[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 13401-13406]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    PROHIBITING FEDERAL FUNDING OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF 
                       AMERICA--MOTION TO PROCEED

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 
169, S. 1881.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 169, S. 1881, a bill to 
     prohibit Federal funding of Planned Parenthood Federation of 
     America.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to S. 1881, a bill to prohibit Federal funding of 
     Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
         Mitch McConnell, James M. Inhofe, Rand Paul, Pat Roberts, 
           Ben Sasse, James Lankford, Joni Ernst, Daniel Coats, 
           Cory Gardner, Steve Daines, Roger F. Wicker, Johnny 
           Isakson, Lindsey Graham, Michael B. Enzi, Jerry Moran, 
           Tim Scott, John Cornyn.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.


                            The Highway Bill

  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I know the Senator from California, Mrs. 
Boxer, and I both want to thank a lot of people who worked very hard. 
People don't realize how many people are involved. Quite frankly, a 
little bit of guilt always comes to me, because this is my sixth 
highway reauthorization bill, and it always ends up that I don't work 
as long as all the staff works. They are up many nights until midnight 
and many nights all night long.
  This was a good bill. It was tough doing it. From this point forward, 
we have the opportunity to send it to the House. I have already had 
communication with some of the House Members who do want a multiyear 
bill. The staffs are working together as we speak to pull it together 
so we can pass one and get out of this long string of short-term 
extensions. They don't serve any useful purpose.
  I wish to mention the names and to get them in the Record of those 
people who really put in the long hours. In my office is Alex Herrgott. 
He has been with me--we have been together, I guess--over a dozen 
years. He is the leader on our side. He put together a great team, 
including Shant Boyajian, who is the guy who was the transportation 
expert on our end, and he did a great job. We have had others just 
about as good as he is in the past, but they all sweat. This guy 
doesn't do it. He does it with a smile on his face. We have Chaya 
Koffman. She came with incredible experience. We couldn't have done it 
without her. It is equally important to thank David Napoliello and 
Andrew Dohrman. David and Andrew work for Senator Boxer and are experts 
within the office, working on this alongside our staff.
  It is kind of interesting because Senator Boxer and I can't get any 
further apart philosophically. She is a very proud liberal, and I am a 
very proud conservative. We would be fighting like cats and dogs over 
these regulations that are putting Americans out of business. But, 
today, we think alike, and we are working together. I am so proud of 
her staff working with my staff.
  Bettina. There is Bettina, and she is probably the No. 1 hard working 
person, sitting in the back here on that side, and whom we really 
appreciate. Some days I don't appreciate her, but I have all during 
this process.
  So many others have made contributions to the success today. It is 
important to thank on my staff Susan Bodine, for her work on 
environmental provisions, and also Jennie Wright and Andrew Neely. I 
wish to thank my communications team, including Donelle Harder, Daisy 
Letendre, and Kristina Baum. They have to get the message out as to 
what we are doing, how significant it is.
  People who are witnessing this today are witnessing the most popular 
bill of this entire year. We can go back to any of the 50 States, and 
they are all going to say the one thing we want is a transportation 
system. It is not just that they want this bill. This is what the 
Constitution says we are supposed to

[[Page 13402]]

