[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15587-15593]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016--CONFERENCE 
                           REPORT--Continued


                     Remembering Officer Greg Alia

  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, I rise to speak about one of South 
Carolina's most amazing heroes, Greg Alia. I am here today to recognize 
that this young man--32 years young--lost his life yesterday. Yesterday 
morning, Officer Greg Alia was killed in Columbia, SC.
  I will tell my colleagues that Greg served his community with 
distinction. Yesterday afternoon, I had an opportunity to talk with 
Greg's wife, Kassy. Kassy's strength, as she spoke with someone she has 
never met about the love of her life--about her husband, the father of 
her little boy, Sal--was quite remarkable. Her thoughtfulness in this 
tragic time truly struck a chord with me and brought tears to my eyes 
as I listened to a wife describe the man she loves, a community leader, 
and someone who runs into danger when others are running away from 
danger.
  Greg was born and raised in Columbia, SC. He was a Columbia native. 
He went to high school at Richland Northeast High School. He graduated 
from the University of South Carolina. If Greg were here, I would say 
``Go, Cocks'' because we understand and appreciate the importance of 
the University of South Carolina, especially in the Columbia footprint.
  More importantly, after high school, Greg wanted to find out what 
life was about. He had an opportunity to be a

[[Page 15588]]

production assistant working on movies such as the latest version of 
``Indiana Jones,'' as well as one of my favorite movies, frankly, 
``Iron Man.'' Yes, ``Iron Man.''
  Greg was offered a job with Marvel, the comic book folks. He had an 
opportunity to stay out of the State and do amazing things and have a 
lot of fun, but his heart was beating to come back home to South 
Carolina, to come back home to Columbia, so that he could serve the 
people of South Carolina. He wanted to be a police officer. He wanted 
to help people. Kassy told me that Greg would have had no regrets.
  To think about those words from his wife on the day her husband was 
murdered, Greg would have no regrets because he was doing what he was 
made to do: Protect people, serve people, sacrifice on behalf of 
people.
  Greg was the embodiment of bravery and heroism. Greg was doing what 
he was wired to do. His wife was so clear and so passionate about his 
desire to be the first on the scene, his desire to do everything 
possible to try to be helpful. Greg, like so many police officers 
across this Nation and, without question, across the great State of 
South Carolina, loved serving people. And he did so. He did so with 
great integrity, with amazing character. He knew his place in the world 
was making sure that his town, his city, our State, and our Nation are 
safer because he put on the uniform every single day.
  Today, we all stand in salute to Greg and make a promise to his wife 
Kassy that we will be there with her as she raises her son Sal. Our 
prayers and our thoughts are with the family.
  In closing, I would like to share a story that Kassy told me 
yesterday afternoon as I had the chance to speak with her. The story 
brought a tear to my eye, and I hope as my colleagues hear the story, 
it may even bring a smile to their faces. Greg worked the night shift, 
and when he would come home in the morning--Sal was around 6 months old 
and he was learning to sit up, and in the morning when Sal heard the 
police cruiser of his dad pull into the driveway, he would sit up and 
he would start smiling. He was feeding, and the milk, because of his 
big smile, would run down his face.
  Think for just a moment of that young man, Sal. He should have the 
opportunity to walk when he hears the cruiser coming into the driveway. 
He should have the opportunity to yell ``Daddy'' when he hears that 
cruiser coming into the driveway. So for that little boy and his mama, 
Kassy, and for the Forest Acres community, I stand here today saying 
thank you for every single thing Greg has done to make our State and 
our Nation a better place to call home. I say thank you to Greg for 
making the ultimate sacrifice that will never be forgotten. And I say 
thank you to Kassy for being such a powerful and strong woman in this 
amazing time of her need.
  We should pray for Kassy and Sal.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I am glad I got to be here to hear Senator 
Scott talk about that family and that hero and those who protect and 
defend us. In Missouri we have had over the last year a number of 
challenges on this front. I was recently meeting with a group of 
African-American pastors, one of whom was a pastor in Ferguson, MO, and 
talking about the hard work of being in law enforcement. He said: 
People who protect us, just like me, want to go home at the end of the 
day. And more than most of us, people who protect us leave every day 
with them and their families having the No. 1 focus of getting home at 
the end of the day. Thank God they are willing to step forward and 
protect us, especially understanding that this is a challenging job at 
a challenging time.


