 
commission on capital planning. What are the needs of our veterans?
  One of the things we do know is we have an aging veteran population 
from World War II, those who are, God bless them, still with us, Korea 
and Vietnam. That is an aging veterans population and requires a 
different kind of care than those of Iraq and Afghanistan. To be frank, 
a lot of that is geriatric care. To be frank, geriatric care is very 
expensive. But we have to understand who this population is and what 
their needs are, just as we have to understand the Iraqi and 
Afghanistan war veterans and what their needs are.
  Very frankly, our planning so far has not been very impressive to me. 
We need to have--this is a pure Senator Sanders initiative--a GI bill 
tuition, eligibility for surviving spouses of those who died in the 
line of duty. It seems to me that is only fair. And a provision also 
that in-State tuition will be provided for all veterans at public 
colleges and universities.
  Again, finally I want to say thank you to Senator Sanders. I also 
want to say to my colleagues again: This is not a perfect document. We 
are ready to see any changes that we would consider, and perhaps 
germane amendments. But I would also hope we could focus our attention 
on the bill and the efforts to help our veterans, as opposed to other 
issues which seem to be with us on a daily basis.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Warren). The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I thank Senator McCain again. I think 
his remarks were right on in terms of describing what is in this 
legislation. I support his appeal.
  Look, everybody has an issue. Every time a bill comes up, I have my 
pet concerns that I could bring forth amendments on, Senator McCain has 
his. But what we are appealing to right now is if you have a way to 
improve this bill for our veterans, bring forth that amendment. But 
please, please, do not bring forward extraneous amendments. Let's focus 
on the needs of veterans. Let's not make them political footballs. I 
hope very much we can proceed in that direction.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I rise to offer a few words about the 
colloquy that just was completed. I often find, when I am on the floor 
or presiding, that I feel sorry for the spectators in the Chamber. 
Either they are seeing the body not work as well as it should or 
sometimes they are watching a lot of silence, depending on when they 
are here. But I have been in the chair for the last hour. I think the 
spectators have been treated to what the Senate does when we do our 
best. First Senators Portman and Landrieu put a bill on the floor 
dealing with a commemoration in connection with the 70th anniversary of 
D-day, which is tomorrow. It was a bill they are seeking unanimous 
consent for. It was a very worthy one.
  But, second, I know many of us, all of us in the Chamber, have been 
very discouraged about the recent revelations and challenges within the 
VA. Many of us feared earlier this week that what we would get in this 
discussion were competing proposals or bills that would be partisan, 
where each side would fall short of doing what they wanted, and the 
veterans would not receive the kind of relief they should get.
  What we have seen, with Senator Sanders and Senator McCain putting 
this bill on the floor just now, is exactly how this should work for 
the veterans, but in the legislative process more generally. So I am 
pleased to congratulate my colleagues for taking two different 
approaches to this veterans challenge and working it out so a 
bipartisan bill can be offered. I think we owe it to the veterans, and 
especially in light of these recent challenges, to show a unified face 
in trying to fix these problems. I look forward to working with my 
colleagues to do so.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I too want to join my colleague from 
Virginia in adding accolades to our Senators from Vermont and Arizona 
in putting together this proposal. I would like to make a few points 
here. First, the veterans should come first. These are people whom we 
sent overseas to risk their lives for us. When they come back injured, 
nothing should stand in the way of us giving them the best medical care 
possible.
  Senators McCain and Sanders, of different political philosophies--if 
they each had to write their own bill would write different bills--came 
together, not for their ideology's sake, not for political advantage, 
but for the good of these veterans. That is the highest duty we have 
here.
  The second point I would make is this: In a body that has been 
wracked by partisanship, I was hoping and praying that that 
partisanship would not stand in the way of us helping our veterans. 
Because of this good work of Vermont and Arizona's Senators, that has 
happened. That has happened. We are not home yet. We hope no one will 
be so selfish that they feel their own amendment or amendments have to 
be voted on if they are extraneous, because that could blow up the 
deal. We all know how fragile, even for our veterans, bipartisan 
agreements are in this body. This is a higher calling.
  I talked at length over the last several days with Senator Sanders. I 
know how heartfelt this is for him. As he said: If he wrote his own 
bill, he would have done a lot more. But each of us writing a bill and 
giving a speech about it is not going to help a single veteran. The way 
this body works is, we have to come together. There is no one on the 
other side of the aisle, perhaps no one in this Chamber, who better 
respects what veterans have gone through than Senator McCain after what 
he went through himself as a prisoner of war. He was just the right 
person for the chairman of our Veterans Committee, Bernie Sanders, to 
reach out to. Because they both cared so much about veterans, they came 
together. It is now up to the rest of us, the other 98, to do the same, 
to come together, to pass this bill quickly. This does not mean this 
will be the last thing we will do for veterans. This is an issue we are 
going to have to revisit, given the sickness we have in parts of the 
Veterans Administration, given the long waiting lists, given the fact 
that while most veterans get very good care in our VA, not every 
veteran does. Our goal is to have every veteran get good care in our 
VA.
  Hopefully this bill will pass. Hopefully maybe this will set a 
precedent that we can work together on important issues; we can each 
submerge some of our heartfelt feelings that it has to be our way and 
reach compromise with the other side. That is what Senator Sanders has 
done. That is what Senator McCain has done. I salute them for their 
patriotism, their good sense, and, frankly, their courage.
  I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            EPA Regulations