be doing. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution says to defend 
America and provide for roads and bridges, and that is what we 
accomplished today.
  There are some others outside of our committee I want to thank: 
Chairman Hatch, Chairman Thune, Chairman Shelby, and their staffs, 
including Chris Campbell, Mark Prater, David Schweitert, Shannon Hines, 
and Jen Deci. I want to thank our leader, Mitch McConnell, who really 
came through to put this at top priority. Without that priority, we 
couldn't have done it. I know Sharon Soderstrom, Hazen Marshall, Neil 
Chatterjee, Jonathan Burks, and Brendan Dunn were all involved.
  If my colleagues would just permit me, 10 years ago today is the last 
time we passed a significant, multiyear bill. I remember standing right 
here at this podium, right when this moment came, and it was time to 
thank all of these people who worked so hard. All of a sudden the 
sirens went off and the buzzers--evacuate, evacuate; bomb, bomb. 
Everyone left, but I hadn't made my speech yet. So I stood there and 
made it longer than I probably should have. There is nothing more eerie 
than standing here in the Chamber when nobody else is here and 
everybody else is gone. After a while, I thought that I had better get 
out of here.
  As I walked out the front door and down the long steps--they had 
already shut off the elevators and all of that; it was dark--I saw a 
bulk of a man walking away very slowly. I saw that it was Ted Kennedy. 
I said: Ted, we better get out of here; this place might blow up.
  He said: Well, these old legs don't work like they used to.
  So I said: Here, put your arm around my shoulders. And I put my arm 
out to steady him. Someone took our picture. It was in a magazine, and 
it said: Who said that Republicans are not compassionate.
  I always think of that when I think of these bills. I say to my 
friend, Senator Boxer, with whom I have worked so closely during this 
time--and I actually enjoyed it: Any time we get a coalition between 
your philosophy and my philosophy, it has to be right. It was, and it 
is over.
  I yield the floor to Senator Boxer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, my friend and I have long worked 
together on infrastructure, and we did it this time under very 
difficult conditions. I would say to him that with his leadership on 
EPW, going to a markup, proving to the rest of the Senate that, in 
fact, our committee could work together, we got a 20-to-nothing vote. 
As a result of that, and as my friend has often said, our committee is 
really responsible for about 70 to 75 percent of the funding. So we 
were the key committee, and we proved that we could work together.
  It was a little tougher on the other committees. That is when it took 
Leader McConnell's leadership, Senator Durbin's leadership, and we came 
together.
  But I must say that those top staffers from Senator Inhofe's team, 
McConnell's team, Boxer's team, including Bettina Poirier, Neil 
Chatterjee, and Alex Herrgott really--friendships forged--worked on, 
and it was a pleasure to work with them. I will never forget this as 
long as I live. This has been a highlight of my career, and I have been 
here a very long time.
  I want to thank Andrew Dohrmann, David Napoliello, Tyler Rushforth, 
Jason Albritton, Ted Illston, Mary Kerr, Kate Gilman, Colin MacCarthy, 
and Kathryn Backer in addition to Bettina, on my team. I want to thank 
Ryan Jackson, Shant Boyajian, Susan Bodine, Andrew Neely, and Chaya 
Koffman, along with Alex, on the Inhofe team. I want to thank Alyssa 
Fisher on the Durbin team. I want to thank Shannon Hines, Jennifer 
Deci, and Homer Carlisle on the Banking Committee team. I want to thank 
Kim Lipsky so much. What a job she did for Bill Nelson, and her team, 
Devon Barnhart and Matt Kelly, and Dave Schweitert on the Thune team.
  Notice we said ``team.'' This was about teamwork. This was not about 
me, me, me or I, I, I. It was all of us in friendship, in sincerity. We 
never surprised each other. When we couldn't do this, something 
happened, we would tell each other, and we never left the room until we 
figured it out.
  I will have more to write about this and say about it because truly 
these moments don't happen often around here. In my career this will 
stand out as truly spectacular--spectacular--the people who were so 
dedicated, and my friendship with my friend is just extraordinary. It 
stood the test of time. My new collegiality with Mitch McConnell, which 
has not existed until now, this is a miraculous thing that has 
happened.
  One of the things I have learned in life is it goes so fast and 
sometimes you don't mark those special moments. This moment will be 
forever marked with me and with my friends.
  We now are going to look forward to working with our friends in the 
House. We are going to infuse our spirit over there. We are going to 
make sure they know we can work together and be friends, and it has 
already started, as Alex has stated today.
  So we are ready for the next phase, the next step. What is most 
important? We are going to make sure we have infrastructure that works 
for this Nation; that you and I, Jim, don't have to stand here and show 
tragic photos, bridge collapses, and hear terrible stories about 
construction workers who can't make it and have to have food stamps, 
and businessmen who have literally cried in my office because they have 
no certainty, they can't function, and they may have to shut down. This 
is not what we want.
  We did the right thing for the country. It wasn't about us--we were 
the ones who made it happen--it was about America, and I couldn't be 
more proud.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                 Remembering Reverend Clementa Pinckney

  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, before I start my prepared remarks, I did 
want to note that today would have been the birthday of Pastor Reverend 
Clementa Pinckney, a friend of mine, who was the pastor of Emanuel 9, 
the Emanuel Church, the Mother Emanuel Church in Charleston, SC. Today 
being his birthday, I thought it would be a good opportunity to share 
with the public that we miss him. We thank God for the family and the 
amazing roles they have played in South Carolina and around this 
country.
  Certainly, as we tackle issues going forward, I think we should keep 
in mind, bear in mind, the civility, the grace, and the compassion we 
saw from Reverend Pinckney and the way he tackled issues with such an 
important ingredient to keeping our communities together.
  I hope as we discuss other challenging issues, we will have an 
opportunity to remember that civility, that notion that we are better 
together. The desire to build a bridge should be seen and displayed in 
the public forum as we discuss issues that sometimes pull at the very 
fabric of who we are as a nation.