                          Veterans Health Care

  I wish to speak for a little while about veterans health care, 
another challenge we face right now. We just, unfortunately, failed to 
move to debate on a bill that would fund these programs, a bill that 
would increase funding for our veterans in areas such as health care 
and benefit claims and processing claims, medical research, and 
technology upgrades. For whatever reason, we decided as a Senate--and I 
don't think for a good reason--that no, we are not going to debate that 
bill because all of these bills somehow collectively don't spend enough 
money. But we have talked about that, and I talked about it earlier in 
the day.
  Right now I wish to speak for a few minutes about what we do need to 
be figuring out for our veterans.
  We learned a year ago that Veterans' Administration wait times were 
unacceptable. We learned it was likely that a number of lives had been 
lost and deaths had been caused because our veterans didn't get to see 
the doctor they should have gotten to see; they didn't get the health 
care they earned as veterans and deserved. This summer, after a year of 
working to make this better, we found out that the wait list of people 
waiting more than 30 days at the VA system to see a doctor was now 50 
percent longer than it was last year. I thought about that a little bit 
and I thought, well, maybe it was just 50 percent longer than it was 
last year, because one thing they found out was the wait-list wasn't 
really reflective of the real wait-list. The kind of progress we hoped 
to have made we don't appear to be making yet.
  Last year the Congress passed a law to give veterans more choice. It 
was passed on a broad bipartisan basis. The Senate came together, the 
Congress came together to allow veterans to receive their health care 
in non-VA facilities if they couldn't get that first appointment within 
30 days or if they were more than 40 miles away from a facility. We 
tried this legislation this summer to put even more definition to that. 
Clearly, what the Congress means is 40 miles from a facility that can 
do what the patient needs to have done. If one needs to have a heart 
stint put in, just being 40 miles from a facility where they would take 
your blood pressure isn't good enough. We will continue to work to 
change veterans health care in a way that gives veterans more choices, 
I hope.
  What we found out is that Alaskan care is just not acceptable. We 
have to continue to keep focused on this. The bill we provided will 
create more choices.
  Last week I had one of the best conversations I have ever had with 
anybody at the Veterans Administration when I talked to the Under 
Secretary of Health--a new person in that job--Dr. Dave Shulkin, who 
spent his whole life in health care in the private sector managing 
hospitals outside of the Federal Government. Dr. Shulkin should know 
what he is doing, and it certainly sounded to me as if he knew what he 
was doing. He understood the kinds of things the Congress hopes to see 
for our veterans and the VA system that need to happen.
  We talked about the fact that Congress intends for veterans' choice 
to mean exactly that--not ways for the Veterans Administration to find 
obstacles to choice but veterans' choice. If you are a Federal 
Government health care provider, if you take Medicare patients, you 
ought to be able to take veterans as patients. There shouldn't be some 
long second process you have to go through to become qualified so that 
the veteran can see a doctor the veteran wants to see, the veteran can 
go to a hospital the veteran wants to go to, particularly if the VA 
can't meet that need.
  In fact, the conversation I had with Dr. Shulkin was so good that for 
a little while, I thought maybe I had gotten the wrong number, that 
possibly I actually had not called the Veterans Administration, because 
I have never had a conversation like that where somebody at the 
Veterans Administration not only knew what needed to be done but wasn't 
afraid to compete to get the health care needs of veterans met.
  I talked to all our veterans groups in Missouri, or many of them--
certainly the two big veterans groups--at their meeting this summer. I 
said: Many of you have had great experience with the VA.
  There are a lot of people at the VA who want to do everything they 
can to serve veterans in the best possible way.
  I said: But that is not good enough. All of you need to have had the 
best

[[Page 15589]]