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I come this afternoon to speak about 
the regulations proposed by the administration on Monday relating to 
the Environmental Protection Agency. This time the agency's target is a 
30-percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from existing 
powerplants by the year 2030.
  The regulation that has been announced, which has been the subject of 
a great deal of conversation this week, should not be confused with EPA 
rules for cooling water intake or for proposed powerplants or for 
cross-state air pollution or for boilers or for ozone or for 
incinerators or for regional haze or for fuel economy or for the waters 
of the United States or for renewable fuels or for cement kilns or for 
coal ash or for effluent limitations or for any other number of 
regulatory actions that the agency has taken or is expected to take.

[[Page 9518]]

  This rule--and there have been so many of them, it almost feels like 
this should be EPA's rule of the week or rule of the month--is a 
unilateral effort to bypass Congress and to force into place policies 
that we in Congress have not approved. The goal is to push our electric 
supply away from coal and, I think, ultimately, away from natural gas 
as soon as possible.
  As the ranking member on the energy committee, I can attest that 
energy is always the flip side of the environmental debate. If we have 
a discussion about energy, we always have a discussion about the 
environment.
  I believe we should advance policies that make our energy abundant, 
affordable, clean, diverse, and secure. To that end, our environmental 
goals must be balanced with our energy needs.
  Because of this, I have for years expressed concern that EPA's 
relentless onslaught will harm the affordability and the reliability of 
our electric supply. In fact, I even released a white paper on this 
matter earlier this year. We still do not have an accurate accounting 
of the cumulative costs associated with all of these EPA rules that I 
just gave in the laundry list, but we do know not to trust their math 
because EPA has dramatically underestimated the powerplant retirements 
in very recent past.
  I will give you some examples. For the mercury and air toxic rules, 
EPA estimated only 4.7 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity retirements by 
the year 2015. But then we see the contrast. The labor unions forecast 
that MATS alone would result in 55 gigawatts of coal plant retirements 
and the loss of some 250,000 jobs. Government experts have determined 
that approximately 10 to 20 percent of existing coal capacity could be 
retired by the middle of the next decade. This is a calculation that 
really dwarfs EPA's number and one that doesn't include the potential 
impact of the latest proposal.
  Now, I know that the EPA has an important job to do, and I appreciate 
that, but I also recognize that it does not and cannot regulate in a 
vacuum. Baseload coal and the ancillary services that it provides 
account for almost 40 percent of our power. In many instances the EPA's 
regulations will render generating units uneconomic, with compliance 
requiring retrofitting, the use of best available technology, and 
downtime for installation. So I am concerned--greatly concerned--that 
the EPA's rules, particularly when you combine them with one another, 
will result in a grid that is less stable and less reliable. The 
cumulative effect of federal regulations on baseload capacity 
resources, whether they are coal or nuclear, which produce electricity 
on demand has to be looked at. We have to examine and appreciate the 
cumulative effect of this loss of production and not discount or ignore 
it.
  Many this past winter got a taste of what life in Alaska is like in 
the wintertime when we experienced the polar vortex here in the lower 
48. The polar vortex caused 50,000 megawatts of powerplant outages. For 
one key system 89 percent of the coal capacity that is scheduled for 
retirement next year because of an EPA rule was called upon to meet the 
rising demand.
  So again, just think about that.
  We had a tough winter. We had coal-fueled facilities that were able 
to step up and provide for that increased demand--89 percent of that 
capacity was utilized during this polar vortex. That is fine. But what 
happens when those facilities are now offline, when they are in 
retirement, when you do not have that backup?
  The question we really need to be asking is, What happens when that 
capacity is gone? Hoping for a mild winter isn't a viable strategy. You 
cannot have a hope-and-prayer energy policy, hoping that the weather is 
