[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 17474-17501]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND VETERANS AFFAIRS AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2016

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the pending business.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2029) making appropriations for military 
     construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related 
     agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and 
     for other purposes.

  Thereupon, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been 
reported from the Committee on Appropriations, with an amendment to 
strike all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof the 
following:

     That the following sums are appropriated, out of any money in 
     the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for military 
     construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related 
     agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and 
     for other purposes, namely:

                                TITLE I

                         DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

                      Military Construction, Army

       For acquisition, construction, installation, and equipment 
     of temporary or permanent public works, military 
     installations, facilities, and real property for the Army as 
     currently authorized by law, including personnel in the Army 
     Corps of Engineers and other personal services necessary for 
     the purposes of this appropriation, and for construction and 
     operation of facilities in support of the functions of the 
     Commander in Chief, $663,245,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2020:  Provided, That, of this amount, not to 
     exceed $109,245,000 shall be available for study, planning, 
     design, architect and engineer services, and host nation 
     support, as authorized by law, unless the Secretary of the 
     Army determines that additional obligations are necessary for 
     such purposes and notifies the Committees on Appropriations 
     of both Houses of Congress of the determination and the 
     reasons therefor.

              Military Construction, Navy and Marine Corps

       For acquisition, construction, installation, and equipment 
     of temporary or permanent public works, naval installations, 
     facilities, and real property for the Navy and Marine Corps 
     as currently authorized by law, including personnel in the 
     Naval Facilities Engineering Command and other personal 
     services necessary for the purposes of this appropriation, 
     $1,619,699,000, to remain available until September 30, 2020: 
      Provided, That, of this amount, not to exceed

[[Page 17475]]

     $91,649,000 shall be available for study, planning, design, 
     and architect and engineer services, as authorized by law, 
     unless the Secretary of the Navy determines that additional 
     obligations are necessary for such purposes and notifies the 
     Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress of 
     the determination and the reasons therefor.

                    Military Construction, Air Force

       For acquisition, construction, installation, and equipment 
     of temporary or permanent public works, military 
     installations, facilities, and real property for the Air 
     Force as currently authorized by law, $1,389,185,000, to 
     remain available until September 30, 2020:  Provided, That, 
     of this amount, not to exceed $89,164,000 shall be available 
     for study, planning, design, and architect and engineer 
     services, as authorized by law, unless the Secretary of Air 
     Force determines that additional obligations are necessary 
     for such purposes and notifies the Committees on 
     Appropriations of both Houses of Congress of the 
     determination and the reasons therefor.

                  Military Construction, Defense-Wide

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For acquisition, construction, installation, and equipment 
     of temporary or permanent public works, installations, 
     facilities, and real property for activities and agencies of 
     the Department of Defense (other than the military 
     departments), as currently authorized by law, $2,290,767,000, 
     to remain available until September 30, 2020:  Provided, That 
     such amounts of this appropriation as may be determined by 
     the Secretary of Defense may be transferred to such 
     appropriations of the Department of Defense available for 
     military construction or family housing as the Secretary may 
     designate, to be merged with and to be available for the same 
     purposes, and for the same time period, as the appropriation 
     or fund to which transferred:  Provided further, That, of the 
     amount appropriated, not to exceed $160,404,000 shall be 
     available for study, planning, design, and architect and 
     engineer services, as authorized by law, unless the Secretary 
     of Defense determines that additional obligations are 
     necessary for such purposes and notifies the Committees on 
     Appropriations of both Houses of Congress of the 
     determination and the reasons therefor.

               Military Construction, Army National Guard

       For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation, 
     and conversion of facilities for the training and 
     administration of the Army National Guard, and contributions 
     therefor, as authorized by chapter 1803 of title 10, United 
     States Code, and Military Construction Authorization Acts, 
     $197,237,000, to remain available until September 30, 2020:  
     Provided, That, of the amount appropriated, not to exceed 
     $20,337,000 shall be available for study, planning, design, 
     and architect and engineer services, as authorized by law, 
     unless the Director of the Army National Guard determines 
     that additional obligations are necessary for such purposes 
     and notifies the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses 
     of Congress of the determination and the reasons therefor.

               Military Construction, Air National Guard

       For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation, 
     and conversion of facilities for the training and 
     administration of the Air National Guard, and contributions 
     therefor, as authorized by chapter 1803 of title 10, United 
     States Code, and Military Construction Authorization Acts, 
     $138,738,000, to remain available until September 30, 2020:  
     Provided, That, of the amount appropriated, not to exceed 
     $5,104,000 shall be available for study, planning, design, 
     and architect and engineer services, as authorized by law, 
     unless the Director of the Air National Guard determines that 
     additional obligations are necessary for such purposes and 
     notifies the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of 
     Congress of the determination and the reasons therefor.

                  Military Construction, Army Reserve

       For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation, 
     and conversion of facilities for the training and 
     administration of the Army Reserve as authorized by chapter 
     1803 of title 10, United States Code, and Military 
     Construction Authorization Acts, $113,595,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2020:  Provided, That, of the 
     amount appropriated, not to exceed $9,318,000 shall be 
     available for study, planning, design, and architect and 
     engineer services, as authorized by law, unless the Chief of 
     the Army Reserve determines that additional obligations are 
     necessary for such purposes and notifies the Committees on 
     Appropriations of both Houses of Congress of the 
     determination and the reasons therefor.

                  Military Construction, Navy Reserve

       For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation, 
     and conversion of facilities for the training and 
     administration of the reserve components of the Navy and 
     Marine Corps as authorized by chapter 1803 of title 10, 
     United States Code, and Military Construction Authorization 
     Acts, $36,078,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2020:  Provided, That, of the amount appropriated, not to 
     exceed $2,208,000 shall be available for study, planning, 
     design, and architect and engineer services, as authorized by 
     law, unless the Secretary of the Navy determines that 
     additional obligations are necessary for such purposes and 
     notifies the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of 
     Congress of the determination and the reasons therefor.

                Military Construction, Air Force Reserve

       For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation, 
     and conversion of facilities for the training and 
     administration of the Air Force Reserve as authorized by 
     chapter 1803 of title 10, United States Code, and Military 
     Construction Authorization Acts, $65,021,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2020:  Provided, That, of the 
     amount appropriated, not to exceed $13,400,000 shall be 
     available for study, planning, design, and architect and 
     engineer services, as authorized by law, unless the Chief of 
     the Air Force Reserve determines that additional obligations 
     are necessary for such purposes and notifies the Committees 
     on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress of the 
     determination and the reasons therefor.

                   North Atlantic Treaty Organization

                      Security Investment Program

       For the United States share of the cost of the North 
     Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program for 
     the acquisition and construction of military facilities and 
     installations (including international military headquarters) 
     and for related expenses for the collective defense of the 
     North Atlantic Treaty Area as authorized by section 2806 of 
     title 10, United States Code, and Military Construction 
     Authorization Acts, $120,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

                   Family Housing Construction, Army

       For expenses of family housing for the Army for 
     construction, including acquisition, replacement, addition, 
     expansion, extension, and alteration, as authorized by law, 
     $99,695,000, to remain available until September 30, 2020.

             Family Housing Operation and Maintenance, Army

       For expenses of family housing for the Army for operation 
     and maintenance, including debt payment, leasing, minor 
     construction, principal and interest charges, and insurance 
     premiums, as authorized by law, $393,511,000.

           Family Housing Construction, Navy and Marine Corps

       For expenses of family housing for the Navy and Marine 
     Corps for construction, including acquisition, replacement, 
     addition, expansion, extension, and alteration, as authorized 
     by law, $16,541,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2020.

    Family Housing Operation and Maintenance, Navy and Marine Corps

       For expenses of family housing for the Navy and Marine 
     Corps for operation and maintenance, including debt payment, 
     leasing, minor construction, principal and interest charges, 
     and insurance premiums, as authorized by law, $353,036,000.

                 Family Housing Construction, Air Force

       For expenses of family housing for the Air Force for 
     construction, including acquisition, replacement, addition, 
     expansion, extension, and alteration, as authorized by law, 
     $160,498,000, to remain available until September 30, 2020.

          Family Housing Operation and Maintenance, Air Force

       For expenses of family housing for the Air Force for 
     operation and maintenance, including debt payment, leasing, 
     minor construction, principal and interest charges, and 
     insurance premiums, as authorized by law, $331,232,000.

         Family Housing Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide

       For expenses of family housing for the activities and 
     agencies of the Department of Defense (other than the 
     military departments) for operation and maintenance, leasing, 
     and minor construction, as authorized by law, $58,668,000.

               Department of Defense Base Closure Account

       For deposit into the Department of Defense Base Closure 
     Account 1990, established by section 2906(a) of the Defense 
     Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (10 U.S.C. 2687 
     note), $251,334,000, to remain available until expended.

                       Administrative Provisions

       Sec. 101.  None of the funds made available in this title 
     shall be expended for payments under a cost-plus-a-fixed-fee 
     contract for construction, where cost estimates exceed 
     $25,000, to be performed within the United States, except 
     Alaska, without the specific approval in writing of the 
     Secretary of Defense setting forth the reasons therefor.
       Sec. 102.  Funds made available in this title for 
     construction shall be available for hire of passenger motor 
     vehicles.
       Sec. 103.  Funds made available in this title for 
     construction may be used for advances to the Federal Highway 
     Administration, Department of Transportation, for the 
     construction of access roads as authorized by section 210 of 
     title 23, United States Code, when projects authorized 
     therein are certified as important to the national defense by 
     the Secretary of Defense.
       Sec. 104.  None of the funds made available in this title 
     may be used to begin construction of new bases in the United 
     States for which specific appropriations have not been made.
       Sec. 105.  None of the funds made available in this title 
     shall be used for purchase of land or land easements in 
     excess of 100 percent of the value as determined by the Army 
     Corps of Engineers or the Naval Facilities Engineering 
     Command, except: (1) where there is a determination of value 
     by a Federal court; (2) purchases negotiated by the Attorney 
     General or the designee of the Attorney General; (3) where 
     the estimated value is less than $25,000; or (4) as otherwise 
     determined by the Secretary of Defense to be in the public 
     interest.

[[Page 17476]]

       Sec. 106.  None of the funds made available in this title 
     shall be used to: (1) acquire land; (2) provide for site 
     preparation; or (3) install utilities for any family housing, 
     except housing for which funds have been made available in 
     annual Acts making appropriations for military construction.
       Sec. 107.  None of the funds made available in this title 
     for minor construction may be used to transfer or relocate 
     any activity from one base or installation to another, 
     without prior notification to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of both Houses of Congress.
       Sec. 108.  None of the funds made available in this title 
     may be used for the procurement of steel for any construction 
     project or activity for which American steel producers, 
     fabricators, and manufacturers have been denied the 
     opportunity to compete for such steel procurement.
       Sec. 109.  None of the funds available to the Department of 
     Defense for military construction or family housing during 
     the current fiscal year may be used to pay real property 
     taxes in any foreign nation.
       Sec. 110.  None of the funds made available in this title 
     may be used to initiate a new installation overseas without 
     prior notification to the Committees on Appropriations of 
     both Houses of Congress.
       Sec. 111.  None of the funds made available in this title 
     may be obligated for architect and engineer contracts 
     estimated by the Government to exceed $500,000 for projects 
     to be accomplished in Japan, in any North Atlantic Treaty 
     Organization member country, or in countries bordering the 
     Arabian Gulf, unless such contracts are awarded to United 
     States firms or United States firms in joint venture with 
     host nation firms.
       Sec. 112.  None of the funds made available in this title 
     for military construction in the United States territories 
     and possessions in the Pacific and on Kwajalein Atoll, or in 
     countries bordering the Arabian Gulf, may be used to award 
     any contract estimated by the Government to exceed $1,000,000 
     to a foreign contractor:  Provided, That this section shall 
     not be applicable to contract awards for which the lowest 
     responsive and responsible bid of a United States contractor 
     exceeds the lowest responsive and responsible bid of a 
     foreign contractor by greater than 20 percent:  Provided 
     further, That this section shall not apply to contract awards 
     for military construction on Kwajalein Atoll for which the 
     lowest responsive and responsible bid is submitted by a 
     Marshallese contractor.
       Sec. 113.  The Secretary of Defense shall inform the 
     appropriate committees of both Houses of Congress, including 
     the Committees on Appropriations, of plans and scope of any 
     proposed military exercise involving United States personnel 
     30 days prior to its occurring, if amounts expended for 
     construction, either temporary or permanent, are anticipated 
     to exceed $100,000.
       Sec. 114.  Not more than 20 percent of the funds made 
     available in this title which are limited for obligation 
     during the current fiscal year shall be obligated during the 
     last 2 months of the fiscal year.
       Sec. 115.  Funds appropriated to the Department of Defense 
     for construction in prior years shall be available for 
     construction authorized for each such military department by 
     the authorizations enacted into law during the current 
     session of Congress.
       Sec. 116.  For military construction or family housing 
     projects that are being completed with funds otherwise 
     expired or lapsed for obligation, expired or lapsed funds may 
     be used to pay the cost of associated supervision, 
     inspection, overhead, engineering and design on those 
     projects and on subsequent claims, if any.
       Sec. 117.  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any 
     funds made available to a military department or defense 
     agency for the construction of military projects may be 
     obligated for a military construction project or contract, or 
     for any portion of such a project or contract, at any time 
     before the end of the fourth fiscal year after the fiscal 
     year for which funds for such project were made available, if 
     the funds obligated for such project: (1) are obligated from 
     funds available for military construction projects; and (2) 
     do not exceed the amount appropriated for such project, plus 
     any amount by which the cost of such project is increased 
     pursuant to law.

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 118.  Subject to 30 days prior notification, or 14 
     days for a notification provided in an electronic medium 
     pursuant to sections 480 and 2883 of title 10, United States 
     Code, to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of 
     Congress, such additional amounts as may be determined by the 
     Secretary of Defense may be transferred to: (1) the 
     Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund from 
     amounts appropriated for construction in ``Family Housing'' 
     accounts, to be merged with and to be available for the same 
     purposes and for the same period of time as amounts 
     appropriated directly to the Fund; or (2) the Department of 
     Defense Military Unaccompanied Housing Improvement Fund from 
     amounts appropriated for construction of military 
     unaccompanied housing in ``Military Construction'' accounts, 
     to be merged with and to be available for the same purposes 
     and for the same period of time as amounts appropriated 
     directly to the Fund:  Provided, That appropriations made 
     available to the Funds shall be available to cover the costs, 
     as defined in section 502(5) of the Congressional Budget Act 
     of 1974, of direct loans or loan guarantees issued by the 
     Department of Defense pursuant to the provisions of 
     subchapter IV of chapter 169 of title 10, United States Code, 
     pertaining to alternative means of acquiring and improving 
     military family housing, military unaccompanied housing, and 
     supporting facilities.

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 119.  In addition to any other transfer authority 
     available to the Department of Defense, amounts may be 
     transferred from the accounts established by sections 
     2906(a)(1) and 2906A(a)(1) of the Defense Base Closure and 
     Realignment Act of 1990 (10 U.S.C. 2687 note), to the fund 
     established by section 1013(d) of the Demonstration Cities 
     and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 3374) to 
     pay for expenses associated with the Homeowners Assistance 
     Program incurred under 42 U.S.C. 3374(a)(1)(A). Any amounts 
     transferred shall be merged with and be available for the 
     same purposes and for the same time period as the fund to 
     which transferred.
       Sec. 120.  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     funds made available in this title for operation and 
     maintenance of family housing shall be the exclusive source 
     of funds for repair and maintenance of all family housing 
     units, including general or flag officer quarters:  Provided, 
     That not more than $35,000 per unit may be spent annually for 
     the maintenance and repair of any general or flag officer 
     quarters without 30 days prior notification, or 14 days for a 
     notification provided in an electronic medium pursuant to 
     sections 480 and 2883 of title 10, United States Code, to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress, 
     except that an after-the-fact notification shall be submitted 
     if the limitation is exceeded solely due to costs associated 
     with environmental remediation that could not be reasonably 
     anticipated at the time of the budget submission:  Provided 
     further,  That the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) 
     is to report annually to the Committees on Appropriations of 
     both Houses of Congress all operation and maintenance 
     expenditures for each individual general or flag officer 
     quarters for the prior fiscal year.
       Sec. 121.  Amounts contained in the Ford Island Improvement 
     Account established by subsection (h) of section 2814 of 
     title 10, United States Code, are appropriated and shall be 
     available until expended for the purposes specified in 
     subsection (i)(1) of such section or until transferred 
     pursuant to subsection (i)(3) of such section.