possible experience at the VA--not necessarily the best outcome but the 
best possible outcome.
  You know, all of our health care outcomes aren't what we would want 
them to be, but they ought to be everything they possibly should be.
  Veterans shouldn't have to drive past non-VA facilities that are 
equally capable of providing their health care or more capable of 
providing their health care, and we are going to continue to work to 
see that that happens. Competition is a good thing. The best possible 
place to go for your health care is a good thing.
  I want to come back to that briefly in a moment, but before I get 
there, I received a report on Tuesday from the Veterans 
Administration's inspector general that frankly just said that the 
allegations about what was happening at the St. Louis facility, the 
John Cochran facility, were absolutely true, that a number of files had 
been changed to indicate that the consultation had been completed 
before it was ever had. I assume it does a lot for your performance 
numbers if you check the ``completed'' box before you see the patient, 
and that appears to be what was happening. We learned that there is not 
enough oversight there. We learned that at least one psychiatrist had 
received performance pay based on productivity data. The only thing 
wrong with the productivity data was that it wasn't correct. I guess it 
is easy to look good if you are not backing that up with real facts. It 
is not acceptable. It is inexcusable.
  Then we have a problem with leadership at these facilities. At the 
John Cochran hospital in St. Louis--the biggest hospital we have in our 
State--we have had seven temporary directors in 2 years. No matter how 
good some of those may have been, having seven temporary directors is a 
lot like not having any director at all. If you know somebody is going 
to be there for 14 weeks, or however long they are going to be there, 
and you know somebody else is coming, that obviously is not going to 
produce a good result, but that is happening. There are 30 veterans 
centers that don't have permanent directors today. That is about 20 
percent of all the facilities in the country. One in five of our VA 
medical centers doesn't have a permanent director, and we need to do 
better.
  Supposedly the new Administrator of the Veterans Administration came 
in because he was a great manager. So far, I don't see the results. If 
he needs more help from the Congress to be a great manager, we ought to 
figure out a way to give him more help.
  I believe competition is a good thing. The VA should be good and 
really better than anybody else at a few things. Nobody should be 
better than the VA in terms of dealing with post-traumatic stress. 
Nobody should be better than the Veterans Administration when it comes 
to dealing with the results of these IED attacks, the improvised 
explosive device attacks. Because of that, eye injuries should be 
something the VA deals with very well. And nobody should be better than 
the VA at dealing with prosthetics or spinal cord injuries.
  Frankly, the Presiding Officer, as a doctor, would appreciate this. I 
don't really know why we wouldn't assume the VA would be the best place 
to specialize in almost anything else. And if it is not the best place 
to go, it shouldn't be the only place to go.
  The VA is probably not likely to be any better or as good as anyplace 
you would drive by to get your heart stint put in, to take care of your 
cancer problem, to work with your kidneys that are failing, to get even 
the basic health care of getting your blood pressure checked. Our 
veterans deserve more choices.
  There are lots of reasons the Congress should be and is concerned 
about the way the Veterans Administration is working. It is clearly 
time for the Veterans Administration to get focused not on what is good 
for the Veterans Administration but on what is good for veterans. We 
owe it to our veterans.
  The report I got this Tuesday unfortunately verifies almost every 
concern that people have had, and we need to insist that that be 
better.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.


                       Providing For Our Veterans

  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I am pleased to follow my colleague and 
friend from Missouri. I just want to mention--although I didn't come to 
the floor to talk about what we are doing for veterans, let me take a 
minute or two to talk about what we are doing that we are actually 
proud of and then maybe touch on a couple of areas where we can do a 
better job.
  I myself am a veteran, a Navy midshipman out of Ohio State who 
studied economics for 4 years and went on to become a naval flight 
officer. I served for 5 years in Southeast Asia as a naval flight 
officer and then as a P-3 aircraft mission commander for another 18 
years until the end of the Cold War. I loved the Navy. I loved serving.
  I got an education--undergraduate and graduate school--and feel very 
privileged. I had the opportunity at the end of my Active-Duty tour to 
use the VA hospital very close to Wilmington, DE, in northern Delaware. 
I remember the first time I went there. I was offered some dental 
benefits, and my dentist--a young dentist who was right out of dental 
school--told me the morale was pretty bad, and he said they didn't do 
very good work. It was place where they had 16-bed wards. They didn't 
do much in the way of outpatient surgery. The pharmacy was a mess.
  I said: Wouldn't it be great to be in a position to do something 
about that and transform this place so it can be a health care delivery 
facility we can be proud of today?
  Do they do everything perfectly? No, they don't.
  We have two satellite operations in Delaware. We have one in the 
Dover area, in the middle of our State, and we have another one in the 
southern part of the State, in Sussex County, which is Georgetown. I am 
very proud of those health care facilities. We call them outpatient 
clinics, CBOCS.
  The reason I mention that is because I was also eligible--coming out 
of the Vietnam war, along with other Vietnam veterans--to get an 
education, to go to college, and in my case graduate school on the GI 
bill. In my generation, we received about $250 a month. At the time, I 
was happy to have every bit of it. I continued to fly with my Reserve 
squadron for another 18 years, and it was great to have that benefit.
  A couple weeks ago, our congressional delegation--Senator Coons, 
Congressmen Carney, and Governor Jack Markell--sent 300 Delaware 
National Guard men and women off to Afghanistan. We had a big sendoff 
ceremony for them. Their families were there. We had about 1,000 
people. It was a big sendoff.
  As they left, I told them: When you come back, you are going to be 
eligible for a GI benefit that dwarfs what my generation received.
  They won't get 250 bucks a month. If they serve a total of 3 years on 
Active Duty and serve in Afghanistan or Iraq for a period of time, here 
is what they will be eligible for: They can come back and go for free 
to the University of Delaware, Delaware City University, Wilmington 
University--pretty much any public college or university in America; 
tuition, books, and fees paid for; and if they need tutoring, that is 
paid for as well. On top of all that, they get a housing allowance of 
$1,500 a month. We received a GI benefit of $250.
  Not surprisingly, at the end of World War II, when my dad and my 
uncle served--in the Korean war, when my uncle served, and at the end 
of the Vietnam war, scam artists emerged to take advantage of the GI 
and tried to separate the GI coming back from combat--tried to separate 
the GI cash value benefits from the GI and sometimes not to provide 
them with a very good education but to take advantage of the GI and the 
taxpayers.
  In about 1952, something called the 85-15 rule was passed whereby at 
least 15 percent of the students enrolled in a for-profit college or 
university had to be there--their tuition paid for by some source other 
than the Federal Government. As it turns out, the 85-15 rule became the 
90-10 rule, so that 90 percent of those who were enrolled were paid for 
by the Federal Government, but another 10 percent had to be paid for by 
someone else other than the