not going to be so bad. Our Nation relies on installed dispatchable 
power generation during extreme weather, which is why we need to ensure 
grid reliability through a diversity of baseload capacity.
  Today it is unclear how many plants will retrofit to comply with 
various EPA regulations--including this most recent one--as opposed to 
making a decision to just shut down. It is uncertain if there will be 
enough time--to say nothing of sufficient capital available for 
investment--to build these new facilities or other forms of generation 
needed to ensure the continued reliability of the grid.
  I have been talking about grid reliability for a long while now, and 
I think it speaks to our system that while we may have been pushed to 
the edge of getting nervous, we have been able to meet that reliability 
requirement Americans have just come to expect. They want to know that 
when they want to have the lights on or keep cool or keep warm, there 
is that availability. Reliability is key here. I am even more troubled 
that the EPA, which has conceded that a single rule may result in what 
they have called a ``localized effect,'' has not sought from our grid 
regulators, FERC and NERC, an analysis of the cumulative impact its 
rules may have. Understanding the impacts of these rules by checking in 
with our grid regulators, FERC and NERC, as part of a formal process is 
an important part of what needs to go on. Yet we are not seeing that 
follow-through. Instead, EPA appears to be morphing into an industrial 
planning agency for the energy sector. That is not what they are 
designed to do. This latest rulemaking makes it even more important for 
FERC and the Department of Energy to step up, to really go toe-to-toe 
here with EPA to protect the reliability and the affordability of our 
power supply.
  The current chairwoman of FERC, while she has not called for a formal 
official role for the commission--as many of us would like--is 
certainly up to the task in my view. But with that situation at play 
right now within the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, it appears 
that the White House doesn't want to keep the acting chair in charge. 
Its nominee to serve as chairman is both short on energy experience and 
largely unaware of the electricity reliability implications of EPA's 
rules.
  In response to a hearing question about grid reliability from Senator 
Manchin, the nominee conceded that he ``has not been following the 
decisional process at EPA closely enough to know.''
  I find that response not only disturbing, but I think it raises the 
question of whether anyone within the administration is actually 
following the EPA process closely enough to know what will happen to 
our electric grid. I can tell you that I don't think the EPA knows the 
impact for my State of Alaska. The Agency readily admits that its 
proposal ``fails to account for the expected costs and benefits for 
areas outside of the contiguous United States.''
  Alaska is one-fifth the size of the country, and we are part of the 
country. But the EPA, in advancing these proposed regulations, admits 
that ``we don't know.'' We don't know the cost-benefit for Alaska. We 
don't know the cost-benefit for Hawaii. That does not mean that my 
State is exempt from this rule as some reports have led Alaskans to 
believe. Instead, without the benefit of any analysis, EPA has directed 
Alaska to reduce our emissions by 26 percent and this while EPA 
ignores--totally ignores--the likely inflationary costs and increases 
inherent in requiring the revamping of so much power production likely 
within a single decade.
  The EPA has recommended that States work together, work together to 
figure out how we are going to make these cuts. But again, when you are 
not part of the contiguous United States, it is a little more difficult 
for us in Alaska and our neighbors to the south in Hawaii if we are not 
part of an interstate electricity grid. Alaska is really in many ways 
on its own. Because of our constant need for Federal approvals or at 
best Federal cooperation that is too often slow to come, we are not 
even able to develop our clean hydropower.
  Some may ask: Well, I understand that you have about 25 percent of 
your power in the State of Alaska coming from hydro. That is correct. 
But because of other Federal policies--whether it is the roadless rule 
or other policies--we are truly hamstrung in our ability to build out 
more hydro. Based on more than 50 years of delay or broken Federal 
promises, there is no guarantee that we will be able to develop