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 122.  During the 5-year period after appropriations 
     available in this Act to the Department of Defense for 
     military construction and family housing operation and 
     maintenance and construction have expired for obligation, 
     upon a determination that such appropriations will not be 
     necessary for the liquidation of obligations or for making 
     authorized adjustments to such appropriations for obligations 
     incurred during the period of availability of such 
     appropriations, unobligated balances of such appropriations 
     may be transferred into the appropriation ``Foreign Currency 
     Fluctuations, Construction, Defense'', to be merged with and 
     to be available for the same time period and for the same 
     purposes as the appropriation to which transferred.
       Sec. 123.  Amounts appropriated or otherwise made available 
     in an account funded under the headings in this title may be 
     transferred among projects and activities within the account 
     in accordance with the reprogramming guidelines for military 
     construction and family housing construction contained in 
     Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation 
     7000.14-R, Volume 3, Chapter 7, of February 2009, as in 
     effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
       Sec. 124.  None of the funds made available in this title 
     may be obligated or expended for planning and design and 
     construction of projects at Arlington National Cemetery.
       Sec. 125.  For an additional amount for ``Military 
     Construction, Army'', $34,500,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2020:  Provided, That such funds may only be 
     obligated to carry out construction projects, in priority 
     order, identified in the Department of the Army's Unfunded 
     Priority List for Fiscal Year 2016 submitted to Congress:  
     Provided further, That such funding is subject to 
     authorization prior to obligation and expenditure of funds to 
     carry out construction:  Provided further, That, not later 
     than 30 days after enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     the Army shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations of 
     both Houses of Congress an expenditure plan for funds 
     provided under this section.
       Sec. 126.  For an additional amount for ``Military 
     Construction, Navy and Marine Corps'', $34,320,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2020:  Provided, That such 
     funds may only be obligated to carry out construction 
     projects, in priority order, identified in the Department of 
     the Navy's Unfunded Priority List for fiscal year 2016:  
     Provided further, That such funding is subject to 
     authorization prior to obligation and expenditure of funds to 
     carry out construction:  Provided further, That, not later 
     than 30 days after enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     the Navy shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations of 
     both Houses of Congress an expenditure plan for funds 
     provided under this section.
       Sec. 127.  For an additional amount for ``Military 
     Construction, Army National Guard'', $51,300,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2020:  Provided, That such 
     funds may only be obligated to carry out construction 
     projects, in priority order, identified in the Department of 
     the Army's Unfunded Priority List for Fiscal Year 2016 
     submitted to Congress:  Provided further, That such funding 
     is subject to authorization prior to obligation and 
     expenditure of funds

[[Page 17477]]

     to carry out construction:  Provided further, That, not later 
     than 30 days after enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     the Army shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations of 
     both Houses of Congress an expenditure plan for funds 
     provided under this section.
       Sec. 128.  For an additional amount for ``Military 
     Construction, Army Reserve'', $34,200,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2020:  Provided, That such 
     funds may only be obligated to carry out construction 
     projects, in priority order, identified in the Department of 
     the Army's Unfunded Priority List for Fiscal Year 2016 
     submitted to Congress:  Provided further, That such funding 
     is subject to authorization prior to obligation and 
     expenditure of funds to carry out construction:  Provided 
     further, That, not later than 30 days after enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary of the Army shall submit to the Committees 
     on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress an expenditure 
     plan for funds provided under this section.

                         (rescissions of funds)

       Sec. 129.  Of the unobligated balances available from prior 
     Appropriations Acts (other than appropriations that were 
     designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement or as 
     being for Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on 
     Terrorism pursuant to a concurrent resolution on the budget 
     or the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985) the following funds are hereby rescinded from the 
     following accounts and programs in the specified amounts:
       ``Military Construction, Army'', $85,000,000;
       ``Military Construction, Air Force'', $86,400,000; and
       ``Military Construction, Defense-Wide'', $133,000,000.

                         (rescission of funds)

       Sec. 130.  Of the unobligated balances made available in 
     prior appropriations Acts for the fund established in section 
     1013(d) of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan 
     Development Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 3374), $65,000,000 are 
     hereby rescinded.
       Sec. 131.  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none 
     of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this 
     or any other Act may be used to consolidate or relocate any 
     element of a United States Air Force Rapid Engineer 
     Deployable Heavy Operational Repair Squadron Engineer (RED 
     HORSE) outside of the United States until the Secretary of 
     the Air Force (1) completes an analysis and comparison of the 
     cost and infrastructure investment required to consolidate or 
     relocate a RED HORSE squadron outside of the United States 
     versus within the United States; (2) provides to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress 
     (``the Committees'') a report detailing the findings of the 
     cost analysis; and (3) certifies in writing to the Committees 
     that the preferred site for the consolidation or relocation 
     yields the greatest savings for the Air Force:  Provided, 
     That the term ``United States'' in this section does not 
     include any territory or possession of the United States.

                                TITLE II

                     DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

                    Veterans Benefits Administration

                       compensation and pensions

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the payment of compensation benefits to or on behalf of 
     veterans and a pilot program for disability examinations as 
     authorized by section 107 and chapters 11, 13, 18, 51, 53, 
     55, and 61 of title 38, United States Code; pension benefits 
     to or on behalf of veterans as authorized by chapters 15, 51, 
     53, 55, and 61 of title 38, United States Code; and burial 
     benefits, the Reinstated Entitlement Program for Survivors, 
     emergency and other officers' retirement pay, adjusted-
     service credits and certificates, payment of premiums due on 
     commercial life insurance policies guaranteed under the 
     provisions of title IV of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act 
     (50 U.S.C. App. 541 et seq.) and for other benefits as 
     authorized by sections 107, 1312, 1977, and 2106, and 
     chapters 23, 51, 53, 55, and 61 of title 38, United States 
     Code, $166,271,436,000, to remain available until expended, 
     of which $87,146,761,000 shall become available on October 1, 
     2016:  Provided, That not to exceed $15,562,000 of the amount 
     appropriated for fiscal year 2016 and $16,021,000 of the 
     amount made available for fiscal year 2017 under this heading 
     shall be reimbursed to ``General Operating Expenses, Veterans 
     Benefits Administration'', and ``Information Technology 
     Systems'' for necessary expenses in implementing the 
     provisions of chapters 51, 53, and 55 of title 38, United 
     States Code, the funding source for which is specifically 
     provided as the ``Compensation and Pensions'' appropriation:  
     Provided further, That such sums as may be earned on an 
     actual qualifying patient basis, shall be reimbursed to 
     ``Medical Care Collections Fund'' to augment the funding of 
     individual medical facilities for nursing home care provided 
     to pensioners as authorized.

                         readjustment benefits

       For the payment of readjustment and rehabilitation benefits 
     to or on behalf of veterans as authorized by chapters 21, 30, 
     31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, 41, 51, 53, 55, and 61 of title 38, 
     United States Code, $32,088,826,000, to remain available 
     until expended, of which $16,743,904,000 shall become 
     available on October 1, 2016:  Provided, That expenses for 
     rehabilitation program services and assistance which the 
     Secretary is authorized to provide under subsection (a) of 
     section 3104 of title 38, United States Code, other than 
     under paragraphs (1), (2), (5), and (11) of that subsection, 
     shall be charged to this account.

                   veterans insurance and indemnities

       For military and naval insurance, national service life 
     insurance, servicemen's indemnities, service-disabled 
     veterans insurance, and veterans mortgage life insurance as 
     authorized by chapters 19 and 21, title 38, United States 
     Code, $169,080,000, to remain available until expended, of 
     which $91,920,000 shall become available on October 1, 2016.

                 veterans housing benefit program fund

       For the cost of direct and guaranteed loans, such sums as 
     may be necessary to carry out the program, as authorized by 
     subchapters I through III of chapter 37 of title 38, United 
     States Code:  Provided, That such costs, including the cost 
     of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974:  Provided further, 
     That, during fiscal year 2016, within the resources 
     available, not to exceed $500,000 in gross obligations for 
     direct loans are authorized for specially adapted housing 
     loans.
       In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     direct and guaranteed loan programs, $164,558,000.

            vocational rehabilitation loans program account

       For the cost of direct loans, $31,000, as authorized by 
     chapter 31 of title 38, United States Code:  Provided, That 
     such costs, including the cost of modifying such loans, shall 
     be as defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act 
     of 1974:  Provided further, That funds made available under 
     this heading are available to subsidize gross obligations for 
     the principal amount of direct loans not to exceed 
     $2,952,381.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the direct loan program, $367,000, which may be paid to 
     the appropriation for ``General Operating Expenses, Veterans 
     Benefits Administration''.

          native american veteran housing loan program account

       For administrative expenses to carry out the direct loan 
     program authorized by subchapter V of chapter 37 of title 38, 
     United States Code, $1,134,000.

                     Veterans Health Administration

                            medical services

       For necessary expenses for furnishing, as authorized by 
     law, inpatient and outpatient care and treatment to 
     beneficiaries of the Department of Veterans Affairs and 
     veterans described in section 1705(a) of title 38, United 
     States Code, including care and treatment in facilities not 
     under the jurisdiction of the Department, and including 
     medical supplies and equipment, bioengineering services, food 
     services, and salaries and expenses of healthcare employees 
     hired under title 38, United States Code, aid to State homes 
     as authorized by section 1741 of title 38, United States 
     Code, assistance and support services for caregivers as 
     authorized by section 1720G of title 38, United States Code, 
     loan repayments authorized by section 604 of the Caregivers 
     and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010 (Public Law 
     111-163; 124 Stat. 1174; 38 U.S.C. 7681 note), and hospital 
     care and medical services authorized by section 1787 of title 
     38, United States Code; $1,134,197,000, which shall be in 
     addition to funds previously appropriated under this heading 
     that become available on October 1, 2015; and, in addition, 
     $51,673,000,000, plus reimbursements, shall become available 
     on October 1, 2016, and shall remain available until 
     September 30, 2017:  Provided, That, of the amount made 
     available on October 1, 2016, under this heading, 
     $1,400,000,000 shall remain available until September 30, 
     2018:  Provided further, That, notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall 
     establish a priority for the provision of medical treatment 
     for veterans who have service-connected disabilities, lower 
     income, or have special needs:  Provided further, That, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of 
     Veterans Affairs shall give priority funding for the 
     provision of basic medical benefits to veterans in enrollment 
     priority groups 1 through 6:  Provided further, That, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of 
     Veterans Affairs may authorize the dispensing of prescription 
     drugs from Veterans Health Administration facilities to 
     enrolled veterans with privately written prescriptions based 
     on requirements established by the Secretary:  Provided 
     further, That the implementation of the program described in 
     the previous proviso shall incur no additional cost to the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs:  Provided further, That, of 
     the amount made available on October 1, 2016, under this 
     heading, not less than $900,000,000 shall be available for 
     highly effective Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) clinical treatments 
     including clinical treatments with modern medications that 
     have significantly higher cure rates than older medications, 
     are easier to prescribe, and have fewer and milder side 
     effects.

                     medical support and compliance

       For necessary expenses in the administration of the 
     medical, hospital, nursing home, domiciliary, construction, 
     supply, and research activities, as authorized by law; 
     administrative expenses in support of capital policy 
     activities; and administrative and legal expenses of the 
     Department for collecting and recovering amounts owed the 
     Department as authorized under chapter 17 of title 38, United 
     States Code, and the Federal Medical Care Recovery Act (42 
     U.S.C. 2651 et seq.), $6,524,000,000, plus reimbursements, 
     shall become available on October 1, 2016, and shall remain 
     available until September 30, 2017:  Provided, That, of the 
     amount made

[[Page 17478]]

     available on October 1, 2016, under this heading, 
     $100,000,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2018.

                           medical facilities

       For necessary expenses for the maintenance and operation of 
     hospitals, nursing homes, domiciliary facilities, and other 
     necessary facilities of the Veterans Health Administration; 
     for administrative expenses in support of planning, design, 
     project management, real property acquisition and 
     disposition, construction, and renovation of any facility 
     under the jurisdiction or for the use of the Department; for 
     oversight, engineering, and architectural activities not 
     charged to project costs; for repairing, altering, improving, 
     or providing facilities in the several hospitals and homes 
     under the jurisdiction of the Department, not otherwise 
     provided for, either by contract or by the hire of temporary 
     employees and purchase of materials; for leases of 
     facilities; and for laundry services, $5,074,000,000, plus 
     reimbursements, shall become available on October 1, 2016, 
     and shall remain available until September 30, 2017:  
     Provided, That, of the amount made available on October 1, 
     2016, under this heading, $250,000,000 shall remain available 
     until September 30, 2018.

                    medical and prosthetic research

       For necessary expenses in carrying out programs of medical 
     and prosthetic research and development as authorized by 
     chapter 73 of title 38, United States Code, $621,813,000, 
     plus reimbursements, shall remain available until September 
     30, 2017.

                    National Cemetery Administration

       For necessary expenses of the National Cemetery 
     Administration for operations and maintenance, not otherwise 
     provided for, including uniforms or allowances therefor; 
     cemeterial expenses as authorized by law; purchase of one 
     passenger motor vehicle for use in cemeterial operations; 
     hire of passenger motor vehicles; and repair, alteration or 
     improvement of facilities under the jurisdiction of the 
     National Cemetery Administration, $266,220,000, of which not 
     to exceed $26,600,000 shall remain available until September 
     30, 2017.