[[Page 15590]]

Federal Government. Over time, that changed so that 90 percent of the 
revenues of a for-profit college or university could come from the 
Federal Government but not the other 10 percent--except for the money 
that came from the GI bill to a college or university or from tuition 
assistance for people on Active Duty. That didn't count against the 90 
percent. At the end of the day, a for-profit college or university 
could get 100 percent of its revenues from the Federal Government. I 
don't think that is a good thing.
  The system that was designed early on with the 85-15 rule and later 
the 90- 10 rule was designed to try to make sure there were market 
forces that ensured taxpayers and the GIs, the veterans would get a 
fair deal, get a good education, make sure they were treated the way we 
would want them to be treated.
  There is a huge loophole in the 90-10 rule, and it is a loophole we 
need to fix. We need to fix it.
  My colleagues who talked here earlier today--including my colleague 
from Missouri--about the quality of VA health care--I want to say that 
we are providing the best health care by far in the history of our 
country. For too long, a number of our for-profit colleges and 
universities and postsecondary-training programs have been taking 
advantage of GIs, taking advantage of the taxpayers, and it should 
stop. It should stop.
  Having said that, there are a number of for-profit colleges and 
universities and training programs that do a great job. They are not 
all bad actors. Some of them wear white hats. For them, good for you, 
and for those who are not, you need to change your ways.
  I didn't come here to talk about that, but in the spirit of making 
sure we look out for our veterans, I thought I would mention that.