[[Page 9519]]

fully our abundant natural gas or even our vast renewable resource 
potential.
  We have challenges and we acknowledge them. We are working on those 
challenges. We are working diligently because there is nobody who wants 
to get reliable, affordable, clean diverse energy supplies to our State 
more honestly and earnestly than myself. But it is challenging. So as 
we work towards that transition, we need that flexibility. We need that 
time.
  Now the EPA has suggested a series of strategies for reducing 
greenhouse gas emissions. But of the five powerplants in Alaska that 
are directly impacted by this proposed rule, four are natural-gas-fired 
plants, and they are located near each other and Anchorage. So in the 
whole State of Alaska there are only five plants that are impacted by 
this regulation. Everything else is small enough or doesn't sell its 
power. So of the five, four of them are already natural gas. The fifth 
already has clean coal technology. The proposed strategies of switching 
to natural gas, dispatch changes or retiring plants are really just 
unworkable given the configuration we have in my State. Given that we 
live in this polar vortex every winter--everywhere is polar vortex in 
Alaska--many of our houses are well insulated to protect from the cold. 
So efficiency programs will provide comparatively small gains.
  Having said that, I know that we can and must do more when it comes 
to efficiencies, and I will continue to push on that because that is an 
area where I think we can make a difference. But trying to get to this 
26-percent reduction is a challenge. I am still canvassing my State, 
but it will be difficult for Alaska to reach our 26-percent emissions 
reduction without serious economic impact.
  Electricity is already more expensive in Alaska than in most of the 
rest of the Nation. We have to reduce these prices, not engage in 
policies that will raise those prices even higher. In the lower 48 
States, on average, an American family spends a little over 4 percent 
of their household budget towards their energy--keeping the lights on 
and keeping the house warm or cool--depending on the season. In many 
parts of my State of Alaska we have households that pay between 40 and 
50 percent of their household budget to stay warm and to keep the 
lights on. So I am looking at this very, very critically. While I want 
to ensure that our air is clean, that we are working to reduce health 
risks, we don't have any room in Alaska to increase our energy costs. 
We have to be working aggressively with one another to reduce those 
costs.
  So I look at the proposal that has come out from the EPA this week, 
and I am very concerned about how a State such as mine will achieve the 
level that the EPA has imposed on it without extraordinary increases to 
cost.
  Some have labeled this recent EPA proposed regulation ObamaCare 2.0, 
and in many ways it is. The administration insists that there will be 
no cost increases associated with this rule. All we are missing here is 
an awful Web site and a pledge that if you like your current 
electricity bill, you can keep it. The President promises the 
electricity bills will shrink, but I am not buying that. The Wall 
Street Journal has rightly labeled this a huge tax on the poor and the 
middle class, and no one understands what will happen if States perhaps 
refuse to move forward with their own plans. Again, you have to ask the 
question: Does anybody really think that the EPA has the ability to 
impose its Federal will while simultaneously keeping the lights on and 
keeping power affordable to all 50 States?
  Despite negative economic growth last quarter and despite far better 
approaches pending in Congress to promote energy efficiency and energy 
innovation, such as an energy efficiency bill that my colleague from 
Ohio has been working doggedly to try to advance--a measure that I 
think is smart and sound and built on good policy--to not only help 
States like mine but all across the country, we do have some good 
proposals out there. We have initiatives we can move forward. But 
instead the President has decided to push ahead and to propose sweeping 
new regulations on our still weak economy.
  We must keep costs and reliability in mind as regulatory mandates 
push more and more baseload coal plants offline. FERC must be the 
unambiguous champion of reliability with a formal and a documented role 
with respect to EPA's rulemaking process. Powerful regulatory laws must 
be judicially administered, and only Congress--not the EPA--should 
decide such consequential changes for our energy supply, our economy, 
and our people. I think anything less is unacceptable and could very 
well yield significant negative consequences for a wide variety of 
American families and our businesses.
  I thank the Presiding Officer for her attention and the opportunity 
to discuss a very important issue for our entire country.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Markey). The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I commend my colleague from Alaska, who 
is the ranking member, and thank her for her hard work. She mentioned 
the energy efficiency bill. I know she strongly supports that bill, and 
I hope it will come back to the floor. It is a more logical way to get 
at some of these issues.
  I come to the floor to follow up on the conversation I had earlier 
with Senator Landrieu. She and I announced earlier this afternoon that 
we were going to offer unanimous consent in the Senate on bipartisan 
and noncontroversial legislation. I had hoped Senator Landrieu would 
come back to the floor, but apparently she can't, so I will offer this 
on behalf of both of us.