                 Safer Officers and Safer Citizens Act
                                of 2015

  Mr. President, I rise to offer a solution. I will tell you solutions 
are hard to find at times, but today I think I have found a solution 
that will help law enforcement officers and our citizens go home 
safely. That solution is body-worn cameras to be worn by our law 
enforcement officers throughout this country. Just yesterday, in 
Cincinnati, we were unfortunately given yet another example of how 
important body cameras are when they are worn by law enforcement 
officers.
  We, those of us who viewed the video, watched in disbelief as the 
officer shot the driver in the head. Difficult, difficult video to 
watch. Cincinnati officials said in their investigation of the death of 
Samuel Dubose, after being shot by the University of Cincinnati police 
officer, that body camera footage was invaluable. I want to say that

[[Page 13403]]

one more time; that the police chief said, without any question, what 
allowed them to find conclusion, to actually arrest the officer, was 
the presence of a video that was undeniable.
  Unfortunately, we have seen too many of these incidents around the 
country. I will tell you that I struggle with this issue sometimes 
because I have so many good friends who are officers, who serve the 
public every single day with honor, with dignity, and amazing 
distinction. I am talking about guys and young ladies who put on the 
uniform with pride. I see that pride as I walk through the 
neighborhoods as I talk to folks.
  So many of our officers serve this Nation, serve their communities so 
well, keeping all of us safe, but sometimes, and too often we have seen 
recently, the videos suggest we have to take a deeper look. Our 
citizens deserve for us to take that deeper look. I think that without 
any question a body-worn camera will protect the public, but it will 
also protect the officer. That is why I am here today.
  I have said a couple of times that if they say a picture is worth a 
thousand words, then a video is worth a thousand pictures. Let me say 
that one more time. If a picture is worth a thousand words, then a 
video is worth a thousand pictures. I believe strongly that an 
important piece of the puzzle to help rebuild trust with our law 
enforcement officers and the communities they serve is body-worn 
cameras.
  I say it is only one piece of that very important puzzle because I do 
not know that there is a single solution. I have looked for a panacea, 
but I do not know if there is a panacea. As a matter of fact, I think 
there is not a panacea, but there are many critical steps we must take 
to tackle an array of issues confronting the distressed communities and 
challenging circumstances, whether it is poverty, criminal justice 
reform or, as we have seen on the video, instances of police brutality.
  With body cameras, we have seen some amazing studies. At least one 
study has confirmed there is a 90-percent drop in complaints against 
officers. That is an astounding number, a 90-percent drop in complaints 
against officers. The same study shows there is a 60-percent drop in 
the use of force by officers. This should be good news for everyone on 
every side of the issue--if there are sides of the issue. I would 
suggest there are not sides to this issue.
  There is not a Republican side, there is not a Democratic side, there 
is not a Black side, there is not a White side, there is only a right 
side and a wrong side. If we can find ourselves in a position where 
officers go home at night to a loving family, arms wide open, and 
citizens within the community go home at night to loving families and 
warm embraces, that perhaps the body-worn camera by officers will make 
this happen more every day someplace in our country.
  With those sorts of numbers, how can we not figure out the best way 
to get these devices into the hands of our police officers? This does 
not even touch on the fact that when we ended up with the video, a very 
unfortunate video, on April 4, this year, my hometown, North 
Charleston, SC--a video of Walter Scott being shot in the back, it 