                      Departmental Administration

                         general administration

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary operating expenses of the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs, not otherwise provided for, including 
     administrative expenses in support of Department-Wide capital 
     planning, management and policy activities, uniforms, or 
     allowances therefor; not to exceed $25,000 for official 
     reception and representation expenses; hire of passenger 
     motor vehicles; and reimbursement of the General Services 
     Administration for security guard services, $311,591,000, of 
     which not to exceed $10,000,000 shall remain available until 
     September 30, 2017:  Provided, That funds provided under this 
     heading may be transferred to ``General Operating Expenses, 
     Veterans Benefits Administration''.

                       board of veterans appeals

       For necessary operating expenses of the Board of Veterans 
     Appeals, $107,884,000, of which not to exceed $10,788,000 
     shall remain available until September 30, 2017.

      general operating expenses, veterans benefits administration

       For necessary operating expenses of the Veterans Benefits 
     Administration, not otherwise provided for, including hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles, reimbursement of the General 
     Services Administration for security guard services, and 
     reimbursement of the Department of Defense for the cost of 
     overseas employee mail, $2,697,734,000:  Provided, That 
     expenses for services and assistance authorized under 
     paragraphs (1), (2), (5), and (11) of section 3104(a) of 
     title 38, United States Code, that the Secretary of Veterans 
     Affairs determines are necessary to enable entitled veterans: 
     (1) to the maximum extent feasible, to become employable and 
     to obtain and maintain suitable employment; or (2) to achieve 
     maximum independence in daily living, shall be charged to 
     this account:  Provided further, That, of the funds made 
     available under this heading, not to exceed $160,000,000 
     shall remain available until September 30, 2017.

                     information technology systems

       For necessary expenses for information technology systems 
     and telecommunications support, including developmental 
     information systems and operational information systems; for 
     pay and associated costs; and for the capital asset 
     acquisition of information technology systems, including 
     management and related contractual costs of said 
     acquisitions, including contractual costs associated with 
     operations authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United 
     States Code, $4,106,363,000, plus reimbursements:  Provided, 
     That $1,115,757,000 shall be for pay and associated costs, of 
     which not to exceed $34,800,000 shall remain available until 
     September 30, 2017:  Provided further, That $2,512,863,000 
     shall be for operations and maintenance, of which not to 
     exceed $175,000,000 shall remain available until September 
     30, 2017:  Provided further, That $477,743,000 shall be for 
     information technology systems development, modernization, 
     and enhancement, and shall remain available until September 
     30, 2017:  Provided further, That amounts made available for 
     information technology systems development, modernization, 
     and enhancement may not be obligated or expended until the 
     Secretary of Veterans Affairs or the Chief Information 
     Officer of the Department of Veterans Affairs submits to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress a 
     certification of the amounts, in parts or in full, to be 
     obligated and expended for each development project:  
     Provided further, That amounts made available for salaries 
     and expenses, operations and maintenance, and information 
     technology systems development, modernization, and 
     enhancement may be transferred among the three subaccounts 
     after the Secretary of Veterans Affairs requests from the 
     Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress the 
     authority to make the transfer and an approval is issued:  
     Provided further, That amounts made available for the 
     ``Information Technology Systems'' account for development, 
     modernization, and enhancement may be transferred among 
     projects or to newly defined projects:  Provided further, 
     That no project may be increased or decreased by more than 
     $1,000,000 of cost prior to submitting a request to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress to 
     make the transfer and an approval is issued, or absent a 
     response, a period of 30 days has elapsed:  Provided further, 
     That funds under this heading may be used by the Interagency 
     Program Office through the Department of Veterans Affairs to 
     develop a standard data reference terminology model:  
     Provided further, That, of the funds made available for 
     information technology systems development, modernization, 
     and enhancement for VistA Evolution, not more than 25 percent 
     may be obligated or expended until the Secretary of Veterans 
     Affairs submits to the Committees on Appropriations of both 
     Houses of Congress, and such Committees approve, a report 
     that describes: (1) the status of and changes to the VistA 
     Evolution program plan dated March 24, 2014 (hereinafter 
     referred to as the ``Plan''), the VistA 4 product roadmap 
     dated February 26, 2015 (``Roadmap''), and the VistA 4 
     Incremental Life Cycle Cost Estimate, dated October 26, 2014; 
     (2) any changes to the scope or functionality of projects 
     within the VistA Evolution program as established in the 
     Plan; (3) actual program costs incurred to date; (4) progress 
     in meeting the schedule milestones that have been established 
     in the Plan; (5) a Project Management Accountability System 
     (PMAS) Dashboard Progress report that identifies each VistA 
     Evolution project being tracked through PMAS, what 
     functionality it is intended to provide, and what evaluation 
     scores it has received throughout development; (6) the 
     definition being used for interoperability between the 
     electronic health record systems of the Department of Defense 
     and the Department of Veterans Affairs, the metrics to 
     measure the extent of interoperability, the milestones and 
     timeline associated with achieving interoperability, and the 
     baseline measurements associated with interoperability; (7) 
     progress toward developing and implementing all components 
     and levels of interoperability, including semantic 
     interoperability; (8) the change management tools in place to 
     facilitate the implementation of VistA Evolution and 
     interoperability; and (9) any changes to the governance 
     structure for the VistA Evolution program and its chain of 
     decisionmaking authority:  Provided further, That the funds 
     made available under this heading for information technology 
     systems development, modernization, and enhancement, shall be 
     for the projects, and in the amounts, specified under this 
     heading in the report accompanying this Act.

                      office of inspector general

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General, 
     to include information technology, in carrying out the 
     provisions of the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. 
     App.), $126,766,000, of which $12,676,000 shall remain 
     available until September 30, 2017.

                      construction, major projects

       For constructing, altering, extending, and improving any of 
     the facilities, including parking projects, under the 
     jurisdiction or for the use of the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs, or for any of the purposes set forth in sections 
     316, 2404, 2406 and chapter 81 of title 38, United States 
     Code, not otherwise provided for, including planning, 
     architectural and engineering services, construction 
     management services, maintenance or guarantee period services 
     costs associated with equipment guarantees provided under the 
     project, services of claims analysts, offsite utility and 
     storm drainage system construction costs, and site 
     acquisition, where the estimated cost of a project is more 
     than the amount set forth in section 8104(a)(3)(A) of title 
     38, United States Code, or where funds for a project were 
     made available in a previous major project appropriation, 
     $1,027,064,000, of which $967,064,000 shall remain available 
     until September 30, 2020, and of which $60,000,000 shall 
     remain available until expended:  Provided, That except for 
     advance planning activities, including needs assessments 
     which may or may not lead to capital investments, and other 
     capital asset management related activities, including 
     portfolio development and management activities, and 
     investment strategy studies funded through the advance 
     planning fund and the planning and design activities funded 
     through the design fund, including needs assessments which 
     may or may not lead to capital investments, and salaries and 
     associated costs of the resident engineers who oversee those 
     capital investments funded through this account, and funds 
     provided for the purchase of land for the National Cemetery 
     Administration through the land acquisition line item, none 
     of the funds made available under this heading shall be used 
     for any project which has not been approved by the Congress 
     in the budgetary process:  Provided further, That funds made 
     available under this heading for fiscal year 2016, for each 
     approved project shall be obligated: (1) by the awarding of a 
     construction documents contract by September 30, 2016; and

[[Page 17479]]

     (2) by the awarding of a construction contract by September 
     30, 2017:  Provided further, That the Secretary of Veterans 
     Affairs shall promptly submit to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of both Houses of Congress a written report on 
     any approved major construction project for which obligations 
     are not incurred within the time limitations established 
     above:  Provided further, That, of the amount made available 
     on October 1, 2016, under this heading, $490,700,000 for 
     Veterans Health Administration major construction projects 
     shall not be available until the Secretary of Veterans 
     Affairs:
       (1) Enters into an agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of 
     Engineers, to serve as the design and construction agent for 
     Veterans Health Administration projects with a Total 
     Estimated Cost of $250,000,000 or above.
       (2) That such an agreement will designate the U.S. Army 
     Corps of Engineers as the design and construction agent to 
     serve as--
       (A) the overall construction project manager, with a 
     dedicated project delivery team including engineers, medical 
     facility designers, and professional project managers;
       (B) the facility design manager, with a dedicated design 
     manager and technical support;
       (C) the design agent, with standardized and rigorous 
     facility designs;
       (D) the architect/engineer designer; and
       (E) the overall construction agent, with a dedicated 
     construction and technical team during pre-construction, 
     construction, and commissioning phases.
       (3) Certifies in writing that such an agreement is in 
     effect and will prevent subsequent major construction project 
     cost overruns, provides a copy of the agreement entered into 
     (and any required supplementary information) to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress, and 
     a period of 60 days has elapsed.

                      construction, minor projects

       For constructing, altering, extending, and improving any of 
     the facilities, including parking projects, under the 
     jurisdiction or for the use of the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs, including planning and assessments of needs which 
     may lead to capital investments, architectural and 
     engineering services, maintenance or guarantee period 
     services costs associated with equipment guarantees provided 
     under the project, services of claims analysts, offsite 
     utility and storm drainage system construction costs, and 
     site acquisition, or for any of the purposes set forth in 
     sections 316, 2404, 2406 and chapter 81 of title 38, United 
     States Code, not otherwise provided for, where the estimated 
     cost of a project is equal to or less than the amount set 
     forth in section 8104(a)(3)(A) of title 38, United States 
     Code, $378,080,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2020, along with unobligated balances of previous 
     ``Construction, Minor Projects'' appropriations which are 
     hereby made available for any project where the estimated 
     cost is equal to or less than the amount set forth in such 
     section:  Provided, That funds made available under this 
     heading shall be for: (1) repairs to any of the nonmedical 
     facilities under the jurisdiction or for the use of the 
     Department which are necessary because of loss or damage 
     caused by any natural disaster or catastrophe; and (2) 
     temporary measures necessary to prevent or to minimize 
     further loss by such causes.

       grants for construction of state extended care facilities

       For grants to assist States to acquire or construct State 
     nursing home and domiciliary facilities and to remodel, 
     modify, or alter existing hospital, nursing home, and 
     domiciliary facilities in State homes, for furnishing care to 
     veterans as authorized by sections 8131 through 8137 of title 
     38, United States Code, $100,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended.

             grants for construction of veterans cemeteries

       For grants to assist States and tribal organizations in 
     establishing, expanding, or improving veterans cemeteries as 
     authorized by section 2408 of title 38, United States Code, 
     $46,000,000, to remain available until expended.

                       Administrative Provisions

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 201.  Any appropriation for fiscal year 2016 for 
     ``Compensation and Pensions'', ``Readjustment Benefits'', and 
     ``Veterans Insurance and Indemnities'' may be transferred as 
     necessary to any other of the mentioned appropriations:  
     Provided, That, before a transfer may take place, the 
     Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall request from the 
     Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress the 
     authority to make the transfer and such Committees issue an 
     approval, or absent a response, a period of 30 days has 
     elapsed.

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 202.  Amounts made available for the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs for fiscal year 2016, in this Act or any 
     other Act, under the ``Medical Services'', ``Medical support 
     and compliance'', and ``Medical Facilities'' accounts may be 
     transferred among the accounts:  Provided, That any transfers 
     between the ``Medical Services'' and ``Medical Support and 
     Compliance'' accounts of 1 percent or less of the total 
     amount appropriated to the account in this or any other Act 
     may take place subject to notification from the Secretary of 
     Veterans Affairs to the Committees on Appropriations of both 
     Houses of Congress of the amount and purpose of the transfer: 
      Provided further, That any transfers between the ``Medical 
     Services'' and ``Medical Support and Compliance'' accounts in 
     excess of 1 percent, or exceeding the cumulative 1 percent 
     for the fiscal year, may take place only after the Secretary 
     requests from the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses 
     of Congress the authority to make the transfer and an 
     approval is issued:  Provided further, That any transfers to 
     or from the ``Medical Facilities'' account may take place 
     only after the Secretary requests from the Committees on 
     Appropriations of both Houses of Congress the authority to 
     make the transfer and an approval is issued.
       Sec. 203.  Appropriations available in this title for 
     salaries and expenses shall be available for services 
     authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code; 
     hire of passenger motor vehicles; lease of a facility or land 
     or both; and uniforms or allowances therefore, as authorized 
     by sections 5901 through 5902 of title 5, United States Code.
       Sec. 204.  No appropriations in this title (except the 
     appropriations for ``Construction, Major Projects'', and 
     ``Construction, Minor Projects'') shall be available for the 
     purchase of any site for or toward the construction of any 
     new hospital or home.
       Sec. 205.  No appropriations in this title shall be 
     available for hospitalization or examination of any persons 
     (except beneficiaries entitled to such hospitalization or 
     examination under the laws providing such benefits to 
     veterans, and persons receiving such treatment under sections 
     7901 through 7904 of title 5, United States Code, or the 
     Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.)), unless reimbursement of the 
     cost of such hospitalization or examination is made to the 
     ``Medical Services'' account at such rates as may be fixed by 
     the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
       Sec. 206.  Appropriations available in this title for 
     ``Compensation and pensions'', ``Readjustment benefits'', and 
     ``Veterans insurance and indemnities'' shall be available for 
     payment of prior year accrued obligations required to be 
     recorded by law against the corresponding prior year accounts 
     within the last quarter of fiscal year 2015.
       Sec. 207.  Appropriations available in this title shall be 
     available to pay prior year obligations of corresponding 
     prior year appropriations accounts resulting from sections 
     3328(a), 3334, and 3712(a) of title 31, United States Code, 
     except that if such obligations are from trust fund accounts 
     they shall be payable only from ``Compensation and 
     Pensions''.

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 208.  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     during fiscal year 2016, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 
     shall, from the National Service Life Insurance Fund under 
     section 1920 of title 38, United States Code, the Veterans' 
     Special Life Insurance Fund under section 1923 of title 38, 
     United States Code, and the United States Government Life 
     Insurance Fund under section 1955 of title 38, United States 
     Code, reimburse the ``General operating expenses, Veterans 
     Benefits Administration'' and ``Information Technology 
     Systems'' accounts for the cost of administration of the 
     insurance programs financed through those accounts:  
     Provided, That reimbursement shall be made only from the 
     surplus earnings accumulated in such an insurance program 
     during fiscal year 2016 that are available for dividends in 
     that program after claims have been paid and actuarially 
     determined reserves have been set aside:  Provided further, 
     That, if the cost of administration of such an insurance 
     program exceeds the amount of surplus earnings accumulated in 
     that program, reimbursement shall be made only to the extent 
     of such surplus earnings:  Provided further, That the 
     Secretary shall determine the cost of administration for 
     fiscal year 2016 which is properly allocable to the provision 
     of each such insurance program and to the provision of any 
     total disability income insurance included in that insurance 
     program.
       Sec. 209.  Amounts deducted from enhanced-use lease 
     proceeds to reimburse an account for expenses incurred by 
     that account during a prior fiscal year for providing 
     enhanced-use lease services, may be obligated during the 
     fiscal year in which the proceeds are received.

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 210.  Funds available in this title or funds for 
     salaries and other administrative expenses shall also be 
     available to reimburse the Office of Resolution Management of 
     the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Office of 
     Employment Discrimination Complaint Adjudication under 
     section 319 of title 38, United States Code, for all services 
     provided at rates which will recover actual costs but not to 
     exceed $43,700,000 for the Office of Resolution Management 
     and $3,400,000 for the Office of Employment Discrimination 
     Complaint Adjudication:  Provided, That payments may be made 
     in advance for services to be furnished based on estimated 
     costs:  Provided further, That amounts received shall be 
     credited to the ``General Administration'' and ``Information 
     Technology Systems'' accounts for use by the office that 
     provided the service.

                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 211.  Of the amounts made available to the Department 
     of Veterans Affairs for fiscal year 2016 for the Office of 
     Rural Health under the heading ``Medical Services'', 
     including any advance appropriation for fiscal year 2016 
     provided in prior appropriation Acts, up to $20,000,000 may 
     be transferred to and merged with funds appropriated under 
     the heading ``Grants for Construction of State Extended Care 
     Facilities''.
       Sec. 212.  No funds of the Department of Veterans Affairs 
     shall be available for hospital care, nursing home care, or 
     medical services provided to any person under chapter 17 of 
     title 38,

[[Page 17480]]

     United States Code, for a non-service-connected disability 
     described in section 1729(a)(2) of such title, unless that 
     person has disclosed to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, in 
     such form as the Secretary may require, current, accurate 
     third-party reimbursement information for purposes of section 
     1729 of such title:  Provided, That the Secretary may 
     recover, in the same manner as any other debt due the United 
     States, the reasonable charges for such care or services from 
     any person who does not make such disclosure as required:  
     Provided further, That any amounts so recovered for care or 
     services provided in a prior fiscal year may be obligated by 
     the Secretary during the fiscal year in which amounts are 
     received.

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 213.  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     proceeds or revenues derived from enhanced-use leasing 
     activities (including disposal) may be deposited into the 
     ``Construction, Major Projects'' and ``Construction, Minor 
     Projects'' accounts and be used for construction (including 
     site acquisition and disposition), alterations, and 
     improvements of any medical facility under the jurisdiction 
     or for the use of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Such 
     sums as realized are in addition to the amount provided for 
     in ``Construction, Major Projects'' and ``Construction, Minor 
     Projects''.
       Sec. 214.  Amounts made available under ``Medical 
     Services'' are available--
       (1) for furnishing recreational facilities, supplies, and 
     equipment; and
       (2) for funeral expenses, burial expenses, and other 
     expenses incidental to funerals and burials for beneficiaries 
     receiving care in the Department.