   Directing the Secretary of the Interior to Install a World War II 
                            Memorial Plaque

  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, as if in 
legislative session, that the Senate proceed to the immediate 
consideration of Calendar No. 339, S. 1044.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1044) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to 
     install in the area of the World War II Memorial in the 
     District of Columbia a suitable plaque or an inscription with 
     the words that President Franklin D. Roosevelt prayed with 
     the United States on D-day, June 6, 1944.

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be 
read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered 
made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The bill (S. 1044) was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, 
was read the third time, and passed, as follows:

                                S. 1044

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``World War II Memorial Prayer 
     Act of 2013''.

     SEC. 2. PLACEMENT OF PLAQUE OR INSCRIPTION AT WORLD WAR II 
                   MEMORIAL.

       The Secretary of the Interior--
       (1) shall install in the area of the World War II Memorial 
     in the District of Columbia a suitable plaque or an 
     inscription with the words that President Franklin D. 
     Roosevelt prayed with the United States on June 6, 1944, the 
     morning of D-Day;
       (2) shall design, procure, prepare, and install the plaque 
     or inscription referred to in paragraph (1); and
       (3) may not use Federal funds to prepare or install the 
     plaque or inscription referred to in paragraph (1), but may 
     accept and expend private contributions for this purpose.

     SEC. 3. COMMEMORATIVE WORKS ACT.

       Chapter 89 of title 40, United States Code (commonly known 
     as the ``Commemorative Works Act''), shall apply to the 
     design and placement of the plaque within the area of the 
     World War II Memorial.


                                 D-day

  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, the clerk just read part of the 
description of this legislation, and I thank this body on both sides of 
the aisle for working with us.
  Tomorrow we mark a momentous occasion. It is the 70th anniversary of 
D-day. It is a day, of course, that will go down in history as one of 
the greatest naval invasions in the history of our country but also a 
day when we lost

[[Page 9520]]

many brave American soldiers and one where the country came together to 
pray for them and give them the strength they would need not just on 
that D-day but to go through Europe to ultimately vanquish the Nazis 
and liberate that continent.
  On that day, 70 years ago tomorrow, Franklin D. Roosevelt decided not 
to give a speech at the White House but instead to give a prayer for 
the troops and for the Nation. This body has just passed legislation to 
make that prayer a part of the World War II Memorial. That prayer will 
help to give it some additional context and interpretation at a 
critical time. The prayer helps us look at our history and shows how 
our country came together at a critical time. It is a very powerful 
prayer. My dad was a World War II veteran, and I always found it to be 
one of the most moving prayers in our Nation's history.
  I will mention a couple of aspects of this prayer. President 
Roosevelt explained--I thought in very powerful words--why America 
fought. When talking about the troops, he said:

       They will be sore tried, by night and by day, without 
     rest--until the victory is won. The darkness will be rent by 
     noise and flame. Men's souls will be shaken with the 
     violences of war.
       For these men are lately drawn from the ways of peace. They 
     fight not for the lust of conquest. They fight to end 
     conquest. They fight to liberate. They fight to let justice 
     arise, and tolerance and goodwill among all Thy people. They 
     yearn but for the end of battle, for their return to the 
     haven of home.