helped bring clarity to an incredibly painful situation.
  That is why, after months of meetings with dozens of police 
organizations, civil rights groups, privacy groups, and others, 
yesterday I introduced the Safer Officers and Safer Citizens Act of 
2015. My goal is simple. It is to simply provide local and State law 
enforcement agencies with the resources to equip their officers with 
body-worn cameras. My legislation creates a dedicated grant program, 
fully paid for--I know there are those in the Senate, such as myself, 
who like those words ``fully paid for''--to help local law enforcement 
agencies purchase body cameras.
  I am opposed, very opposed, to any notion that we should federalize 
in any way, shape or form local law enforcement. I believe local law 
enforcement should be in charge of local law enforcement and State law 
enforcement should be in charge of State law enforcement. But if we can 
provide some tools, some resources, to make sure the situation I 
described earlier from a positive standpoint of an officer going home 
to their house and members of the community going home to their houses 
after having an interaction, if there is a solution and/or an 
opportunity to see that happen more often, we should go there.
  My grant program would provide $100 million over the next 5 fiscal 
years: $100 million each year, 2016 through 2021, and only requires a 
simple 25-percent match. It certainly suggests that we will give 
preferences to departments that are applying for grants. They will need 
to have their own policies in place regarding data retention, privacy 
requirements, and other areas because I believe local and State 
departments, as I have said, can best determine their own procedures 
around the body cameras.
  As States and localities around the country implement body-worn 
camera programs, I believe this is the best way we can help--not take 
over but provide that seed capital, the resources to start a brand-new 
conversation all over the country about how many lives have been saved, 
how many folks get to go home.
  I will say this on some other points. I had the privilege of speaking 
at the graduation of who I call my brother, who is the son of my 
mentor, John Moniz, who helped change my life when I was a kid on the 
wrong course for a long time--I had the privilege of speaking at Brian 
Moniz's graduation from the police academy just 2 years ago, July 18--a 
couple of years ago. He is an amazing young man who wants to serve his 
community. His brother Philip is also a fellow sheriff's deputy.
  So when I think about the words I am speaking today, I don't think 
about it in legislative terms, I think about it in terms of real places 
and real people, such as my brothers and others who want to serve the 
country. But I also think about it in terms of real people who have 
suffered through those violent interactions.
  I am thankful that cosponsors such as Senator Lindsey Graham of South 
Carolina and Cory Booker of New Jersey have joined me in making sure we 
start the conversation that I hope to continue with Senator Grassley on 
this important topic.
  I ask that we all remember the words of Mrs. Judy Scott, the mother 
of Walter Scott, who lost her son in my hometown of North Charleston. I 
have had the chance to speak to her on a number of occasions since the 
incident. She has taught me a lot. She has taught me the power of 
forgiveness. Very quickly afterward she showed no animus toward the 
officer. She was praying for the officer. She forgave the officer. But 
her request to me was a very simple request. It was simply that no more 
mothers have to unnecessarily bury their sons the way she did. That is 
a very simple request.
  I think my body camera legislation will help us achieve that goal. I 
believe this legislation will protect citizens and law enforcement 
officers. It will bridge the gap that seems to be growing in some 
communities around the country. It will provide resources without 
taking over local law enforcement. I believe this is critically 
important, and the sooner we get there, the better off our Nation will 
be.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.