                 Transportation Infrastructure Funding

  Let's take a look at some of the posters here this afternoon.
  The first one looks like my State. It probably also looks like the 
Presiding Officer's State. It could look like any of the States our 
pages are from. But this is a traffic jam. It is a traffic jam that 
occurs almost every day, almost every business day, and frankly a lot 
of weekends on highways across America from coast to coast. We spend a 
lot of time sitting in traffic. It is actually quite a substantial cost 
that inures to our Nation's economy. The cost this year is believed to 
be about $160 billion, a hit on our national economy. I will talk in 
just a second about what that includes.
  Part of the waste that is reflected in our Nation's economy is--you 
see right here it says ``82 hours wasted in big city traffic.'' That is 
per person, per driver, on average, across the country, big cities, 
people sitting--pretty much sitting in traffic. They could be in a 
minivan, they could be in a small car, a large car, they could be in a 
truck, but we are talking about 82 hours a year just pretty much 
sitting in traffic.
  The average across the country, when you take in the more rural parts 
of the country and suburban areas, is about 42 hours. That is a whole 
lot of time. Time is money. So just think about that.
  Here is one with a sense of humor. This is not Delaware. I am not 
sure where this is, but for those who can't read this, it says--the 
traffic sign that is up here says: ``You'll never get to work on time. 
Haha.'' It is some kind of construction program. You see the orange 
cones out there. Someone had a good sense of humor there. My guess is, 
the folks who maybe were working on the project had a good sense of 
humor. My guess is that for a moment it made the drivers smile but not 
for long, especially if they sat in traffic long enough. Eighty-two 
hours a year, that is long enough.
  Not only is it expensive, a waste of time and money for us as 
individuals to sit in traffic for a long time, another part of the cost 
is caused by potholes and other problems with our roads. I think this 
is probably a bridge. It looks like it might be a bridge, but it is a 
construction project someplace. Here is a pothole. That is a bad 
pothole. In other parts--not too much in Delaware--I have seen in other 
States at least that bad and worse.
  What is going to happen, vehicles will come along, they will hit that 
pothole, and may damage their tires, they may have to replace a tire or 
two, they may have to get their front end realigned. That costs money. 
How much? Actually, believe it or not, just like Texas A&M has actually 
figured out on average we waste 82 hours a year as drivers, somebody 
else actually spent the time to figure out how much we spend on our 
cars, trucks, and vans in order to fix them during the course of the 
year because of potholes like this and other problems, whether it is 
the surface of the roads we travel on or the surface of the bridges we 
travel on. It is over $350. I have seen the range of anywhere from $350 
per year to $500 per year. Let's say it is just $350 a year. That is a 
lot of money. That is part of the cost of the damage to our economy.
  The other thing I would say, our economy today, as we all know, is a 
``just in time'' economy. I will give you a good example. We have a 
port in Wilmington that sits right on the Delaware River. As you come 
up the Delaware Bay, it becomes the Delaware River. The port that is 
closest to the Atlantic is the Port of Wilmington. Ships are coming in 
and out of there throughout the day, nights, and weekends. The ships 
don't come in and spend a week. Ships don't come into the Port of 
Wilmington and spend a day. They may come in for 4 hours, they may come 
in for 6 hours, but they are there and then they are gone, because when 
a ship is sitting in the Port of Wilmington or any other port, the 
shipper, whoever owns that boat, that ship cannot make any money. So 
they want to be in and they want to be out. That is the way they do 
their business.
  It is important for whoever is coming in using a truck to bring goods 
to put on that ship to send around the world, there may be a very short 
window of time to get there. If you are stuck in traffic, the kind of 
traffic we saw early on, you may miss that window when the ship is in 
the port, whether it is Wilmington or some other port. That is another 
reason why, in a ``just in time'' economy, these kinds of delays mean 
time is money. Again, someone else with a sense of humor--if you cannot 
read this, it looks like a husband and wife driving along in their car. 
His wife says: ``Finally someone fixed that pothole.'' Here is the 
pothole. There is a car down there. The guy driving looks like he is 
having a bad day, not just a bad hair day, a very bad day.
  A little humor there but not if you happen to be this guy, frankly--
probably not if you happen to be this guy, because if you are running 
over somebody else's car in a pothole like this, the guy is going to 
spend a lot more than 350 bucks to repair his car and get it going 
again.
  We are not making this stuff up. There is a national association, I 
think it is civil engineers, people who spend their life's work on 
transportation projects. Every year for years, they have given us a 
grade on what kind of shape our roads, highways, bridges, and transit 
systems are in. They could give an A, A-plus, A-minus, they could give 
a B, B-plus, B-minus, they could give a C, C-plus, C-minus or they 
could give a D-plus, D, D-minus. The last couple of years we have been 
right around D to D-plus. I think we are probably going down rather 
than going up. So what everybody knows--just about anybody who drives 
in our country these days knows we are not investing in our roads, 
highways, bridges, and transit systems the way we need to.
  Look around the rest of the world, travel around the rest of the 
world. You can see in a lot of countries we compete with that they do. 
One of the components of certain investments we need to make in our 
country in order to strengthen our economy, to better ensure the jobs 
are going to be created or preserved--there a lot of things we can do 
to make sure businesses have access to capital, make sure the cost of 
energy is affordable, make sure the cost of health care is affordable, 
make sure we have public safety, make sure the people who are coming 
out of our schools can read, write, and have the skills that are needed 
in the workforce.
  I know the big one is to make sure we have the ability to move people 
and

[[Page 15591]]