  That is why we fight.
  Again, I think that prayer is an important part of our history but 
also an important message for us even today.
  The prayer also includes a number of other very powerful messages 
that brought the Nation together in a single day for prayer and 
thanksgiving. It asks for God's help in a number of ways, and one that 
I think is particularly poignant is where it asks God to give us the 
ability to deepen our faith.
  It says:

       And, O Lord, give us faith. Give us faith in Thee, faith in 
     our sons; faith in each other . . .

  Again, I appreciate the work of Senator Landrieu and, before her, 
Senator Lieberman, who was the original cosponsor with me on this 
legislation.
  I thank my friends from Ohio, the Christian Alliance, and others who 
have brought this to my attention over the years.
  I thank my colleagues in the House, who passed this legislation last 
year with a resounding vote. I hope they will take up this legislation 
and pass it again in the House this year so we can indeed move to have 
this inscription placed in the World War II Memorial in order to remind 
us of a day in our Nation's history where our country did come together 
and where we, as Americans--not as conquerors but as liberators--
provided for the liberation of a continent and established this 
precedent for our country that with God so much is possible.
  I yield back my time and note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Veterans Care

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, there is good news for America's veterans 
this afternoon. Senator McCain and Senator Sanders, the chairman of the 
Veterans' Affairs Committee, have apparently come to a tentative 
agreement on what we should do to deal with some of the serious 
problems at the Veterans' Administration.
  We know a couple of things. First of all, we know that health care in 
the veterans hospitals, in the VA system, in the community-based 
clinics in places such as Akron and Canton and Youngstown and 
Springfield and Mansfield and the care in the big hospitals, such as 
Wade Park and Dayton, is superb and there is overwhelming support among 
veterans for the care they have earned and deserve and are getting. The 
problem is getting access to that care in a number of cases. Too many 
veterans have waited too long, been forced to wait too long to get the 
medical care and the medical treatment they need.
  That is a product, frankly, of a historically underfunded VA. We know 
a decade ago, when the President a decade ago--more than a decade ago--
and the Senate and the House took the country to war the Veterans' 
Administration funding was put pretty flat. There was no real 
preparation by the Congress, by the President--then President Bush--and 
by the VA to scale up veterans' capacity, the VA capacity, veterans' 
health care--not enough nurses, not enough doctors, not enough health 
care personnel, not enough capacity at the VA health care system to 
take care of the surging numbers of soldiers coming home, sailors 
coming home, marines coming home, air men and women coming home.
  We also know at the same time what happened with Agent Orange, and 
the Agent Orange presumptive eligibility. As Vietnam veterans were 
beginning to get sicker, were beginning to show more and more symptoms, 
the government made the right decision, Congress made the right 
decision, if a soldier had boots on the ground, they were eligible. If 
a soldier had an illness defined by the law that was connected to Agent 
Orange, then they were presumed to be eligible. They didn't have to go 
back and prove they were actually exposed at a certain place at a 
certain time in Vietnam. All of those were good things, as our country, 
our government, our VA, embraced war, men and women, to get the VA care 
they earned.
  The bad news was Congress and the President didn't prepare for it a 
decade ago as this surge of new people, the veterans coming home, 
veterans living here for a number of years after doing their service, 
that they could get the health care they needed. That is the reason we 
have had these long delays.
  There are certainly issues of leadership within the VA. There are 
issues of administrators not doing their jobs. They should be held 
accountable. They should pay a price for that--sometimes termination, 
certainly disciplinary action if shown to have failed to live up to 
their responsibilities ethically and efficiently and correctly and 
responsibly.
  It is clear this new agreement will take us forward. It will mean a 
couple of things. One, it means those administrators, those VA 
officials who didn't do their jobs, will be held accountable. Secondly, 
and most importantly, it will mean veterans who have had long delays or 
who live in rural areas and simply can't get the coverage, can't get to 
the VA clinic, the community-based outpatient clinic or the VA 
hospital, the VA center, if they can't get that health care treatment 
today, or soon, they can go to a private hospital, they can go to a 
community-based health clinic and get the coverage, get the care they 
need at no cost to the veteran.
  The third thing is, to make up for the neglect of a decade ago that 
we have tried to remedy by almost doubling the VA budget over the last 
5 years to take care of all these people who are now in the system who 
have suffered much more serious illness and disability than the 
veterans of a generation ago who might have died on the battlefield 
from these same injuries, that we scale up the training of doctors and 
nurses in these VA facilities.
  There has been an agreement reached among a group of us on the 
veterans committee and both parties that we will fund a number of new 
facilities around the country as we train more doctors and nurses and 
other health care personnel--physical therapists, occupational 
therapists, and others.
  At a time of not particularly good news for veterans over the last 
few weeks and really over the last few months, this is good news. This 
will make for a better VA. We know the VA is a huge health care system, 
with 85 million veteran visits, patient visits to the VA over the last 
year and 8 million different veterans have used the VA over the last 12 
months. We have to make sure we do our jobs as Senators and Members of 
Congress and in the White House to take care of our veterans. For those 
who served us, it is time we served our veterans.