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 215.  Such sums as may be deposited to the Medical 
     Care Collections Fund pursuant to section 1729A of title 38, 
     United States Code, may be transferred to ``Medical 
     Services'', to remain available until expended for the 
     purposes of that account:  Provided, That, for fiscal year 
     2016, up to $27,000,000 deposited in the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs Medical Care Collections Fund shall be 
     transferred to ``Information Technology Systems'', to remain 
     available until expended, for development of the Medical Care 
     Collections Fund electronic data exchange provider and payer 
     system.
       Sec. 216.  The Secretary of Veterans Affairs may enter into 
     agreements with Indian tribes and tribal organizations which 
     are party to the Alaska Native Health Compact with the Indian 
     Health Service, and Indian tribes and tribal organizations 
     serving rural Alaska which have entered into contracts with 
     the Indian Health Service under the Indian Self Determination 
     and Educational Assistance Act, to provide healthcare, 
     including behavioral health and dental care. The Secretary 
     shall require participating veterans and facilities to comply 
     with all appropriate rules and regulations, as established by 
     the Secretary. The term ``rural Alaska'' shall mean those 
     lands sited within the external boundaries of the Alaska 
     Native regions specified in sections 7(a)(1)-(4) and (7)-(12) 
     of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, as amended (43 
     U.S.C. 1606), and those lands within the Alaska Native 
     regions specified in sections 7(a)(5) and 7(a)(6) of the 
     Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, as amended (43 U.S.C. 
     1606), which are not within the boundaries of the 
     municipality of Anchorage, the Fairbanks North Star Borough, 
     the Kenai Peninsula Borough or the Matanuska Susitna Borough.

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 217.  Such sums as may be deposited to the Department 
     of Veterans Affairs Capital Asset Fund pursuant to section 
     8118 of title 38, United States Code, may be transferred to 
     the ``Construction, Major Projects'' and ``Construction, 
     Minor Projects'' accounts, to remain available until expended 
     for the purposes of these accounts.
       Sec. 218.  None of the funds made available in this title 
     may be used to implement any policy prohibiting the Directors 
     of the Veterans Integrated Services Networks from conducting 
     outreach or marketing to enroll new veterans within their 
     respective Networks.
       Sec. 219.  The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall submit 
     to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of 
     Congress a quarterly report on the financial status of the 
     Veterans Health Administration.

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 220.  Amounts made available under the ``Medical 
     Services'', ``Medical Support and Compliance'', ``Medical 
     Facilities'', ``General Operating Expenses, Veterans Benefits 
     Administration'', ``General Administration'', and ``National 
     Cemetery Administration'' accounts for fiscal year 2016 may 
     be transferred to or from the ``Information Technology 
     Systems'' account:  Provided, That, before a transfer may 
     take place, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall request 
     from the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of 
     Congress the authority to make the transfer and an approval 
     is issued.
       Sec. 221.  None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act or any other Act for the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs may be used in a manner that is inconsistent 
     with: (1) section 842 of the Transportation, Treasury, 
     Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, the District of 
     Columbia, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006 
     (Public Law 109-115; 119 Stat. 2506); or (2) section 
     8110(a)(5) of title 38, United States Code.
       Sec. 222.  Of the amounts made available to the Department 
     of Veterans Affairs for fiscal year 2016, in this Act or any 
     other Act, under the ``Medical Facilities'' account for 
     nonrecurring maintenance, not more than 20 percent of the 
     funds made available shall be obligated during the last 2 
     months of that fiscal year:  Provided, That the Secretary may 
     waive this requirement after providing written notice to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress.

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 223.  Of the amounts appropriated to the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs for fiscal year 2016 for ``Medical 
     Services'', ``Medical Support and Compliance'', ``Medical 
     Facilities'', ``Construction, Minor Projects'', and 
     ``Information Technology Systems'', up to $266,303,000, plus 
     reimbursements, may be transferred to the Joint Department of 
     Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility 
     Demonstration Fund, established by section 1704 of the 
     National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 
     (Public Law 111-84; 123 Stat. 3571) and may be used for 
     operation of the facilities designated as combined Federal 
     medical facilities as described by section 706 of the Duncan 
     Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     2009 (Public Law 110-417; 122 Stat. 4500):  Provided, That 
     additional funds may be transferred from accounts designated 
     in this section to the Joint Department of Defense-Department 
     of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration Fund upon 
     written notification by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to 
     the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress:  
     Provided further, That section 223 of Title II of Division I 
     of Public Law 113-235 is repealed.

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 224.  Of the amounts appropriated to the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs which become available on October 1, 2016, 
     for ``Medical Services'', ``Medical Support and Compliance'', 
     and ``Medical Facilities'', up to $265,675,000, plus 
     reimbursements, may be transferred to the Joint Department of 
     Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility 
     Demonstration Fund, established by section 1704 of the 
     National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 
     (Public Law 111-84; 123 Stat. 3571) and may be used for 
     operation of the facilities designated as combined Federal 
     medical facilities as described by section 706 of the Duncan 
     Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     2009 (Public Law 110-417; 122 Stat. 4500):  Provided, That 
     additional funds may be transferred from accounts designated 
     in this section to the Joint Department of Defense-Department 
     of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration Fund upon 
     written notification by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to 
     the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress.

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 225.  Such sums as may be deposited to the Medical 
     Care Collections Fund pursuant to section 1729A of title 38, 
     United States Code, for healthcare provided at facilities 
     designated as combined Federal medical facilities as 
     described by section 706 of the Duncan Hunter National 
     Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 
     110-417; 122 Stat. 4500) shall also be available: (1) for 
     transfer to the Joint Department of Defense-Department of 
     Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration Fund, 
     established by section 1704 of the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84; 
     123 Stat. 3571); and (2) for operations of the facilities 
     designated as combined Federal medical facilities as 
     described by section 706 of the Duncan Hunter National 
     Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 
     110-417; 122 Stat. 4500).

                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 226.  Of the amounts available in this title for 
     ``Medical Services'', ``Medical Support and Compliance'', and 
     ``Medical Facilities'', a minimum of $15,000,000 shall be 
     transferred to the DOD-VA Health Care Sharing Incentive Fund, 
     as authorized by section 8111(d) of title 38, United States 
     Code, to remain available until expended, for any purpose 
     authorized by section 8111 of title 38, United States Code.

                    (including rescissions of funds)

       Sec. 227. (a) Of the funds appropriated in division I of 
     Public Law 113-235, the following amounts which become 
     available on October 1, 2015, are hereby rescinded from the 
     following accounts in the amounts specified:
       (1) ``Department of Veterans Affairs, Medical Services'', 
     $1,400,000,000.
       (2) ``Department of Veterans Affairs, Medical Support and 
     Compliance'', $150,000,000.
       (3) ``Department of Veterans Affairs, Medical Facilities'', 
     $250,000,000.
       (b) In addition to amounts provided elsewhere in this Act, 
     an additional amount is appropriated to the following 
     accounts in the amounts specified to remain available until 
     September 30, 2017:
       (1) ``Department of Veterans Affairs, Medical Services'', 
     $1,400,000,000.
       (2) ``Department of Veterans Affairs, Medical Support and 
     Compliance'', $100,000,000.
       (3) ``Department of Veterans Affairs, Medical Facilities'', 
     $250,000,000.
       Sec. 228.  The Secretary of the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs shall notify the Committees on Appropriations of both 
     Houses of Congress of all bid savings in major construction 
     projects that total at least $5,000,000, or 5 percent of the 
     programmed amount of the project, whichever is less:  
     Provided, That such notification shall occur within 14 days 
     of a contract identifying the programmed amount:  Provided 
     further, That the Secretary shall notify the Committees on 
     Appropriations of both Houses of Congress 14 days prior to 
     the obligation of such bid savings and

[[Page 17481]]

     shall describe the anticipated use of such savings.
       Sec. 229.  The scope of work for a project included in 
     ``Construction, Major Projects'' may not be increased above 
     the scope specified for that project in the original 
     justification data provided to the Congress as part of the 
     request for appropriations.
       Sec. 230.  The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall submit 
     to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of 
     Congress a quarterly report that contains the following 
     information from each Veterans Benefits Administration 
     Regional Office: (1) the average time to complete a 
     disability compensation claim; (2) the number of claims 
     pending more than 125 days; (3) error rates; (4) the number 
     of claims personnel; (5) any corrective action taken within 
     the quarter to address poor performance; (6) training 
     programs undertaken; and (7) the number and results of 
     Quality Review Team audits:  Provided, That each quarterly 
     report shall be submitted no later than 30 days after the end 
     of the respective quarter.
       Sec. 231.  Of the funds provided to the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs for fiscal year 2016 for ``Medical 
     Services'' and ``Medical Support and Compliance'', a maximum 
     of $5,000,000 may be obligated from the ``Medical Services'' 
     account and a maximum of $154,596,000 may be obligated from 
     the ``Medical Support and Compliance'' account for the VistA 
     Evolution and electronic health record interoperability 
     projects:  Provided, That funds in addition to these amounts 
     may be obligated for the VistA Evolution and electronic 
     health record interoperability projects upon written 
     notification by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress.
       Sec. 232.  The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall provide 
     written notification to the Committees on Appropriations of 
     both Houses of Congress 15 days prior to organizational 
     changes which result in the transfer of 25 or more full-time 
     equivalents from one organizational unit of the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs to another.
       Sec. 233.  The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall provide 
     on a quarterly basis to the Committees on Appropriations of 
     both Houses of Congress notification of any single national 
     outreach and awareness marketing campaign in which 
     obligations exceed $2,000,000.
       Sec. 234.  Not more than $4,400,000 of the funds provided 
     in this Act under the heading ``Department of Veterans 
     Affairs--Departmental Administration--General 
     Administration'' may be used for the Office of Congressional 
     and Legislative Affairs.
       Sec. 235.  None of the funds available to the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs, in this or any other Act, may be used to 
     replace the current system by which the Veterans Integrated 
     Service Networks select and contract for diabetes monitoring 
     supplies and equipment.

                         (rescissions of funds)

       Sec. 236.  Of the discretionary funds made available in 
     title II of division I of Public Law 113-235 for the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs for fiscal year 2016, 
     $198,000,000 are rescinded from ``Medical Services'', 
     $42,000,000 are rescinded from ``Medical Support and 
     Compliance'', and $15,000,000 are rescinded from ``Medical 
     Facilities''.

                         (rescissions of funds)

       Sec. 237. (a) There is hereby rescinded an aggregate amount 
     of $55,000,000 from the total budget authority provided for 
     fiscal year 2016 for discretionary accounts of the Department 
     of Veterans Affairs in--
       (1) this Act; or
       (2) any advance appropriation for fiscal year 2016 in prior 
     appropriation Acts.
       (b) The Secretary shall submit to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of both Houses of Congress a report specifying 
     the account and amount of each rescission not later than 30 
     days following enactment of this Act.

                         (rescission of funds)

       Sec. 238.  Of the unobligated balances available within the 
     ``DOD-VA Health Care Sharing Incentive Fund'', $50,000,000 
     are hereby rescinded.

                         (rescissions of funds)

       Sec. 239.  Of the discretionary funds made available in 
     title II of division I of Public Law 113-235 for the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs for fiscal year 2015, 
     $1,052,000 are rescinded from ``General Administration'', and 
     $5,000,000 are rescinded from ``Construction, Minor 
     Projects''.

                         (rescissions of funds)

       Sec. 240. (a) There is hereby rescinded an aggregate amount 
     of $90,293,000 from prior year unobligated balances available 
     within discretionary accounts of the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs;
       (b) No funds may be rescinded from amounts provided under 
     the following headings:
       (1) ``Medical Services'';
       (2) ``Medical and Prosthetic Research'';
       (3) ``National Cemetery Administration'';
       (4) ``Board of Veterans Appeals'';
       (5) ``General Operating Expenses, Veterans Benefits 
     Administration'';
       (6) ``Office of Inspector General'';
       (7) ``Grants for Construction of State Extended Care 
     Facilities''; and
       (8) ``Grants for Construction of Veterans Cemeteries''.
       (c) No amounts may be rescinded from amounts that were 
     designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget or the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended.
       (d) The Secretary shall submit to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of both Houses of Congress a report specifying 
     the account and amount of each rescission not later than 30 
     days following enactment of this Act.
       Sec. 241.  Section 2302(a)(2)(A)(viii) of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended by inserting ``or under title 38'' 
     after ``of this title''.
       Sec. 242.  The Department of Veterans Affairs is authorized 
     to administer financial assistance grants and enter into 
     cooperative agreements with organizations, utilizing a 
     competitive selection process, to train and employ homeless 
     and at-risk veterans in natural resource conservation 
     management.
       Sec. 243.  Section 312 of title 38, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(c)(1) Whenever the Inspector General, in carrying out 
     the duties and responsibilities established under the 
     Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.), issues a work 
     product that makes a recommendation or otherwise suggests 
     corrective action, the Inspector General shall--
       ``(A) submit the work product to--
       ``(i) the Secretary;
       ``(ii) the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, the Committee on 
     Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Committee 
     on Appropriations of the Senate;
       ``(iii) the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, the Committee 
     on Oversight and Government Reform, and the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives;
       ``(iv) if the work product was initiated upon request by an 
     individual or entity other than the Inspector General, that 
     individual or entity; and
       ``(v) any Member of Congress upon request; and
       ``(B) the Inspector General shall submit all final work 
     products to--
       ``(i) if the work product was initiated upon request by an 
     individual or entity other than the Inspector General, that 
     individual or entity; and
       ``(ii) any Member of Congress upon request; and
       ``(C) not later than 3 days after the work product is 
     submitted in final form to the Secretary, post the work 
     product on the Internet website of the Inspector General.
       ``(2) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to 
     authorize the public disclosure of information that is 
     specifically prohibited from disclosure by any other 
     provision of law.''.
       Sec. 244.  None of the funds provided in this Act may be 
     used to pay the salary of any individual who (a) was the 
     Executive Director of the Office of Acquisition, Logistics 
     and Construction, and (b) who retired from Federal service in 
     the midst of an investigation, initiated by the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs, into delays and cost overruns associated 
     with the design and construction of the new medical center in 
     Aurora, Colorado.
       Sec. 245.  Of the amounts appropriated or otherwise made 
     available to the Department of Veterans Affairs for the 
     ``Medical Services'' account for fiscal year 2016 in this Act 
     of any other Act, not less than $10,000,000 shall be used to 
     hire additional caregiver support coordinators to support the 
     programs of assistance and support for caregivers of veterans 
     under section 1720G of title 38, United States Code.
       Sec. 246.  None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available to the Department of Veterans Affairs in this Act 
     may be used in a manner that would--
       (1) interfere with the ability of a veteran to participate 
     in a State-approved medicinal marijuana program;
       (2) deny any services from the Department to a veteran who 
     is participating in such a program; or
       (3) limit or interfere with the ability of a health care 
     provider of the Department to make appropriate 
     recommendations, fill out forms, or take steps to comply with 
     such a program.

                               TITLE III

                            RELATED AGENCIES

                  American Battle Monuments Commission

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, of the 
     American Battle Monuments Commission, including the 
     acquisition of land or interest in land in foreign countries; 
     purchases and repair of uniforms for caretakers of national 
     cemeteries and monuments outside of the United States and its 
     territories and possessions; rent of office and garage space 
     in foreign countries; purchase (one-for-one replacement basis 
     only) and hire of passenger motor vehicles; not to exceed 
     $7,500 for official reception and representation expenses; 
     and insurance of official motor vehicles in foreign 
     countries, when required by law of such countries, 
     $75,100,000, to remain available until expended.

                 foreign currency fluctuations account

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, of the 
     American Battle Monuments Commission, such sums as may be 
     necessary, to remain available until expended, for purposes 
     authorized by section 2109 of title 36, United States Code.