goods where they need to go, when they need to go. Here is our current 
plan. It is pretty well summed up in this sign. It is meant to be 
funny. I suppose it is. But I like this part of the plan: ``Good 
luck.'' That is not a plan. That is not a plan that is going to get us 
where we need to go as a nation.
  For those who may be unable to read this, there is a big traffic jam. 
A lot of people are saying--you see those little bubbles there--``I'd 
pay to be anywhere but here.''
  I was Treasurer of Delaware. I studied economics, got an MBA, and was 
Treasurer of Delaware when I was 29. I had a chance to serve in the 
house for a while and then as Governor. I was very much involved in the 
National Governors Association in trying to make sure we invested in 
our transportation infrastructure across the country. In the Senate, I 
am on the Environment and Public Works Committee. The last time I was 
privileged to serve as chair of the Senate Subcommittee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure.
  So I thought a fair amount about these issues. If you think about the 
way we pay for roads, highways, bridges, and transit, what we have used 
for years is a user pay system. The people, the businesses that use our 
roads, highways, bridges, and transit systems, we pay for them. In some 
places, we have sort of gotten away from that. There is an 
unwillingness to ask people to pay for what they want to use. Everybody 
wants to have better transportation systems. There seems to be a lot of 
reluctance to pay for that.
  When I was Governor of Delaware, three times I asked for modest--very 
modest--increases, just a couple of cents in the fee for gas and diesel 
tax. I think out of three efforts, we succeeded one time. Not a whole 
lot was raised, but we cobbled together some other money from other 
user fees and we were able to continue to fund transportation funding.
  For a number of years in the Nation, we have had a transportation 
trust fund. Most of the money for that transportation trust fund comes 
from user fees, and two primary user fees are a gas tax. It has been 
about 18.3, 18.4 cents since, I think, 1993. It has been a little bit 
over 18 cents since 1993. It has not changed. The cost of concrete has 
gone up. The cost of asphalt has gone up. The cost of steel has gone 
up. The cost of labor has gone up. What has not gone up is the user fee 
we are asking people to pay to have better roads, highways, bridges, 
and transit to get people off our roads, highways, and bridges. If we 
can do that, we can save a lot of money.
  We have a tax on diesel--a Federal tax. It has been about 24 cents 
per gallon. It has been at that level since 1993--since 1993. Again, 
concrete, asphalt, steel, and labor have all gone up, but in 22 years 
we have not changed the user fee, if you will, on diesel.
  The money we collect from the gas and diesel tax does not go to pay 
for health care, it does not go to pay for wars, it does not go to pay 
for agriculture and other things. The money we collect from these user 
fees goes to pay for roads, highways, bridges, and to some extent for 
transit systems, to get people off our roads, highways, and bridges so 
the rest of us will have some extra room to maneuver.
  I will go back in time. Thomas Jefferson said a lot of things that 
are worth remembering. My favorite Jefferson quote is this: ``If the 
people know the truth, they won't make a mistake.''
  If the people know the truth, they won't make a mistake. The truth 
is, we are not investing in our transportation infrastructure in this 
country the way our competitors are and the way we ought to be.
  To do so does not mean we have to raise--in some places they have gas 
taxes or diesel taxes that are $4 or $5 a gallon. We don't have that. 
It is 18 cents, and 24 cents for gas and diesel combined. If we had 
increased them by the rate of inflation in the past, the gas tax would 
be not 18 cents; it may be even closer to twice that. The diesel tax 
would not be 24 cents; it might be closer to twice that. But we have 
not changed them.
  Here is the way we pay for transportation improvements: We don't pay 
for them. We don't raise anything, in some cases. We just simply go out 
and borrow money for the transportation fund from the Federal general 
fund. When the general fund runs out of money, we borrow money from 
countries around the world like China and other places and replenish 
the general fund, and use that to replenish the transportation fund.
  I think that is pretty foolish, especially to be beholden to the 
folks in China for our transportation system. It does not make a whole 
lot of sense to me, maybe it does not to you either. There are other 
things we do--we have these--I call them cats and dogs, sort of sleight 
of hand. One of the more recent examples, we do something called 
pension smoothing, where--I will not get into how that works, but it is 
just an awful idea to mess with, muck with people's pensions in order 
to be able to provide funds for road improvements. That does not make 
much sense.
  Another thing we do is we maybe raise the TSA fees when people want 
to fly. Instead of using that to make our friendly skies safer, we put 
a little of that money in roads, highways, and bridges or maybe we sell 
some of the oil we have in our Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We paid a 
lot of money several years ago to buy gas, to buy oil when it was 
expensive. People think it would be a smart thing to sell that oil out 
of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, when prices are low, to help pay 
for roads, highways, and bridges. Remember the old saying ``buy low, 
sell high.'' Well, this is really buy high and then put that oil in the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve and then sell low. That is insanity.
  We can do a lot better than this. For a number of years, some have 
encouraged us to do what we have been doing for years, to actually be 
honest and pay for improvements to our roads, highways, and bridges. 
And that is to raise the user fees--not all at once, not by $1 or $2 or 
anything like that, but by 4 cents a year starting next year for 4 
years. Then after that index--then index the fees and the taxes on gas 
and diesel according to the rate of inflation.
  If we did that, I think we would have a combined State and Federal 
user fee, if you will, for gas. I think it would be at that time 53 
cents. It would be about 53 cents. Compared to what? Compared to pretty 
much any other developed nation in the world, we would have the lowest 
combined Federal, State, and local user fees on gas and diesel. It is 
the lowest as far as I can tell. We can actually double that. We are 
not going to do that. We could actually double it again--we are not 
going to do that--from 53 cents to $1.06 per gallon. Again, I don't 
suggest we would do that, but if we did, we would still be among the 
lowest compared to the rest of the world.
  Sometimes we say: Well, 16 cents--what could I buy with that? If I 
didn't have to pay 4 years from now an extra 16 cents when I buy a 
gallon of gas, what would that add up to in a week for the average 
driver?
  I will tell you this--maybe brings it home--basically the price of a 
cup of coffee a week is the cost that would be incurred by the average 
driver even after the full increase, the 4 cents times 4 years. That is 
what it is worth. That would be the out-of-pocket expense for the 
average driver, the price of a cup of coffee a week.
  We saw earlier from some of these charts that, on average across the 
country, people are sitting in traffic for 42 hours per year. We saw 
some of the graphics with the pothole and were reminded that the cost 
of damage to our cars, trucks, and vans is anywhere from $350 to some 
estimates as high as $500. We are learning that for the price of a 
basic cup of coffee, if we invest that money instead--people can still 
drink coffee, but if we put that in our roads, highways, bridges, and 
transit systems, we can have a transportation system we can be proud 
of. Those four pennies add up over time, and they add up over the next 
10 years to $220 billion to have for investments. So instead of having 
roads or potholes that look like the one I saw and the kinds of traffic 
jams we see here from coast to coast, we can have a transportation 
system again in this country we can be proud