[[Page 9521]]

  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.


                           D-day Anniversary

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the 70th anniversary 
of the heroic landings of D-day.
  The incredible bravery exhibited on June 6 of 1944, in the first 
phase of Operation Overlord to liberate Western Europe from the 
clutches of Nazi Germany, is one of the defining moments of modern 
history.
  The images of American GIs landing at Omaha Beach, Utah Beach, and 
Pointe du Hoc have come to represent not only the great sacrifices made 
during World War II, but the enduring cause of freedom for which the 
United States still stands.
  I have had the humbling experience of visiting the American cemetery 
at Normandy that honors those who fell during the invasion. As I walked 
the peaceful fields of brilliant white headstones in perfect formation, 
it was hard to imagine the terrifying landscape that greeted those 
American and allied soldiers, many of them not yet 20 years old, when 
they lowered the ramps of their landing craft in the shallows off of 
Normandy. Yet they understood the importance of their mission, and they 
held fast against one of the greatest evils the world has ever faced, 
and they prevailed.
  The men and women who answered the call to serve in World War II and 
those who supported them on the home front are often revered as the 
``greatest generation,'' and deservedly so. They gave up their lives 
and their livelihoods and endured separation from their loved ones and 
fought in unspeakable conditions.
  From the beaches of Normandy to the islands of the Pacific, where my 
father served as a Navy pilot, the United States and allied forces 
fought for freedom and for the dignity of mankind, and we owe them a 
tremendous debt of gratitude.
  As we honor the memory of those who served before us, we honor their 
legacy by upholding the values for which they fought.
  We are here today because of the immense burdens our men and women in 
uniform have carried on our behalf. May we never forget their 
sacrifices or the solemn responsibility we have to all of those who 
have answered the call to serve.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


               Tribute to Navajo Code Talker Chester Nez

  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, my State of New Mexico has a 
great tradition of military service. When the Nation has called, New 
Mexico has always answered. Today I wanted to say a few words to 
remember Chester Nez, the last of the original 29 Navajo code talkers 
of World War II.
  Mr. Nez passed away Wednesday morning in Albuquerque, NM. We are 
forever indebted to him and his fellow warriors. They turned the Navajo 
language into an unbelievable code, using the language they were 
forbidden to speak in school, as a weapon to defend our freedoms in 
war, freedoms they themselves did not always enjoy. This is a great 
story of courage, of love of country, of tremendous sacrifice. In 
battle after battle in ferocious combat, the Navajo code saved 
countless lives and helped secure the allied victory. In 2001, the 
original code talkers received the Congressional Gold Medal, the 
highest honor the Congress can give.
  Our former colleague, Senator Jeff Bingaman, fought hard for this. I 
was pleased to push for it in the House. It was richly deserved and 
long overdue. Mr. Nez was there for the ceremony, and the Presiding 
Officer, who was in the House with me, may remember we had that 
ceremony in the Capitol Rotunda. It was a great and uplifting day to 
finally see the Navajo code talkers receive their medals.
  I said then what I continue to feel now: Their service can never be 
forgotten and can never be diminished. Chester Nez was modest in his 
own life but proud of the code talkers and proud of the Navajo 
traditions. In his later years, he visited schools and colleges all 
across the Nation to tell the story of those Navajo code talkers.
  In his memoir, written with Judith Avila, he said:

       I recommended myself that my Navajo people had always been 
     warriors, protectors. In that there was honor. I would 
     concentrate on being a warrior, on protecting my homeland.