           United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for the operation of the United 
     States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims as authorized by 
     sections 7251 through 7298 of title 38, United States Code, 
     $32,141,000:  Provided, That $2,500,000 shall be available 
     for the purpose of providing financial assistance as 
     described, and in accordance with the process and reporting 
     procedures set forth, under this heading in Public Law 102-
     229.

[[Page 17482]]



                      Department of Defense--Civil

                       Cemeterial Expenses, Army

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for maintenance, operation, and 
     improvement of Arlington National Cemetery and Soldiers' and 
     Airmen's Home National Cemetery, including the purchase or 
     lease of passenger motor vehicles for replacement on a one-
     for-one basis only, and not to exceed $1,000 for official 
     reception and representation expenses, $70,800,000, of which 
     not to exceed $28,000,000 shall remain available until 
     September 30, 2018. In addition, such sums as may be 
     necessary for parking maintenance, repairs and replacement, 
     to be derived from the ``Lease of Department of Defense Real 
     Property for Defense Agencies'' account.

                      Armed Forces Retirement Home

                               trust fund

       For expenses necessary for the Armed Forces Retirement Home 
     to operate and maintain the Armed Forces Retirement Home--
     Washington, District of Columbia, and the Armed Forces 
     Retirement Home--Gulfport, Mississippi, to be paid from funds 
     available in the Armed Forces Retirement Home Trust Fund, 
     $64,300,000, of which $1,000,000 shall remain available until 
     expended for construction and renovation of the physical 
     plants at the Armed Forces Retirement Home--Washington, 
     District of Columbia, and the Armed Forces Retirement Home--
     Gulfport, Mississippi.

                       Administrative Provisions

       Sec. 301.  Funds appropriated in this Act under the heading 
     ``Department of Defense--Civil, Cemeterial Expenses, Army'', 
     may be provided to Arlington County, Virginia, for the 
     relocation of the federally owned water main at Arlington 
     National Cemetery, making additional land available for 
     ground burials.
       Sec. 302.  Amounts deposited during the current fiscal year 
     to the special account established under 10 U.S.C. 4727 are 
     appropriated and shall be available until expended to support 
     activities at the Army National Military Cemeteries.

                                TITLE IV

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 401.  No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 402.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for any program, project, or activity, when it is 
     made known to the Federal entity or official to which the 
     funds are made available that the program, project, or 
     activity is not in compliance with any Federal law relating 
     to risk assessment, the protection of private property 
     rights, or unfunded mandates.
       Sec. 403.  Such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 
     2016 for pay raises for programs funded by this Act shall be 
     absorbed within the levels appropriated in this Act.
       Sec. 404.  No part of any funds appropriated in this Act 
     shall be used by an agency of the executive branch, other 
     than for normal and recognized executive-legislative 
     relationships, for publicity or propaganda purposes, and for 
     the preparation, distribution, or use of any kit, pamphlet, 
     booklet, publication, radio, television, or film presentation 
     designed to support or defeat legislation pending before 
     Congress, except in presentation to Congress itself.
       Sec. 405.  All departments and agencies funded under this 
     Act are encouraged, within the limits of the existing 
     statutory authorities and funding, to expand their use of 
     ``E-Commerce'' technologies and procedures in the conduct of 
     their business practices and public service activities.
       Sec. 406.  Unless stated otherwise, all reports and 
     notifications required by this Act shall be submitted to the 
     Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, 
     and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations of 
     the House of Representatives and the Subcommittee on Military 
     Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies of 
     the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate.
       Sec. 407.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be transferred to any department, agency, or instrumentality 
     of the United States Government except pursuant to a transfer 
     made by, or transfer authority provided in, this or any other 
     appropriations Act.
       Sec. 408. (a) Any agency receiving funds made available in 
     this Act, shall, subject to subsections (b) and (c), post on 
     the public Web site of that agency any report required to be 
     submitted by the Congress in this or any other Act, upon the 
     determination by the head of the agency that it shall serve 
     the national interest.
       (b) Subsection (a) shall not apply to a report if--
       (1) the public posting of the report compromises national 
     security; or
       (2) the report contains confidential or proprietary 
     information.
       (c) The head of the agency posting such report shall do so 
     only after such report has been made available to the 
     requesting Committee or Committees of Congress for no less 
     than 45 days.
       Sec. 409. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act 
     may be used to maintain or establish a computer network 
     unless such network blocks the viewing, downloading, and 
     exchanging of pornography.
       (b) Nothing in subsection (a) shall limit the use of funds 
     necessary for any Federal, State, tribal, or local law 
     enforcement agency or any other entity carrying out criminal 
     investigations, prosecution, or adjudication activities.
       Sec. 410. (a) In General.--None of the funds appropriated 
     or otherwise made available to the Department of Defense in 
     this Act may be used to construct, renovate, or expand any 
     facility in the United States, its territories, or 
     possessions to house any individual detained at United States 
     Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for the purposes of 
     detention or imprisonment in the custody or under the control 
     of the Department of Defense.
       (b) The prohibition in subsection (a) shall not apply to 
     any modification of facilities at United States Naval 
     Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
       (c) An individual described in this subsection is any 
     individual who, as of June 24, 2009, is
     located at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, 
     and who--
       (1) is not a citizen of the United States or a member of 
     the Armed Forces of the United States; and
       (2) is--
       (A) in the custody or under the effective control of the 
     Department of Defense; or
       (B) otherwise under detention at United States Naval 
     Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
        This Act may be cited as the ``Military Construction, 
     Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 
     2016''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.


                           Amendment No. 2763

       (Purpose: In the nature of a substitute)

  Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, I call up my substitute amendment, a 
bipartisan bill for VA-MILCON.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Kirk] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2763.

  Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')


                Amendment No. 2764 to Amendment No. 2763

  Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, I call up my first-degree amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Kirk] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2764 to amendment No. 2763.

  Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To clarify the term ``congressional defense committees'')

       At the appropriate place in title IV, insert the following:
       Sec._. For the purposes of this Act, the term 
     ``congressional defense committees'' means the Committees on 
     Armed Services of the House of Representatives and the 
     Senate, the Subcommittee on Military Construction and 
     Veterans Affairs of the Committee on Appropriations of the 
     Senate, and the Subcommittee on Military Construction and 
     Veterans Affairs of the Committee on Appropriations of the 
     House of Representatives.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                         Supporting Our Troops

  Mr. McCONNELL. Well, amazingly enough, our colleagues across the 
aisle just voted to proceed to an individual appropriations bill. We 
have been trying to do this for months. Finally, they have approved 
going to an appropriations bill. This should not be breaking news, 
goodness gracious, but it is newsworthy because of what has been going 
on around here for the last 2 or 3 months. Democrats have repeatedly 
blocked the Senate from even debating individual appropriations bills. 
They never had a good excuse, of course, and the excuses kept changing 
as each previous excuse got debunked, but nevertheless they kept it up 
month after month after month. Well, finally that seems to have changed 
today. Maybe we can assume that this is the end of the filibuster 
summer, in November, a partisan season of obstructionist Democratic 
filibustering in which they have blockaded government funding bills 
entirely--all of them. Nearly every one of those bills was bipartisan.
  Our Democratic friends, as they voted for them in committee, would 
send out press releases praising the bills, and then when they got out 
here on the floor, they all blocked them. They said no to funding for 
bridges and infrastructure. They said no to funding for energy 
conservation and clean water. They said no to funding for absolutely 
anything at all, especially for our troops.
  You know, it is particularly jarring when you consider some of the 
things

[[Page 17483]]

written recently by President Obama's own Defense Secretary in an op-ed 
entitled ``U.S. Military Needs Budget Certainty in Uncertain Times.'' 
Here is what this Obama administration Cabinet Secretary said:

       While Washington struggles to get its house in order, the 
     challenges around the world continue. China continues its 
     dubious and destabilizing land-reclamation activities in the 
     South China Sea. Islamic State continues its barbarous 
     campaign. Russia continues to violate the sovereignty of 
     Ukraine and pour gasoline on the Syrian conflict. In this 
     uncertain security environment, the U.S. military needs to be 
     agile and dynamic.

  This is the Defense Secretary of the President's administration.

       What it has now is a straitjacket. At the Defense 
     Department, we are forced to make hasty reductions when 
     choices should be considered carefully and strategically.

  This is President Obama's Defense Secretary talking about the 
necessity for these bills that are being blocked by his own party.
  Here is the way he continues in his op-ed. He said:

       I appeal to Congress to act on a long-term budget deal--

  We did that--

     that will let the American troops and their families know we 
     have the commitment and the resources to see them succeed, 
     and send a global message that the United States will 
     continue to plan and build for the finest fighting force the 
     world has ever known.

  This is the Secretary of Defense in the Democratic administration. 
Sounds like he is lecturing the guys on the other side here who are the 
obstacle.
  In spite of these pleas from the Secretary of Defense, we are still 
unable to get on a defense appropriations bill. One Member of the other 
side said that funding our troops was wasting the Senate's time--
wasting the Senate's time.
  We have seen them all filibustered repeatedly. They just did so again 
this morning. At a time when a vast number of threats face our country, 
as Secretary Ash Carter alluded to, our colleagues across the aisle 
actually voted to filibuster the bill that funds our troops and our 
military one more time. Democrats filibustered for months on end to 
hold hostage the men and women who voluntarily put themselves in harm's 
way, for reasons that shifted constantly and had little to do with our 
troops.
  Mr. CORNYN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I will.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would ask the distinguished majority 
leader whether he finds it ironic--and perhaps he has a better word 
than ``ironic'' to describe the situation we find ourselves in--that 
three separate times the Democrats have filibustered the funding that 
provides the resources to our troops to fight our Nation's battles and 
keep us safe, but then a few short days before Veterans Day, they 
decide to allow us to finally get on a veterans and military 
construction bill. I would hope it is not because they had second 
thoughts about going home on Wednesday and giving patriotic speeches 
about their support for our troops and military but then realizing what 
a spot they have put themselves in. I wonder if the majority leader 
shares my view that that is at least ironic, and perhaps ``cynical'' 
would be a more appropriate description.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Yes, I would say to my colleague from Texas, they were 
afraid to feel the heat next Wednesday on Veterans Day, having stopped 
a veterans appropriations bill. Frankly, I hope they still feel a 
little heat on stopping the Defense bill because the vast number of 
veterans in our country don't just care about their own well-being 
after they served, they care about the well-being of those who are 
still serving.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for one additional 
question?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I will.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would ask the majority leader, having 
been through what we have been through here in just this last week in 
establishing spending caps for this year and next in this bipartisan 
and bicameral Budget Act, if he can think of any possible rationale for 
the Democrats filibustering the Defense appropriations bill, when, in 
fact, those spending caps are subject to a law which the President has 
now signed into law, and which were the subject of this bipartisan, 
bicameral agreement that passed just last week.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Well, you know, as each obstacle has been removed, as 
each reason for filibustering these bills earlier is removed, they come 
up with a new one. We obviously last week agreed on how much we were 
going to spend, so the question of spending has been removed. The 
302(b) allocations were completed yesterday. Our friends on the other 
side said they were happy with them. They are running out of excuses, 
but the end result is the same: They are still not allowing us to go 
forward on the Defense bill.
  I would say to my friend and colleague from Texas that I heard these 
conspiracy theories that we had some trick to play here. I made it 
clear not only to my counterpart the Democratic leader but to other 
Democratic Senators that there is no nefarious scheme. We thought, all 
objections having been removed, the appropriate thing to do would be to 
try--by pursuing regular order, try to pass some of the appropriations 
bills, given the limited amount of time we have left. Yet they kept on 
doing the same thing with the exception of the veterans bill. It is a 
mystery.
  The level of dysfunction the other side seems to be promoting is bad 
for the institution and bad for the country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  

  Mr. CORNYN. If the Senator will yield for a question, I ask the 
distinguished majority leader if it is still true that in order to 
accomplish this delusional scheme that our friends across the aisle 
have somehow dreamed up as a way to block this funding for our troops, 
even if that were true--which it is not, as you have pointed out--isn't 
it still true for an appropriations bill to become law it requires the 
signature of the President of the United States? So it would literally 
be impossible to do what they have dreamed up in their delusional state 
when they are accusing us of this sort of a scheme and plan, which is 
absolutely false.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Yes, my friend from Texas is entirely right. There 
would be no way--consistent with the Constitution that James Madison 
wrote--that they would in the end not have some considerable sway over 
how this episode ends.
  What I think it says, more than anything, is how committed to 
dysfunction our friends on the other side are--dysfunction for the sake 
of dysfunction. The American people are sick and tired of that. They 
want to see us do our work like adults, serious adults taking the 
responsibility we have been given by our constituents to do our very 
best for this country.
  This is the same party on the other side that I remember lecturing 
everyone else about the dangers of the filibuster. Apparently they 
weren't very serious because it is obviously their new best friend now. 
This is the same party we remember bashing legislative ``hostage-
taking,'' but apparently they weren't serious about that either because 
they basically have become experts.
  Look, the Democrats may never be able to fully remove the stain of 
this filibuster summer gridlock gambit from their party's reputation, 
but they can work with us now to finally start turning the page.
  I ask my friends on the other side: When are we going to get back to 
normal if not now? When, if not now, when we have agreed to all of the 
contentious parts of the appropriations process. Every excuse has been 
wiped away. We have settled our own budget agreement. We have agreed on 
topline budget numbers. We have settled on subcommittee allocations, 
and we have just proceeded to an individual appropriations bill at long 
last.
  It is time for the appropriations process to finally be allowed to 
move forward, time for the Senate to finally be

[[Page 17484]]

able to get back to regular order. It is time for each of us to get 
back to work, not just because it is the right thing for our country, 
not just because it is the right thing for the brave men and women who 
are voluntarily putting themselves in harm's way, but it is the best 
way for Senators of both parties to have the most say in the process, 
for the American people to be best represented, with their Members 
debating each appropriations bill on the floor with the opportunity for 
amendments to be offered.
  A lot of work went into developing these appropriations bills--the 
occupant of the chair is on that committee. Most passed the committee 
with bipartisan support. That was certainly true of the Defense 
appropriations bill. It passed out of the Appropriations Committee 27 
to 3. It was similarly true of the appropriations bill that funds 
veterans, which passed the committee with bipartisan support. That is 
the bill we just voted to proceed to.
  It would support veterans by funding the health care and the benefits 
they rely on. It would support military families by funding the 
housing, schools, and health care facilities that serve them. It would 
provide support for women's health, for medical research, for veterans 
suffering from traumatic brain injury. It would do a lot of good in 
many of our home States too. In my State it would provide funding for 
design work at a new VA medical center in Louisville, a special 
operations headquarters at Fort Campbell, and an educational facility 
at Fort Knox.
  The bill would do right by our veterans. We should pass it. With 
continued cooperation, we can pass it by Veterans Day. Then the 
appropriations process can continue after we pass this bill. It is 
obvious why we started with a Defense appropriations bill first. While 
this morning's filibuster was deeply regrettable, to say the least, we 
have the option to reconsider that bill and we will. We are going to 
keep working to ensure its passage.
  Look, as we approach Veterans Day, I ask my colleagues to consider 
this. We have an all-volunteer force in this country. The young men and 
women who sign up to defend our Nation don't ask for a lot, but our 
Nation certainly asks a lot of them. These mothers and brothers and 
friends and neighbors aren't legislative poker chips, and helping them 
isn't a ``waste of the Senate's time.'' These are Americans who deserve 
our support. Let's put the past in the past and unite to finally give 
it to them. Both parties did so in committee a few months ago and both 
parties could do so now.
  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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Getting the Business of the Country Done