                       Trans-Pacific Partnership

  Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, as we speak, there are American trade 
negotiators in Hawaii from the Pacific Rim and South America 
negotiating the final terms of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP.
  I rise today to speak about an element of those negotiations which I 
find troubling and which I believe, if it goes on its current path, 
will produce a gross injustice that will be harmful to American job 
creators and could potentially threaten the passage or ratification of 
the TPP.
  I understand that the current proposal of the Trans-Pacific 
Partnership calls for discriminatory treatment of tobacco--specifically 
singling out an entire industry. It is an industry that is vitally 
important to my home State of North Carolina. Tobacco continues

[[Page 13404]]

to be vitally important among North Carolinian agricultural exports, 
and the only path to sustaining this industry is to preserve the place 
for the American leaf in the world. The industry supports more than 
22,000 jobs in North Carolina, my home State.
  I rise today to defend farmers, manufacturers, and exporters from 
discriminatory treatment in our trade agreements. Today it happens to 
be tobacco, but I will do this for any crop for as long as I am in the 
Senate. I am well aware that many States aren't touched by tobacco 
farming or tobacco product manufacturing, but this is not just about 
tobacco; this is about American values and fairness.
  I believe free trade is good, and a balanced free trade benefits all 
parties. For those who think free trade is bad for America, I don't 
agree. When America and Americans compete on a level playing field, we 
win the vast majority of the time. It is what we do.
  But the United States, over the years, has tried to do more with 
these agreements than just haggle for market access and tariff 
productions. Over the past 30 years, the United States has commonly 
negotiated what is called the investor-state dispute settlement--or 
ISDS--language in a number of international agreements. The ISDS 
provisions are fairly simple. They give someone who believes their 
trade agreement rights have been violated by another government trading 
partner the ability to bring a claim against that government before an 
international arbitration panel.
  All kinds of offenses can be addressed through the ISDS process--
protecting American-owned businesses by requiring our trading partners 
to meet minimum standards of treatment under international law; 
protecting American-owned businesses from having their property taken 
away without payment or adequate compensation; and protecting American-
owned businesses from discriminatory, unfair, or arbitrary treatment. 
That is a fundamental protection. If these sound like American ideals, 
it is because they are. American ingenuity, combined with these values 
and ideals, has produced the world's greatest economy, the American 
economy.
  Regions of the world that do not share the same views of due process, 
equality under the law, and protection of private property rights would 
do well to follow our model. It will make them a better trading 
partner, and it will help their economies thrive.
  Yet, even the U.S. negotiators apparently want to be selective in 
applying these ideals, and that is really the root of the concern I 
have with the discussions going on now in Hawaii. We cannot afford to 
be selective when it comes to fairness. Our negotiators have concluded 
that while some investors are entitled to equal treatment under the 
law, others aren't. It is odd to me that this would be the posture of 
any nation, but it is particularly troubling that this is the current 
posture of the negotiators who were responsible for negotiating the 
Trans-Pacific Partnership.
  It is ironic that the ideal of equal treatment and due process is 
being peddled with our trading partners as equal treatment and due 
process for everyone but some members of the minority. So let's say, my 
fellow Senators, that you are not from a State that is harmed by the 
current negotiations. You may feel comfortable that this could never 
happen to you, to a sector in your State's economy, but I believe you 
should be worried. The current proposal on the TPP creates an entirely 
new precedent, a precedent that will no doubt become the norm for 
future trade agreements where the negotiators get to pick and choose 
winners and losers and American businesses and American industries will 
suffer as a result. Once we allow an entire sector to be treated 
unfairly in trade agreements, the question is, Who is next?
  I hold a sincere belief that unfair treatment for one agricultural 
commodity significantly heightens the risk that more unfair treatment 
for another commodity lurks right around the corner.
  I have not spoken with a single organization, agricultural or 
otherwise, that believes this sets a good precedent--quite the 
contrary. I encourage my colleagues to speak to their State's 
agricultural community and simply ask them what they think about 
setting this kind of standard.
  To my fellow Senators--and, incidentally, I should say for those of 
you in the Gallery, we are working today; we are just outside of the 
Gallery. I know this is kind of like showing up at the zoo and one of 
your favorite animals being off of an exhibit. But they are out 
working; they will be back at about 1:45.
  To get back to the script, if you believe that this unfair treatment 
is OK because it is about tobacco and that it is a fair outcome, I 
think you ought to think again because I will remind you--and our 
fellow Senators need to understand this--that Congress has spoken on 
this issue. We exist to make sure we take care of the voice that may 
not be heard, the minority who may be cast aside because of some agenda 
or because of it just being an easy negotiating tactic.
  But in this particular case, Congress has spoken loudly. I will 
remind my Members that Congress has said opportunities for U.S. 
agricultural exports must be ``substantially equivalent to 
opportunities afforded foreign exports in U.S. markets.'' Now, with 
this trade agreement, if you have a trading partner agree with the 
behavior or decisions made in the United States, they are going to be 
subject to due process. But this trade agreement would actually allow 
our trading partners to not allow us to be held to that same standard 
in their country of jurisdiction and not go to international 
arbitration. Congress has stated that dispute settlement mechanisms 
must be available across the board, not selectively.
  I also voted to give the President trade promotion authority to allow 
trade agreements like the TPP to move through Congress in a quick, 
orderly, and responsible process. That is the process we are going 
through right now. I did not vote to give our negotiators the freedom 
to indiscriminately choose when fairness should be applied and when it 
shouldn't be applied. The Congress has already spoken. I hope you will 
at least share the expectation that our negotiations carry out our 
will.
  I applaud the efforts of the U.S. negotiators. I know it is difficult 
work, and I congratulate them for getting closer to completing the 
Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. I hope, however, that they will 
consider the risk of losing support for the Senate to ratify the 
agreement.
  In closing, I would offer this to anyone who believes my sticking up 
for tobacco or for equal treatment and American values is shortsighted: 
I want you to know that I would do this for any commodity, any 
category, and any industry. I hope our trade negotiators will work hard 
to ensure that American values are upheld in the final agreement they 
bring before Congress, and that goes for language in the entire 
agreement, even that which appears in the annexes and the footnotes.
  I, for one--and I think many of my colleagues--am concerned with the 
current status of the trade negotiations in this particular area. There 
are a number of good things in it. This needs to be worked out. And I 
will not support and I will work hard against any trade agreement that 
departs from our core values.