  As we mark Chester's passing, we honor his memory with a renewed 
dedication to preserve our Native languages, to keep alive the story of 
our code talkers, the heroic story of the Navajo, and also of other 
Native American tribes, their codes and their commitment forever 
unbroken.
  Today we say goodbye to this great hero, this humble man who served 
our country with such devotion. We say goodbye with sadness but also 
with appreciation for a debt that can never be fully repaid, for 
courage that will forever inspire, and for a life that truly made a 
difference.
  Chester, you made a real difference in our lives. I would just say to 
Chester's family, we send them our heartfelt condolences.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Heitkamp). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Farewell to Pages

  Mr. REID. As we leave for the week, I wanted to say something on the 
record regarding the pages. They are going to graduate tomorrow morning 
at 10 a.m. I look forward to these graduations every year. These are 
fine young men and women who come here and spend a semester of school 
with us.
  This is a tradition we have been doing for a long time. Two of my 
grandchildren were pages, and even though my family has been involved 
in government through me for all these many years, they were never 
exposed to it like coming here and being pages. It really changed their 
lives, and I am sure some of these young men and women's lives have 
been changed also.
  I can remember when I was about their age and I went to Boys State 
and the friends I made at that weeklong program--friends I still have. 
These young men and women--friends they make here, they will have for 
the rest of their lives.
  These boys and girls are not the summer pages. We have two classes of 
summer pages, and they are here for a month, and that is it. These 
young men and women are here for a semester, and the school is hard. It 
is not some kind of a lark back in Washington. They studied hard. We 
look for good students, and that is what we get. They get up early in 
the morning, they go to school, and they come here and try to learn 
more about government. They really get to know us, personalities. Some 
of us are nicer to them than others. They recognize that.
  I congratulate these pages because they are an integral part of what 
goes on around here. They really do things that are hard. We don't ask 
them to write dissertations, at least here in the Senate; for the 
school, they do that. But they run bills around the Capitol Complex, 
and they help us on some of the more mundane things we take for 
granted.
  I really look forward to meeting them. I try to meet all the pages 
every year. Sometimes I don't get to meet all of the Republican pages, 
but I try. I want them to know that even though they won't hear from 
every one of us, we all very much appreciate what they do.
  Today is their last day here, as I mentioned. I thank them for their 
service, and I hope their slight glance into the government will be 
something that will cause them to be involved in government.
  As for young men and women, the Presiding Officer in this body has 
had a

[[Page 9522]]

great political career. She has held a number of statewide offices in 
the State of North Dakota. In all of what we do in life, there are 
disappointments that come. She would have been the Governor of the 
State of North Dakota, but she was stricken with breast cancer, which, 
I understand, messed up her campaign. But she came back and as a real 
underdog decided to run for the Senate, and she won. She has made a 
tremendous difference in this body. I hope each of you can look around 
here and see people, such as the Presiding Officer, whom you would like 
to be like someday.
  When I first came to this body--I say to these young women 
especially--Barbara Mikulski was a Senator from Maryland. I came with 
her to the Senate, and she was the woman. That was it. And now, I 
couldn't help but smile earlier this week because a number of women--
seven or eight women--had congregated here, and one of the Senators 
said to me--a female Senator said: Look, many of us wore turquoise 
today. And it was so bright and the clothes looked so vibrant and added 
so much to this body.
  So it used to be boys, that the Senators we had here, with rare 
exception, were men, but that is not the way it is anymore. And I can 
speak from experience--the Senate is a much better place because of the 
input of women. Men and women are different. They have different views 
and outlooks on life. As a result of that, this is a much better place.
  I can remember a number of years ago when I looked here on the 
floor--I was whip at that time, taking care of the floor--it was 
stunning to me, on the military construction bill, appropriations bill, 
two women were running it. Kay Bailey Hutchison, a Republican from 
Texas, was the ranking member, and Dianne Feinstein from California was 
the chair of that committee, determining billions of dollars for 
construction of military facilities around the world. So things have 
changed a great deal. You have been part of watching this great change 
take place, young men and women. Thank you for your service here, and I 
hope someday some of you will be serving in this august body.

                          ____________________