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I had the pleasure of listening to the 
Republican leader's speech a few minutes ago. I understand he has two-
thirds of his caucus who voted against the budget agreement and he has 
to kind of play to his audience. I think the words he used were: We are 
the party of dysfunction.
  All you have to do is read the newspaper to find out that is not the 
case. The fact is, it has been shown time and time again in recent 
years the party that is not working is the Republican Party. There is 
no more evidence of that when you see who is running for President. All 
you have to do is look and see what happened in recent weeks in the 
House of Representatives, where the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives, when asked a week before he resigned: How do you put 
up with those people over there, and he said: If you are around garbage 
long enough, you can't smell it.
  So let's not talk about us being the party of dysfunction.
  The Republican leader has complained about delay. I don't know what 
kind of glasses he is wearing; we were ready to negotiate in June. We 
kept saying that over and over again. Right now we don't have anything 
we can move forward on. Let's sit down and talk. They refused to talk 
time and time again. We asked for consent agreements. They refused to 
do that.
  Time was marching on. The debt ceiling was fast approaching where, if 
we had not advanced that, this country would have basically shut down 
and it would have had a dramatic negative effect on the world economy.
  Please, I say to my Republican colleagues, don't talk about delay. We 
haven't delayed anything. These bills that are going to be in the form 
of an omnibus, they should have been done one at a time, but you 
couldn't do it because they were spending everything for defense and 
nothing for nondefense. So with the budget agreement, as we have said, 
we wanted to make sure sequestration was taken care of--and it was. 
Drastic cuts in sequestration are gone for 2 years. We wanted to make 
sure if there was any increase in defense the middle class got equal 
parity, and they did. We are satisfied where we are, but the time for 
casting blame is gone and my friend the Republican leader should stop 
trying to blame it on us. We didn't do it. We are not the party of 
dysfunction.
  From the very beginning we sought funding levels that were fair to 
the middle class and to the military. The military is going to get 
their money. Everybody knows that. The Presiding Officer knows it. 
Everybody knows it, but it is not a bad deal that the middle class also 
gets enough to take care of them. Republicans seem compelled, as they 
did this morning, to once again fund one part of the government they 
like--the Pentagon--without doing anything for the needs of the rest of 
the country: the middle class, those people here at home.
  We can give a speech just as patriotic as my Republican friend. We 
believe in the military. They have made great sacrifices for all of us, 
but we don't need to give great speeches about how patriotic we are. 
What we need to do is get the business of the country done, and that 
has not happened. Hopefully, with this step forward and being on this 
Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill, we can 
do that.
  Democrats opposed the motion to invoke cloture on the Defense bill 
this morning because Republicans again were compelled to do everything 
they could for the Pentagon and ignore the rest of the country, but 
this afternoon we have been willing to move ahead the Military 
Construction and Veterans Affairs bill. It is the right thing to do. 
That bill has both defense and domestic matters contained in it. It is 
a noncontroversial bill, and it will give us an opportunity to start 
the appropriations process. It doesn't seem fair to us that we would 
rush forward and do the Defense bill, which is more than 50 percent of 
all the money this country spends in a year--more than 50 percent of 
the discretionary spending that we have to appropriate.
  Now we have a December 11 deadline and we have to fund all the 
government to avoid a shutdown. So I hope we are considering this 
Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill. The 
Appropriations Committee will be working together to put together 
funding--likely in an omnibus--for the rest of the government. Dealing 
with the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill 
is a small step to rebuild trust and experience in working together.
  Democrats are willing partners to carry out the budget agreement 
Congress passed last week, but we will continue to fight for the needs 
of the middle class while we continue to fight and make sure the 
military is taken care of and also continue to fight poison pill 
riders.
  Mr. President, we have a number of people on the floor. Is anyone 
seeking recognition?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.


              Unanimous Consent Request--S. 552 and S. 966

  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to 
ask the Senate to take up and pass two bipartisan no-cost bills that 
will help small businesses with one of their most urgent needs; that 
is, access to credit.

[[Page 17485]]

Specifically, I am referring to Senator Risch's bill to enhance the SBA 
support for startup firms, which is called the Small Business 
Investment Company Capital Act, and the bill I have sponsored with 
Senator Isakson, the Commercial Real Estate and Economic Development 
Act, which is also known as the CREED Act.
  Both of these bills have broad bipartisan support. In April, almost 6 
months ago, the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship 
voted unanimously to pass both of these bills. I had introduced the 
CREED Act with my friend from Georgia Senator Isakson to reinstate a 
new version of a successful no-cost program at the SBA known as 504 
refinancing. That program had expired before many of the small 
businesses that needed help could benefit. Congress had created this 
refinancing program during the financial crisis when small business 
lending was frozen. As real estate values declined, many small 
businesses, even those that were performing well and were current on 
their mortgage payments, were unable to refinance their loans through 
traditional methods. Small businesses with equity in their properties 
were often unable to access that equity for additional operating 
capital.
  That 504 refinancing program worked. For the short time that it was 
active, SBA and its loan partners were able to help a lot of those 
small businesses. More than 2,300 small firms refinanced $5 billion of 
small business debt. Unfortunately, the program expired in September of 
2012, even though there was still significant demand for this type of 
financing. In fact, on the last day this program was authorized, more 
than 400 businesses from around the country applied.
  There is still a significant demand for this lending today. We keep 
hearing from small businesses that they would benefit greatly from this 
type of financing. In particular, it would help the many small 
businesses who are paying too much in interest because they took out 
their loans during the recession. As one lender in New Hampshire said:

       During the crisis, businesses took whatever financing they 
     could get. The banks wouldn't commit to long terms. Today the 
     rates are much better, [so businesses holding those loans are 
     paying too much].

  Now, while the economy is better and lending to small businesses is 
starting to recover, many banks today either cannot or will not 
refinance or renew an existing commercial real estate loan on terms as 
beneficial as the 504 refinancing loan could.
  We know there is real need for this program. We have heard it from 
small businesses, and we have heard it from groups that work directly 
with small businesses. I have a chart here that shows a number of those 
groups we have heard from. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the 
American Bankers Association support the legislation. The National 
Association of Development Companies; the National Small Business 
Association; the Consumer Bankers Association; the Small Business 
Majority; Women Impacting Public Policy, which does so much to support 
women-owned businesses; the Association of Women's Business Centers; 
and then we have a whole list of those development companies that 
support this legislation. I won't read through those development 
companies, but these are all organizations and businesses that want to 
see us start this program again because they have small businesses that 
need this lending.
  I have a number of letters here that I will just hold up and show. We 
have a whole packet of letters, and I ask unanimous consent to have 
printed in the Record these letters.

  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                                                         GSDC,

                                                     Aug. 4, 2015.
     Hon. Jeanne Shaheen,
     Committee on Small Business & Entrepreneurship,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Ranking Member Shaheen: Thank you for introducing S. 
     966, the Commercial Real Estate and Economic Development Act 
     of 2015 (CREED Act). This bill is important to small 
     businesses in New Hampshire and across the country. It would 
     re-instate the 504 Refi program, a two-year initiative that 
     permitted refinancing of existing commercial real estate debt 
     using the Small Business Administration (SBA) 504 loan 
     program.
       We also want to thank the Members of the Senate Committee 
     on Small Business & Entrepreneurship for voting unanimously 
     to pass the bill out of Committee on April 23, 2015. That was 
     three months ago, and we are counting on the full Senate to 
     pass the bill because it is an important source of financing 
     for small businesses. We need to get it up and running again 
     as soon as possible.
       The biggest impact of the SBA 504 Refi program is to allow 
     small businesses access to equity in their business real 
     estate thereby allowing the bank and SBA 504 to consolidate 
     shorter term, higher interest rate loans. This directly 
     benefits the small business by 1) lowering interest payments 
     and monthly payments, 2) locking in low rate mortgage 
     payments for 20 years, 3) freeing up working assets (Accounts 
     Receivable, Inventory, FF&E--Furniture, fixtures, and 
     equipment) allowing the business access to working capital to 
     support business growth and the hiring of new employees.
       The SBA 504 Refi program is only available to existing 
     businesses that are financially viable with experienced 
     management and all loan payments current. This is not a 
     bailout for big businesses on the brink of collapse but 
     rather a credit enhancement for small businesses with equity 
     in real estate that banks are not willing to leverage without 
     the assistance of the SBA 504 Refinance program. The small 
     business owner is savvy enough to realize the significant 
     benefit of the program and is willing to pay the small fees 
     to cover all costs, if they only had the opportunity.
       Below are three specific examples of small businesses that 
     benefited from the SBA 504 Refi program.
       1. A building supply company headquartered in Merrimack, 
     NH, that was significantly impacted by the recession with 
     sales decreasing over 30% from 2007 to 2010. The business's 
     $1,000,000 LOC (line of credit) was demanded by the bank with 
     payment due in full in less than 6 months. The SBA 504 
     Refinance program allowed the business to access the equity 
     in their real estate by taking out a new 90% LTV mortgage 
     (50% new bank, 40% SBA) providing 1) sufficient funds to pay 
     off the $1,000,000 LOC, 2) convert short term working capital 
     with higher interest rate to long term lower interest debt 
     with a fixed rate, and 3) free up access to new working 
     capital. The new bank provided a new $250,000 LOC and a new 
     $200,000 term loan.
       2. A manufacturing company that provides drilling and 
     routing services to high-tech industries located primarily 
     throughout the northeastern United States and has its 
     headquarters located in a 9,620 SF manufacturing facility in 
     an Industrial Park in Salem, NH. The company's original $575M 
     mortgage required monthly P&I payments of $4,500 (priced 
     @5.65%) and the SBA 504 Refi program refinanced their 
     mortgage and reduced monthly mortgage payments to 
     approximately $3,950 creating an annual savings of over 
     $6,600. The interest rate on the new mortgage was also 
     decreased to 4.25% with the assistance of the SBA 504 
     Refinance program. This 504 Refi transaction allowed the Bank 
     to reduce its mortgage exposure to the customer by $250M, 
     which in turn allowed the Bank to consolidate three term 
     loans and provide a single $460M term loan, creating an 
     additional $3,000 yearly savings at a lower interest rate. 
     Finally, debt consolidation and SBA 504 refinance allowed the 
     Bank to grant the customer a new $50M RLOC for working 
     capital needs to keep the customer operating during the slow 
     winter months.
       3. A grocery store located in Littleton, NH. The store 
     carries a full line of grocery store products as well as 
     natural, organic and locally produced goods. With the 
     assistance of the SBA 504 Refi program the business was able 
     to access equity in their real estate and consolidate eight 
     short term mortgages and equipment terms loans totaling 
     $3,231,000 reducing payments by $114,000 per year. With this 
     annual savings the business was able to add long term 
     financial stability to costs and free up working capital to 
     allow the business to hire new employees. This business has 
     seen steady growth and is planning to expand in 2015.
       There are more small businesses that could use this 
     financing. Please urge the Senate to pass this bill.
           Thank you,

                                               Scott Gardiner,

                           Executive Vice President, Granite State
     Economic Development Corp.
                                  ____

                                        Chamber of Commerce of the


                                     United States of America,

                                    Washington, DC, Aug. 19, 2015.
     Hon. Jeanne Shaheen,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Johnny Isakson,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Shaheen and Isakson: The U.S. Chamber of 
     Commerce, the world's largest business federation 
     representing the interests of more than three million 
     businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions, as well as

[[Page 17486]]

     state and local chambers and industry associations, and 
     dedicated to promoting, protecting, and defending America's 
     free enterprise system, supports S. 966, the ``Commercial 
     Real Estate and Economic Development Act of 2015,'' (CREED 
     Act) which would help provide small business owners with much 
     needed access to capital when attempting to refinance their 
     commercial real estate loans.
       Many small business owners are challenged to refinance real 
     estate loans structured as balloon payments and 
     collateralized by devalued assets when the loan matures. Even 
     though the small business borrower may be current on their 
     payments, the financial institution experiencing tightened 
     lending standards and increased oversight by examiners may 
     not have a choice but to either force the business into 
     foreclosure, or take a loss by writing down the loan.
       S. 966 would help small businesses and financial 
     institutions overcome these hurdles by allowing small 
     businesses to refinance eligible debt with a Small Business 
     Administration 504 loan, at no expense to taxpayers.
       More than ninety-six percent of the Chamber's members are 
     small businesses with fewer than one hundred employees. The 
     Chamber thanks you for introducing S. 966, the CREED Act, and 
     looks forward to working with you on its passage.
           Sincerely,
     R. Bruce Josten.
                                  ____

                                                   Sept. 25, 2015.
     Sen. Bob Casey,
     393 Russell Senate Office Building,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Sen. Pat Toomey,
     248 Russell Senate Office Building,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Casey and Senator Toomey: On behalf of 
     Northeastern Economic Development Co. in Pennsylvania, I 
     write to share my enthusiasm for S. 966, the CREED Act. This 
     bill was unanimously voted out of the Senate Committee on 
     Small Business and Entrepreneurship in April and has been 
     waiting to be passed by the full Senate for more than three 
     months. The bill is bi-partisan and has zero cost.
       I urge you to push for quick consideration of this bill in 
     the Senate and vote in favor it so that Pennsylvania small 
     businesses, and small businesses everywhere, can once again 
     have access to this valuable program.
       The CREED Act will reinstitute a program that permits 
     conventional loans to be refinanced with the SBA's 504 loan 
     program. When this refinancing was in place from mid-2011 to 
     September 2012, more than 2,300 small business owners were 
     able to refinance existing equipment or owner-occupied real 
     estate debt. During this economically challenging time, these 
     entrepreneurs refinanced $5 billion of their own capital to 
     reinvest in their business and create jobs. One of the states 
     to use this program the most was Pennsylvania--roughly $68 
     million in loans went to small businesses that refinanced 
     existing loans on essential fixed assets.
       While large businesses have equal access to capital as they 
     did before the recession, small businesses still have a tight 
     credit market. This valuable refinancing tool is needed to 
     help America's 28 million small businesses grow. The demand 
     is certainly there--over 400 businesses applied to the 
     refinancing program on its final day, but were left out from 
     participating when it closed. With interest rates at historic 
     lows, reinstituting the refinancing program will give small 
     business owners a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to lock in a 
     fixed-rate refinanced loan and be able to use those savings 
     to reinvest and grow their businesses, We hope with your 
     leadership, this program will be available to them again.
       Thank you in advance for your support of S.966, the CREED 
     Act, and for your continued support of small businesses.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Stephen Ursich,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                                CSRA Business,

                                                    Oct. 26, 2015.
     Sen. Johnny Isakson,
     131 Russell Senate Office Building,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Isakson, We the non-profit SBA Certified 
     Development Companies in the State of Georgia, are jointly 
     writing you this letter to thank you for your support and co-
     sponsorship of S.966 (the CREED Act) and to ask you to assist 
     in the passage of the bill that is expected to be introduced 
     on the floor of the Senate in the coming days. We as a group 
     unanimously support this legislation which is a badly needed 
     rule change to the SBA-504 loan program that we all operate 
     in our various communities which would allow small business 
     owners throughout our state to tap into the equity in their 
     buildings and refinance debt at our current low historical 
     rates.
       This bill was unanimously voted out of the Senate Committee 
     on Small Business and Entrepreneurship in April and has been 
     waiting to be passed by the full Senate for more than four 
     months. As you well know, the bill is bipartisan and has zero 
     cost to the taxpayers.
       As one of the lead cosponsors of this bill, you understand 
     the benefits it will provide to small businesses. The CREED 
     Act will reinstitute a program that permits conventional 
     mortgages and other loans to be refinanced with the SBA's 504 
     loan program if a small business owner can demonstrate 
     sufficient equity and cash flow exists. When this refinancing 
     was in place from mid-2011 to September 2012, more than 2,300 
     small business owners were able to refinance their owner-
     occupied business real estate debt.
       While large businesses have equal access to capital as they 
     did before the recession, small businesses still have a tight 
     credit market. This valuable refinancing tool is needed to 
     help America's 28 million small businesses grow. The demand 
     is certainly there--over 900 businesses applied to the 
     refinancing program on the final day it was in place. With 
     interest rates at historic lows, reinstituting the 
     refinancing program will give small business owners the same 
     opportunity consumers have had--to refinance into a low 
     fixed-rate loan and be able to use those savings to reinvest 
     and grow their businesses. We hope with your leadership, this 
     program will be available to them again.
       It is our understanding that some have suggested that this 
     program be held to accounting standards outside of the 
     current federal budgeting procedure. The process of how the 
     budget is managed is a contentious one and one that should 
     not hold this bill hostage. That issue should be handled 
     through the Senate Budget Committee and not a bipartisan bill 
     that gives small businesses an opportunity to grow.
       We know the performance of the loans that were refinanced 
     during the downturn while program was in place, have 
     outperformed OMB projections and the regular default rates on 
     standard SBA loans. SBA implemented credit safeguards by 
     making the program available only to businesses who have been 
     in business two or more years and by not allowing business to 
     refinance debt that has been past due in the year prior to 
     application.
       We appreciate your leadership on S.966, the CREED Act, and 
     ask for your assistance in its passage in the Senate.
           Sincerely,

                                     Randy Griffin, President,

                                   CSRA Business Lending, Augusta,
                                        On Behalf of the Attached.