[[Page 15592]]

of. We just have to have the will to do it.
  Again, Thomas Jefferson reminded us that things that are worth having 
are worth paying for, and if people know the truth, they won't make a 
mistake. Roads, highways, bridges, transit--that is what we are paying 
for. The truth is, it doesn't have to break us. It doesn't have to 
break our banks or our budgets. We can have those roads, highways, and 
bridges again that we can be proud of. I hope we will do that.
  Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois and I have introduced legislation to 
essentially do that, to raise the user fees by 4 cents a year for 4 
years, at a time when the price of oil is as low as it has been for 
some time and is expected to stay low for the foreseeable future.
  If the Iranians work with us and the other five nations that 
negotiated the Iranian agreement in order to gradually lift sanctions 
from their economy, they will be able to start producing oil and 
selling it across the world as long as they agree not to create that 
nuclear weapon. We are going to make sure they don't.
  But it turns out that Iran is the No. 4 nation in the world in oil 
reserves. Think about that. We live in a world that is awash in oil. 
Very soon, the Iranian oil will be added to the oil that is available 
to consumers to use on this planet of ours. All that oil will not push 
up the price of oil or gasoline or diesel; it will push it down--supply 
and demand. Let's keep that in mind.
  With that, I have spoken for long enough. I see one of my colleagues 
has been waiting patiently, and I will bid you all adieu. Have a good 
weekend. Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.