                          Veterans Health Care

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I wish to address the status of VA health 
care and the Department's current budget shortfall.
  I am grudgingly supporting the bill before this body to extend 
highway funding for 3 months and to provide budget transfer authority 
to VA because, without it, highway contracts in Vermont and all across 
the country will be halted and VA will be unable to provide health care 
services to our veterans. These initiatives are too important not to 
support, but I want to be on record as saying this is a very dangerous 
path to be treading down--playing politics with the VA's funding. It is 
disingenuous and is a disservice to the brave men and women who have 
served our country.
  On July 31, 2014, 1 year ago tomorrow, the Senate passed the Veterans

[[Page 13405]]

Access, Choice, and Accountability Act to address the crisis at the 
Department of Veterans Affairs. As chairman of the Veterans' Affairs 
Committee, one of my top priorities during the negotiation of that 
legislation was to ensure VA had the resources needed to prevent a 
similar crisis in the future.
  I believed then--and I believe now--that, overall, the Department of 
Veterans Affairs provides high-quality health care; health care that 
veterans consistently give high satisfaction scores. But the crisis at 
VA last year was real--too many veterans were waiting far too long for 
care. And some VA employees were manipulating data to make it appear 
these wait times did not exist.
  At the time, we took serious, important steps to address the crisis. 
We gave the Department tools to hold staff accountable, provided 
funding for veterans who had trouble accessing care at VA to get that 
care in the private sector, and gave VA resources to ramp up capacity--
to hire health care providers and make improvements to the agency's 
crumbling infrastructure. The bill we passed last year was to ensure 
that a similar crisis wouldn't happen again.
  But here we are, 1 year later, facing another crisis in VA health 
care. But this crisis is different. This is a funding crisis. A crisis 
Congress could have prevented.
  Given the increased demand for care and volume of veteran patients, I 
hoped Congress would have understood the need at VA and provided the 
funding needed by the Department. But that hasn't happened. Instead, 
this Republican-led Congress underfunded VA by $1 billion in their 
budget resolution. And they have continued the bad policies of the 
Budget Control Act, subjecting VA to funding caps that hamstring the 
Department's ability to provide needed care.
  And let me be clear about something here: these caps are arbitrary 
spending cuts and have nothing to with how much money VA actually needs 
to operate. And, despite common misconception, VA is subject to these 
caps just like every other Federal Department. I believe we must lift 
these caps. Lift them so VA has the money it needs to take care of 
veterans, period.
  And if we are unwilling to lift the budget caps, we should at least 
be providing this funding through an emergency appropriation. We should 
be acknowledging that the caps mean we are coming up short--that 
Congress has insufficiently funded VA, tying their hands so they are 
left unable to pay for the health care services veterans want and need.
  But instead, we are considering transferring money from one bucket at 
VA to another. The bill we are considering today will move money from 
the Choice Program to the general operating budget. Congress created 
the Veterans Choice Program to address a specific problem. And we 
provided $10 billion to fix that problem. And now, instead of lifting 
the budget caps or providing emergency funding for VA, we are just 
going to use the Choice Program as a piggy bank. We are simply robbing 
Peter to pay Paul. This approach is a short-term fix, keeping VA's 
doors open for the next 60 days. But is does nothing to address the 
long-term budget shortfall VA will face next year, and the year after 
that. And I worry, if we fail to act responsibly now, we'll be right 
back here in 2016 and again in 2017, when we will no longer have the 
luxury of being able to raid billions from the Choice Program, and our 
veterans will be no better off.
  Not only is this method of funding VA irresponsible, my Republican 
colleagues are using this funding crisis to jam bad policies down our 
throats without careful consideration or a real debate. With just days 
to go before we adjourn for the August recess, and with our colleagues 
from the House having already skipped town, we are being backed into a 
corner--told the only way to get VA the money they need is to pass a 
bad piece of legislation filled with unrelated policies.
  Last week, during a markup of legislation in the Veterans' Affairs 
Committee, Chairman Isakson stated multiple times that he wanted new 
policies to go through regular order, to be considered by the committee 
in a legislative hearing before being voted on by committee members and 
certainly before being voted on by the full Senate. He also stated 