  Mrs. SHAHEEN. The support for this bill is so broad, as indicated by 
this chart and as indicated by these letters, because the need is so 
great. There is no reason we shouldn't take up and pass this bill. It 
has been approved by the committee--the small business committee. It 
has broad bipartisan support. It is cosponsored by Senators Fischer, 
Ayotte, Coons, Cantwell, Hirono, Franken, and Casey. I thank them for 
their support, and I thank the small business committee for its work.
  Mr. President, like so many of the important bills that go through 
the Senate, this bill has been paired, as I said earlier, by the 
chairman of the small business committee, Senator Vitter, with another 
no-cost small business bill which is authored by Senator Risch from 
Idaho. That bill, along with the CREED Act, will provide no-cost 
solutions that will help small businesses in this country get the 
credit they need to fuel our growth.
  Again, both of these bills passed unanimously out of the small 
business committee. I believe the time has come to pass them in the 
Senate. They have been held up for too long.
  At this time I want to yield to my colleague, who is going to talk 
about the hold problem we have been facing on this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I would like to be recognized to ask my 
colleague from New Hampshire a question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, it has been more than 4 years since the 
Senate overwhelmingly passed a bipartisan resolution ending the ability 
of Senators to place secret holds as a way to block passage of 
legislation and confirmations of nominees. The resolution--which I 
worked on with our colleague from Iowa Senator Grassley for more than a 
decade, and Senator McCaskill joined in these efforts--overwhelmingly 
passed the Senate by a 92-to-4 vote. Under the resolution, Senators who 
object to requests to pass legislation by unanimous consent are 
supposed to record their opposition by sending notice to the cloakroom 
and to the Secretary of the Senate, notifying colleagues of their 
objection. The objection is then listed in the Senate Calendar on a 
page--I took today's with the title ``Notice of Intent to Object to 
Proceeding.''
  Mr. President, if you look at the page in the Senate Calendar where 
holds on

[[Page 17487]]

bills are supposed to be listed, right now you will find a single entry 
on the page. It concerns a public hold that I placed on the 
intelligence authorization legislation last July. I wish I could say 
the reason that only one objection to a unanimous consent request is 
listed in the Senate Calendar is that my objection is the only hold 
placed on a bill in the past few months.
  Regrettably, that does not seem to be the case. For example, my 
colleague from New Hampshire has been talking about her bill, known as 
the CREED Act, S. 966. It was hotlined back on June 18 to determine if 
any Senator objected to passing that bill by unanimous consent. An 
objection was made after the bill was hotlined back in June, but the 
objecting Senator was not publicly identified as the timely objection 
was made. My understanding is that Senator Shaheen and her staff 
subsequently learned that multiple Senators had objected to passing her 
bill by unanimous consent, but not one of those Senators made their 
objection public through the notice requirements that were part of the 
bipartisan resolution.
  I think it is important to note that Senator Shaheen's CREED Act was 
determined to have no cost to Federal taxpayers. It is funded entirely 
by fees paid by the borrowers and lenders under the SBA 504 Loan 
Program. It strikes me as a very good bill that would benefit America's 
economy.
  I gather there are some Senators who might not agree about the value 
of the program, which, of course, is their right as Senators. But if 
they object to passing a bill, Senators ought to be publicly 
accountable. That is how we voted--92 to 4. They shouldn't be able to 
hide opposition behind anonymous objection. Senator Grassley and I and 
Senator McCaskill and others have said: Look, public business has got 
to be done in public. So Senator Grassley and I have publicly announced 
our holds by putting statements in the Congressional Record, and I 
don't think that Western civilization has exactly been harmed as a 
result of this kind of transparency and accountability.
  I would like to ask my colleague Senator Shaheen, given her interest 
in living up to both the letter and the spirit of the bipartisan 
resolution, whether it is her intent to state a unanimous consent 
request at this time to ensure the kind of transparency and 
accountability that was envisioned in the bipartisan resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. I thank my colleague from Oregon for pointing out the 
fact that people who want to hold up legislation that has broad 
bipartisan support are supposed to make themselves publicly known. It 
took us months to figure out who was actually holding up this bill. So 
I do intend to ask unanimous consent to move the bill forward. I 
appreciate the Senator pointing out the change we have agreed to as a 
Senate in how we handle those holds and that the people holding up the 
legislation should be public so the public understands who is objecting 
and has a chance to weigh in with the people who are objecting.
  Mr. President, with that said, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 104, S. 
552, and Calendar No. 107, S. 966, en bloc; that the bills be read a 
third time and passed; and that the motions to reconsider be considered 
made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I want to 
address the unanimous consent request, and I am delighted to continue 
the ongoing conversation we have been having about this for many months 
now with the minority staff on the small business committee and with 
the office of the Senator from New Hampshire.
  I might preface my comments by observing that I used to own and 
operate my own small business. I helped launch a little community bank 
in eastern Pennsylvania, western New Jersey. I have some firsthand 
personal experience both as a small business borrower and as a small 
business lender, and that experience informs my judgment about this and 
other things.
  I should also point out that this is a unanimous consent request to 
consider two bills together en bloc. I have made it clear that I have 
no objection to S. 552, but I do have some concerns about S. 966 that I 
want to address.
  Let me be clear about what this does. This legislation would 
reactivate an expired program that requires taxpayers to guarantee 
certain loans. By the way, taxpayers are already on the hook for over 
$3 trillion of loans we force them to guarantee through many different 
programs. This would bring back to life another taxpayer loan guarantee 
program. It does it by specifically requiring taxpayers to guarantee 
loans that would refinance existing debt.
  So this particular legislation that we are considering today is about 
the refinancing of existing debt. It is not taking on new debt for the 
purpose of expanding an existing business or something like that; it is 
refinancing existing debt.
  As the Senator observed, this would sort of reincarnate a program 
that was launched in 2010. This was launched in 2010 because we were 
still in the very early days of recovering from a severe financial 
crisis. It was designed intentionally to be temporary--to require 
taxpayers to finance these loans for small businesses but only for this 
2-year period. And that is what happened.
  Here are my problems with this. I have two problems. One is the cost 
this imposes on taxpayers. I have heard it described as a no-cost 
program on several occasions. That is absolutely not true. The fact is 
that no small business goes through the hassle of applying for and 
participating in this program unless it can get the loan at a lower 
rate than what is generally available from banks. That difference 
between this taxpayer-subsidized lower rate and a market rate is the 
cost to the taxpayers. You don't have to take my word for it; that is 
what the Congressional Budget Office said. I will say more on that in a 
moment. In addition, the parent program that provides similar types of 
loans has lost $300 million for taxpayers over just the last several 
years. How is that no cost?
  The second concern I have is that there is no job requirement 
whatsoever in this particular legislation, unlike the existing 
program--the parent program, if you will, the 504 program that never 
suspended. That has an explicit job requirement for additional taxpayer 
liabilities. This one doesn't. It explicitly exempts the business 
borrowing this money from having to create or even retain so much as a 
single job.
  So I would like to modify the unanimous consent request, and my 
modification does three things: No. 1, it allows the resumption of the 
program. That is the first thing it does. It allows this program to 
resume, which is the intention of the Senator from New Hampshire, I 
believe. But what it also does, after 1 year of resumption, is require 
that we begin to have some taxpayer protections on this. Specifically, 
the form that would take would be to require the Office of Management 
and Budget to certify that the program doesn't cost money on a fair 
value basis. The fair value basis is taking into account the fact that 
not all credits are equal. For instance, the corner pizza shop is not 
as creditworthy as the Treasury of the United States of America. So a 
true cost of a loan differs between that which you would extend to the 
Treasury of the United States of America and the local pizza shop. If 
you don't have a differential between those two, then someone is 
getting the wrong rate. And if you lend to the pizza shop at the same 
rate you lend to the Federal Government, you are surely not being 
compensated adequately for the risk you are taking.
  So this methodology, the fair value methodology, is the same one we 
use when we quantify the cost of the TARP program, when we quantify the 
cost of GSE guarantees, and when we quantify IMF liabilities. That is 
what I am suggesting we use.

[[Page 17488]]

  The Congressional Budget Office has weighed in with their views on 
fair value accounting, and they said:

       When the government extends credit, the associated market 
     risk of those obligations is effectively passed along to 
     taxpayers, who, as investors, would view that risk as having 
     a cost. Therefore, the fair-value approach offers a more 
     comprehensive estimate of federal costs.

  That is the second thing we do. First, we extend the program and 
allow it to resume. Secondly, we impose fair value, which is to say an 
honest assessment of the true cost to taxpayers. Finally, my suggestion 
is that we enact the very same jobs test that the parent legislation--
the alternative, similar legislation, the 504 program--requires, and 
that is, for every $65,000 of new risk that taxpayers are being forced 
to take, let's at least make sure we are creating or retaining at least 
one job. Think about the alternative. Someone could go out and 
refinance an existing loan at a lower rate because the government--the 
taxpayers--is subsidizing the rate. They could use the savings to buy 
automation equipment and actually eliminate jobs. How could that make 
any sense at all?
  My modification would restore the program, would provide some 
protection to taxpayers, and would require job creation in the process.
  I ask that the Senator modify her request, that the bills be passed 
en bloc, and that my amendment to S. 966, which is at the desk, be 
agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator so modify?
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Reserving the right to object to the modification, let 
me point out that Senator Toomey's objection to this bill is not only 
wrong, it is inconsistent. The Senator is not objecting to Senator 
Risch's bill, S. 552, which is also being considered today. He not 
seeking to amend it, even though it would increase small business 
assistance and also require taxpayer guarantee.
  We have also recently passed bills that increase small business 
assistance, including Senator Vitter's disaster legislation and an 
increase to the cap for the SBA 7(a) Loan Program. The fact is that the 
amendment Senator Toomey is proposing is really not a compromise. Let 
me take a few minutes to explain why.
  This amendment would essentially gut the pre-legislation, the 504 
refinancing program, and it would prevent it from ever helping small 
businesses.
  I appreciate Senator Toomey's experience as a small business owner. 
My husband and I started out our married life as small business owners. 
We had a family business. It did very well by us. I learned a lot about 
the challenges facing small business. One of the major ones is access 
to credit.
  What Senator Toomey is talking about would single out this 
legislation and gut the intent of this legislation, and that is not 
what small businesses need.
  I want to read a letter that we received from nine lenders--the 
nonprofit SBA certified development companies in the State of Georgia 
that worked with this program--about their assessment of what Senator 
Toomey is proposing. They say:

       It is our understanding that some have suggested that this 
     program be held to accounting standards outside of the 
     current federal budgeting procedure. The process of how the 
     budget is managed is a contentious one and one that should 
     not hold this bill hostage. . . . We know the performance of 
     the loans that were refinanced during the downturn while 
     [the] program was in place have outperformed OMB projections 
     and the regular default rates on standard SBA loans. SBA 
     implemented credit safeguards by making the program available 
     only to businesses who have been in business two or more 
     years and by not allowing businesses to refinance debt that 
     has been past due in the year prior to the application.

  That is the end of the quote from the letter, and it was submitted as 
part of the package of letters I submitted earlier.
  What Senator Toomey's proposal would do is single out this program 
and make it subject to a budget standard that would artificially raise 
the cost of programs meant to help small businesses, farmers, students, 
and so many others get access to credit.
  I understand the Senator from Pennsylvania wanting to change budget 
rules for credit programs. Certainly, if he has a concern about that, 
he should try to do that. I am happy to have that debate. But this 
isn't the right place to do it. We shouldn't be holding small 
businesses hostage.
  The Budget Committee recently started a series of hearings on budget 
reforms, and I think that is the right venue for this discussion.
  I would point out that Senator Enzi, who chairs the Budget Committee, 
voted for this legislation. He was part of the vote in the Small 
Business Committee that passed this legislation.
  I would also like to note that the CREED Act, as passed by the 
committee, was supported by a number of organizations from the 
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
  I will quote again from one of the letters we received from one of 
those lenders from Pennsylvania, NEDCO. They said:

       I write to share my enthusiasm for the CREED Act. . . . I 
     urge you to push for quick consideration of this bill in the 
     Senate and vote in favor of it so that Pennsylvania small 
     businesses, and small businesses everywhere, can once again 
     have access to this valuable program. . . . While large 
     businesses have equal access to capital as they did before 
     the recession, small businesses still have a tight credit 
     market. . . . With interest rates at historic lows, 
     reinstituting the refinancing program will give small 
     business owners a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to lock in a 
     fixed-rate refinanced loan and be able to use those savings 
     to reinvest and grow their businesses.

  The letter goes on. That is just one lender. Across Pennsylvania, the 
program had a big impact while it was up and running. In fact, 
Pennsylvania was the 12th most active State, with more than $64 million 
in loans and more than 1,700 jobs supported in about the 18 months of 
the program.
  We did amend the bill in the Small Business Committee to address some 
of the concerns from Republican Members about its budget implications. 
Those changes have been made. They have been vetted by our committee. 
But now, after months of delay, Senator Toomey has proposed an 
amendment that is not a good-faith effort at compromise, from my 
perspective, that would effectively prevent the program from ever 
helping small businesses that we need to help.
  For all of these reasons, I object, and I would again ask unanimous 
consent to take up and pass both bills as reported by the committee of 
jurisdiction.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cassidy). Objection is heard to the 
modification.
  Is there objection to the original request?
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I am a 
little surprised and disappointed to be accused of not operating in 
good faith when I attempted to reach a compromise by allowing one of 
these two bills to go exactly as the proponent advocated.
  I would be happy to extend fair value accounting treatment to the 
Risch bill as well. The Senator from New Hampshire is concerned about 
consistency. Let's consistently apply honest accounting for the risks 
we are imposing on taxpayers. And to think that is not an appropriate 
conversation to have at a time when we are asking taxpayers to take new 
risks--I don't know what better time there could be, especially after 
we have saddled taxpayers with over $3 trillion of guarantees that they 
have been obligated to already.
  If somehow my modifications would make it impossible to make the 
loans, that should tell us something about this program. In other 
words, if we say that they can't proceed with a loan if a fair and 
honest accounting, as prescribed by CBO, shows it to be in a loss, then 
apparently they are concerned about the program being at a loss--as 
well they should be since the most closely related program has lost 
hundreds of millions of dollars for taxpayers.
  So I think this is exactly the time to have this conversation. We 
have been having this conversation for months with the Senator from New 
Hampshire's staff and the small business committee's minority staff. If 
we can

[[Page 17489]]

reach an agreement on this, as I said before, I am happy to allow this 
program to resume, but it should be done in a way that it actually 
creates jobs and actually does provide some protection to taxpayers. So 
since we can't agree to that today, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I understand Senator Toomey has objected 
to my unanimous consent request, but I do think it is important to 
point out that in fact the amendment he has proposed would essentially 
undermine the program. That is why I say that is not an amendment that 
is a real effort to improve the bill. In fact, it is not being offered 
on any other of these kinds of programs--didn't offer it on Senator 
Vitter's legislation, on increasing the SBA 7(a) program cap.
  If that is a conversation he wants to have as a member of the Budget 
Committee and for the Budget Committee to start talking about that, 
that is very appropriate, but that should not undermine the efforts of 
small businesses to get the lending they need. In fact, this is a 
program that has a history. It has a history that shows that it has a 
lower default rate than other SBA loan programs. In Pennsylvania alone, 
it created 1,700 jobs during the time it was in effect.
  So I think there is the possibility to get to some agreement, even 
though we have already made some reforms to this bill in committee, but 
I don't think gutting the program in a way that makes it ineffective is 
the way to do that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, first, I thank the senior Senator from 
New Hampshire for her advocacy for small business. We work together on 
a number of different small business issues dealing with capital, and I 
appreciate her advocacy. Her partnership has helped us in Michigan on 
some very important things on which I hope we are going to be able to 
move forward, so I thank her.