                     MILCON-VA Appropriations Bill

  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I wish to say a few words about the bill 
that we voted on this afternoon and put it into a broader context. This 
was the bill to begin the vote and debate on the Military Construction 
and Veterans Affairs Appropriations bill, which passed out of the 
Appropriations Committee in a strong bipartisan vote.
  There has been a lot of talk and a lot of stories in the media over 
the last several weeks about the government running out of money, a 
government shutdown. In a lot of those stories, the narrative talked 
about the Republican Party being the one focused on a government 
shutdown. The media actually loves this narrative, but, like a lot of 
narratives in the media, they are not always so accurate. So I wanted 
to give what I think is the much more accurate story, what is really 
going on here in the Senate.
  Many of us are new Senators--the Presiding Officer and myself 
included--13 of us, actually. A lot of us came to Washington and a lot 
of us actually ran for the Senate because we were fed up. We thought 
the American people were fed up; we knew they were fed up with the 
dysfunction of the Federal Government. There are a lot of examples of 
that. You know many of them.
  In the last several years we have run the debt of our Nation from $10 
trillion to $18 trillion. Think about that. Looking at these interns 
here on the floor, that is going to be their responsibility if we don't 
get ahold of that--$18 trillion. An economy that can't grow is what we 
call the new normal here in Washington, 1.5 percent, 2 percent GDP 
growth. No budget. The previous Senate was not even passing a budget--
the most basic function of government. Households do it, businesses do 
it, and States do it. The Federal Government was not even taking the 
time to pass a budget. There were no appropriations bills, no spending 
bills out of the Appropriations Committee. These were all signs of a 
Federal Government that was not working, that was dysfunctional.
  So we came with the new majority, new leadership committed to change 
this. We meant to change this. We were very focused on changing this, 
and we have begun in a serious way to do that. What are we doing? 
First, we passed a budget. It hadn't happened in years, but we did 
that. It was a lot of hard work. My hat is off to the Budget Committee. 
We took what was the President's budget, 10-year budget, and slashed 
that by $5 trillion to $7 trillion in terms of spending. We didn't 
raise taxes.
  Then the next step--what the government is supposed to do--we started 
to work on appropriations bills in the Appropriations Committee. Again, 
this was very hard work, very bipartisan work, and for the first time 
in years, the Appropriations Committee passed out 12 appropriations 
bills to fund our government.
  Most of these were very bipartisan. Let me give you a few examples. 
The Agriculture appropriations bill passed out of the Appropriations 
Committee 28 to 2. It doesn't get much more bipartisan than that. The 
Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill passed 27 to 3; Energy and 
Water, 26 to 4. This is strong bipartisan work in the Appropriations 
Committee with our government getting back to work.
  The dysfunction that had previously existed here for many years--none 
of this was happening--was going away, and we were working. Very 
importantly, in terms of appropriations bills, the Defense 
appropriations bill passed out of the committee 27 to 3, and the 
Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill, 21 to 
9.
  So we passed a budget, passed appropriations bills--so far so good. 
The Senate is working again. We are back to regular order. We are 
moving forward in a bipartisan way--very bipartisan. We are doing the 
work of government. It is what the American people wanted, asked for, 
and we are starting to deliver on that as part of our promises last 
fall.
  So what is the next step? The next step is to take these 
appropriations bills and bring them to the Senate floor for a vote. It 
shouldn't be a problem, particularly because the bills I am talking 
about are so bipartisan. They came out of committee with bipartisan 
numbers and support, so that is what we are doing. That is what is we 
have done. That is what we are supposed to do. That is what the 
American people want us to do.
  We started to prioritize. Where should we begin? Turn on the news. I 
think most people know where we should begin--funding our military, the 
men and women protecting us, the men and women risking their lives on a 
daily basis for our freedom.
  So we brought the Defense appropriations bill to the Senate floor. 
Again, we certainly need that. One gets the sense that the world is 
careening into chaos. We need a strong military. We need to fund our 
military. It shouldn't be an issue. It passed out of committee with a 
strong bipartisan vote. Everybody likes to make sure we have a strong 
military.
  So what happened? We brought it to the floor of the Senate and it was 
filibustered, not one but two times. That is irresponsible--
filibustering the defense of our Nation, defunding the support for our 
troops.
  So that brings us to what we did today. We turn to another 
appropriations bill--Military Construction and Veterans Affairs 
appropriations--again, a very bipartisan bill. It is very focused, 
building military infrastructure throughout our country, throughout the 
world. One of the most sacred responsibilities of this body, of our 
government is taking care of our veterans.
  This is a huge issue for my State. Alaska boasts the highest number 
of veterans per capita of any State in the Nation, and we need to take 
care of our best. So what happened today? It seems pretty 
noncontroversial. The appropriations bill--a very nonpartisan bill--
came to the floor, and it was filibustered again.
  In the past few weeks, we have had critical votes to fund our 
military, to fund our troops, to fund our veterans, and we cannot move 
forward. What is going on here? I really don't know. It is hard to say. 
I sit on the Armed Services Committee. I sit on the Veterans' Affairs 
Committee. These are two of the most bipartisan committees in the 
Senate. I know all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle truly 
respect, truly support our troops and our veterans, and truly want what 
is best for them. I recognize that.
  Then why is the other side filibustering the funding of these 
incredibly

[[Page 15593]]

important bills, in essence defunding our troops and defunding our 
veterans? I think the American people deserve answers. I think our 
veterans deserve answers. I think our troops in harm's way deserve 
answers.
  One thing for sure is the next time the media wants to write a story 
with a narrative about a government shutdown, they ought to ask those 
who voted against these bills--to even start debating them--why they 
are defunding these critical groups and veterans. They need to ask 
those who are voting against these bills, filibustering these bills, 
why they are leaving our troops and our veterans in the lurch.
  Mr. President, we are doing our job--what the American people asked 
us to do, demanded from us last November. They wanted us to pass a 
budget like they do, even though we hadn't done that in years. We did. 
They wanted us to pass appropriations bills and to work in a bipartisan 
manner to get these bills through the committee--all 12 to fund the 
government. We did. And they wanted us to prioritize our spending, our 
activities, and our focus in terms of government funding on the things 
that matter most--our military and our veterans. And we did.
  I have no idea why our colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
refuse to move with us in terms of the next step. The American people 
want the next step. They want the Senate to vote on these bipartisan 
bills that fund our military and fund our veterans. Today, once again, 
we are seeing that is not happening. I think the American people need 
answers, I think our troops need answers, and I think our veterans need 
answers on why it is not happening.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  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. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________