numerous times that we should not be passing legislation without paying 
for it.
  The Congressional Budget Office score of the bill appears to show the 
legislation is paid for. However, the reality is there are $1.2 billion 
in lost revenues included in the VA title of the bill that are being 
swept under the rug. These enormous, unnecessary costs are being 
covered up by offsets intended to pay for transfers from the general 
fund to the highway trust fund. These are not savings or revenue that 
will actually pay for the lost revenues in the VA title. They are 
savings and revenue intended to make much-needed repairs to roads and 
bridges. And I fully support those funds being used the way they were 
intended. But what I do not support is that we are turning a blind eye 
to $1.2 billion in costs in the VA title of this bill that have nothing 
at all to do with the funding shortfall at VA. So what are these 
policies that are so important that they should not be considered 
through regular order and take money out of critical transportation 
infrastructure projects?
  They are anti-veteran, anti-small business provisions that threaten 
to strip veterans of their access to affordable health care and treat 
them as second-class citizens in the workplace while putting new 
administrative burdens on small business owners.
  If Members really believe these unrelated policies are necessary, we 
should spend time on them. We should use the committee process that 
Senator Isakson talked about just last week in the Veterans' Affairs 
Committee markup to consider them through regular order. We should 
debate them on the Senate floor. But we should not link these 
politically motivated provisions to must-pass legislation to provide 
critical health care services to millions of veterans who need it.
  It used to be the case that Congress kept veterans above politics. 
Despite fierce debate over going to war, we all agreed that when 
servicemembers came home from war, we would take care of them.
  It is sad to say, that is no longer the case. Today, powerful 
political contributors like the Koch brothers are using veterans to 
push forward anti-worker, anti-union legislation under the guise of 
caring for veterans. They want to strip away the rights and protections 
of workers and will use any means necessary to accomplish those goals, 
even if it means using VA employees who serve veterans every day--and 
many of whom are veterans themselves--as the target.
  Congress should stand up and be honest with the American people about 
the reason for the VA budget crisis--that members of this Chamber would 
rather stand here trying to score political points. They would rather 
use veterans as pawns to promote their anti-worker, anti-union, anti-
health care agenda, even if it means closing hospitals and local 
clinics.
  Let us not do that, instead let us say to the brave men and women who 
have served our country in uniform that we will put aside our 
differences and give VA the funding they need. Just as our veterans 
promised to fight for our country, we promised to take care of them 
when they came home. They fulfilled their promise to us. It is time for 
us to fulfil our promise to them.
  Mr. TILLIS. 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. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, in a couple of minutes we will be 
voting on a bill that includes a transfer of $3.4 billion within 
accounts of the Veterans' Administration to make possible, literally 
enable VA to continue providing health care for millions of veterans 
across the United States. We are in this situation because of, quite

[[Page 13406]]

frankly, gross ineptitude in planning that can be characterized only as 
management malpractice.
  This crisis emphasizes the importance of accountability, and I thank 
the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, Senator Isakson, for 
his leadership in addressing the shortfall and also in his cooperation 
in meeting the crisis and accountability of management that the VA 
continues to face.
  This crisis must stop. Congress cannot be expected to continue to 
bail out the VA because of mismanagement and management malpractice.
  In the longer term, there is a need for fundamental reform. There are 
some good ideas in this bill. I have supported many of them. I thank 
Senator Tester for his leadership as well in framing a proposal that 
addresses these issues.
  But make no mistake. This bill is only one small step toward the 
reform that I have been advocating and will continue to champion, and 
hope to continue to work on specifics to advance, as the ranking member 
of the Veterans' Affairs Committee.
  Again, I thank my colleagues and our chairman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate has a previous order at this time.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. ISAKSON. I thank the ranking member for his comments.
  This is the first step for reform in the VA. We are beginning to move 
in the right direction.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote.

                          ____________________