                          Affordable Care Act

  Mr. President, I want to speak today about the importance of having 
access to quality, affordable health care. The Affordable Care Act has 
fixed a lot of what has been wrong with our broken health care system 
in the past. We no longer have to be afraid of someone in our family 
getting sick and being dropped from our insurance plan. Being a woman 
is no longer viewed as a preexisting condition. Young people are able 
to stay on their parents' plan while they are looking for a job with 
full health benefits. That has certainly affected people in my family, 
as I am sure everyone in the Chamber and certainly those across the 
country have felt this, as they are supporting young people who are 
moving from high school or college and looking for a job. And we are 
slowing the growth of health insurance premiums. And, as we have this 
first week of open enrollment and Americans are heading to 
healthcare.gov to sign up and get covered, we know we now have 17.6 
million more Americans enrolled in the Affordable Care Act who know 
that if the kids get sick tonight, they will be able to make sure they 
can go to a doctor and get the health care they need. If they 
themselves get sick, they won't just be relying on emergency rooms, 
which are the most expensive way to get regular health care. They will 
have the peace of mind of knowing they are covered if there is cancer 
discovered or if there is an accident or something else happens in 
their family.
  According to the Centers for Disease Control, the number of people 
who are uninsured has fallen to 9.2 percent. I would like to see that 
still lower, but the good news is that it is half of what it was just 2 
years ago. So in 2 years we have seen the number of people without 
health insurance cut in half--I think that is good news--even before 
the opening of the marketplace and State exchanges.
  Thanks to the ACA, the rate of uninsured children dropped to 6 
percent last year, which is the lowest in history. We have the lowest 
number of children who are now in a situation where they don't have 
health care coverage. Unfortunately, just as Americans are reviewing 
their options right now during the open enrollment period, Republicans 
are looking to pull the rug out from under these children and their 
families.
  A few weeks ago Republicans in the House passed what is called a 
budget reconciliation bill that essentially, bottom line, guts the 
Affordable Care Act, removing major provisions that help families get 
access to quality affordable health care coverage. According to the 
nonpartisan budget office, the bill on the whole ``would increase 
premiums . . . by roughly 20 percent above what would be expected under 
current law'' and cause 16 million people of the 17.6 to lose health 
insurance. Why in the world would we want to pass this bill? I don't 
know why in the world the House wanted to pass this bill, but why in 
the world would we want to pass a bill that will roughly increase 
premiums by 20 percent above what they otherwise would be and knock 16 
million people off their health insurance? Unfortunately, we are going 
to have that bill in front of us very shortly. I hope we are all going 
to vote no.
  Of those who lose insurance, up to 20 percent of them--over 3 
million--are children. After achieving the lowest rates of uninsured 
children in history, we are going to have in front of us a bill that 
would require elimination of 3 million children from being able to get 
health insurance.
  The bill also eliminates the Prevention and Public Health Fund. As 
they say, we know that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of care. 
It is much better to focus on healthy outcomes, to focus on reducing 
obesity, diabetes, heart disease, strokes, and all of those things that 
allow us on the front end to do prevention and public health and 
wellness rather than picking up the pieces. It would eliminate that 
thought.
  In Michigan these funds have been used to help prevent tobacco use 
and to promote awareness of the importance of children getting 
immunized against debilitating and deadly diseases, to name just a few 
things. Critically important, the House bill strips funding for Planned 
Parenthood. The budget office again estimates that up to 25 percent--
one out of four--people currently being served by clinics for 
preventive health care would face reduced access to care. It makes 
absolutely no sense to roll back preventive health care for women, to 
roll back prevention that allows us to create opportunities for people 
with information and tools they need to be healthy rather than getting 
diseases down the road. Certainly, it makes no sense to raise premiums 
by 20 percent or to see 16 million people lose their health care.
  I hope when that budget reconciliation bill comes before the Senate 
that we will say no and allow millions of Americans to continue to have 
the peace of mind of knowing they will have access to the medical care 
they need for themselves and their families.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.


                            F-35 Procurement

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the current 
plan to procure around 2,500 F-35s for our men and women in uniform.
  Recently, I understand the chairman of the Armed Services Committee 
called upon Congress to cut the number of F-35s our Armed Forces will 
produce. Usually, I fully agree with the chairman's astute assessment 
of national security matters. In fact, I think he is a terrific 
chairman. In particular, I applaud his vital work in drawing attention 
to this administration's lack of effective strategies to eliminate the 
current threats posed by the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and the so-called 
Islamic State.
  Nevertheless, I must respectfully disagree with his call to reduce 
the number of F-35s to be acquired by our Nation's military. In doing 
so, I reiterate my full support for the existing program of record, 
which calls for the procurement of 1,763 F-35s for the Air Force, 420 
for the Marines, and 260 for the Navy.
  As we assess the question of F-35 procurement, we should remember how

[[Page 17490]]

the Department of Defense determined the number of aircraft it would 
purchase in the first place. I can assure you, this decision was 
neither hasty nor taken lightly. The Pentagon based its estimates on a 
thorough review of our Nation's airpower readiness and the capabilities 
needed to deter and defeat future threats to our national security. The 
Department's procurement request doesn't reflect an arbitrary estimate 
but the number of F-35s needed to keep our Nation safe.
  If we reduce the number of F-35s to be acquired by the military, we 
hamstring our own ability to defend ourselves against America's 
enemies. Despite the formidable war-winning capabilities of the F-35, 
this weapon system cannot be in more than one place at once. One F-35 
aircraft cannot simultaneously deter Russian aggression in Eastern 
Europe, patrol free waters in the South China Sea, target the Islamic 
State of the Middle East, and provide critical air support for our 
allies in Afghanistan. With every aircraft we cut, we are spreading our 
defenses thin, putting our national security at risk, and limiting the 
ability of our men and women in uniform to complete their mission.
  Now is the worst time imaginable to limit production of the F-35. Not 
only does the quantity and magnitude of threats facing our Nation 
continue to increase, so does the number of locations from which these 
threats emanate. Moreover, when the Department of Defense made the 
initial assessment for F-35 procurement, we did not face the 
exponential growth of threats which continue to metastasize under the 
Obama administration's failed foreign policy. In this sense, the 
military's request to procure just under 2,500 aircraft is not only 
reasonable but actually highly conservative.
  As some of my colleagues discuss reducing the number of F-35s we 
provide to our Nation's military, they should remember to consider the 
economies of scale. With every single aircraft we cut, the individual 
cost of each F-35 actually increases, but if we keep current 
procurement levels the same, the price of each aircraft remains the 
same. We should be actively looking for ways to lower costs, not raise 
them.
  Thanks to the hard work and dedication of the F-35 Joint Program 
Office, its program executive officer, Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, and 
its industry partners, we are finding ways to drive down costs and make 
the F-35 more affordable. They are doing a terrific job. In fact, the 
pricetag for the F-35 in our country is actually decreasing. Currently, 
each aircraft costs roughly $104 million to produce, but with the 
projected purchase of over 3,500 jet fighters worldwide, I believe that 
price will continue to fall.
  At full production, the price of the F-35 will be comparable to the 
cost of new versions of the aircraft it is designed to replace; namely, 
the F-16 and the F/A-18, which raises another question. Why is it vital 
to replace our aging aircraft with the F-35? Why don't we just purchase 
new and improved versions of aircraft which are already in the fleet? 
The answer is simple. No matter how many improvements and modifications 
we make to the design of the A-10, F-16, and F/A-18 aircraft, they will 
never be stealth aircraft, nor will they ever match the capabilities of 
a fifth-generation jet fighter.
  Stealth technology is absolutely critical to the future of our Armed 
Forces. Stealth fighters are the only aircraft capable of penetrating 
airspace protected by advanced area denial anti-aircraft systems. Both 
Russia and China are developing these advanced anti-aircraft systems, 
and both nations appear willing to sell their technology to potential 
adversaries, including Iran. Because of Russia's propensity to 
proliferate weapon systems to rogue regimes and China's startling 
advancement in technology to include the J-31 stealth aircraft and the 
PL-15 air-to-air missile, it is all but inevitable that our forces will 
routinely encounter these sophisticated systems in both the near- and 
the long-term. Because stealth technology is the most effective means 
of defeating these anti-aircraft systems, we hold a solemn duty to our 
servicemembers to provide them with the superior capabilities of the
F-35.
  I will not deny that the F-35 has had its fair share of problems. Its 
development program was not well-planned, and along the way there were 
abundant technical hurdles, cost overruns, and program execution 
concerns, but as is the case in the development of any breakthrough 
technology, setbacks are not only probable, they are expected. What 
matters now is how we react to these setbacks to make the program a 
success.
  We have now rounded the corner and are on the cusp of fielding the 
most remarkable strike aircraft ever developed. The F-35 will help our 
Nation reclaim its technological edge at a critical time. Our enemies 
have been working tirelessly to match our military might, and they have 
made significant progress in achieving parity with our current 
technology systems, but the
F-35 will widen the technological gap once again. Its superior 
capabilities will put us far ahead of our adversaries, and we can stay 
one step ahead by keeping procurement numbers for the F-35 at their 
current levels.
  In all of my years of public service, the F-35 is the most impressive 
weapon system I have ever seen. I am convinced this platform will give 
our Air Force, Navy, and Marine aviators the military advantage they 
need to protect us against tyranny, deter our foes, and protect our 
cherished liberties for years to come. I urge my colleagues to support 
this program, including the military's initial procurement request.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized 
as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, what is the business before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is considering H.R. 2029.
  Mr. McCAIN. Which is?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The MILCON-VA appropriations bill.


               Department of Defense Appropriations Bill

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, we are now considering the MILCON-VA 
appropriations bill. Obviously, anything we do for our veterans is 
something that is laudable to all of us, but earlier a very interesting 
vote took place in the U.S. Senate, when the Department of Defense 
appropriations bill which funds the appropriations for the Department 
of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and for other 
purposes, et cetera--in other words, the Defense appropriations bill 
which provides for the training, the equipment, the pay, the medical 
care, all of those vital necessities for the men and women who are 
serving in the military--a sufficient number of my colleagues, I 
believe all but one on the other side of the aisle, decided to vote 
against moving to that legislation.
  I want the record to be clear, all but one of my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle, as I understand it, voted against moving to 
the legislation which provides the funding for the defense of this 
Nation and the men and women who serve it--items that are vitally 
important to the men and women who are serving, items such as military 
personnel. The committee recommends $3 billion for pay allowances and 
other personnel costs for Active Reserve and Guard troops activated for 
duty in Afghanistan and other contingencies, counterterrorism 
partnership funds, a money provision that recommends $300 million for 
the Ukrainians who are now being dismantled by Vladimir Putin. The 
committee, as I mentioned, recommends money for pay allowances and 
other personnel costs for Active, Reserve, and Guard troops activated 
for duty in Afghanistan and other contingency operations. The 
recommendation includes funding for subsistence, permanent change of 
station, travel, and special pays, including imminent danger pay, 
family separation allowance, and hardship duty pay.
  I will have some other selections, but I think the American people 
ought to know what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle just 
voted against. They voted against paying allowances

[[Page 17491]]

and personnel costs for the Active, Reserve, and Guard troops activated 
for duty in Afghanistan, including funding for subsistence, permanent 
change of station, travel, and special pays, including imminent danger 
pay. We won't fund the men and women serving in imminent danger. We 
decided not to fund them. That is amazing--truly amazing.
  One of the programs in here is the Counterterrorism Partnership Fund. 
There is item after item listed here. These appropriations are for the 
men and women in the armed services. These appropriations include their 
pay, their benefits, their weapons, and their means to carry out their 
duties in dangerous times.
  Other programs in here include countering violent extremism online, 
the European Reassurance Initiative, and, as I mentioned, Ukraine and 
counterterrorism. All of these provisions are contained in probably 
what is the most important obligation that we have. I don't know of a 
greater obligation that we have to the American people and the security 
of the Nation. If there is any doubt about what is going on in the 
world, one might just want to look back at what happened in the last 
couple of days--the loss of a Russian airliner under very suspicious 
circumstances, the continued pouring of weapons and capabilities into 
Syria by the Russians and Iranians, and the continued gains made by 
ISIS in many parts of the world, including even as far away as parts of 
Africa and Afghanistan.
  Do any of my colleagues know of the strategy that the United States 
has to address these issues? They can't because there is none. But here 
we are doing our duty--our constitutional obligation--to provide for 
the men and women who are serving and defending this Nation. And for 
obscure reasons--perhaps the Democrats, my colleagues and friends on 
the other side of the aisle, will come to the floor and explain why 
they would not go to a piece of legislation that protects this Nation 
and the men and women who serve it.
  I am sure that in about 6 days--I believe it is--on November 11, 
Veterans Day, every one of my colleagues, like me, will go and be part 
of the celebration of the men and women who served and sacrificed.
  What do you have to say about the men and women who are now serving? 
What you just did was to vote to not fund, train, equip, and defend 
these men and women, and without this, their lives are in greater 
danger. So don't go back and say that you are doing everything you can 
to defend this Nation. You are not.
  Right now we have a very turbulent political situation in America. We 
have people who are now leading in the polls and perhaps have never 
held public office. The approval rating of Congress is at 12 percent or 
lower, and sometimes I hear some of my colleagues wonder why we are 
held in such low esteem. If we can't even fund the men and women in the 
military and take care of their needs, who in the world will we take 
care of?
  I believe the Republican leader voted in a way so that we can 
reconsider the vote. We need to reconsider the vote. We need to vote, 
and we need to be on record that we have done our barest of duties--our 
fundamental duty as elected officials, which is to ensure the security 
of this Nation.
  Right now my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who voted not 
to move forward with this legislation have a lot of explaining to do on 
Veterans Day--a lot of explaining to do as to why they wouldn't take up 
the legislation that takes care of their change of station, their pay, 
their benefits, and takes care of their health care. It is all in this 
legislation, and yet my colleagues, for reasons which I do not 
understand, did not vote to take up this legislation.
  I say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: Where are your 
priorities? Where are they? Is it somehow to gridlock this legislation 
because you want a certain piece of legislation brought up instead of 
this one? Is it for some other obscure reason or is it because you 
don't give a damn?
  This is an embarrassing time for me in this body, when we have enough 
Senators to prevent us from taking up what are our barest minimal 
requirements of our obligations, which are to provide for the defense 
of this Nation and the men and women who serve it. It is foolish, 
cynical, and dangerous to hold defense legislation hostage until every 
one of their political demands is met simply because of that.
  Veterans Day is 1 week away. I urge my Democratic colleagues to stop 
treating our national defense as a tool for extracting political 
leverage. Let's return to the bipartisan tradition of providing for the 
common defense. That is what the men and women serving in the military 
deserve and require from us, it is what Americans expect from us, and 
it is what the Constitution demands of us.
  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. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Transportation Authorization bill

  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, it is always a pleasure to spend these 
late afternoons--sometimes Thursday afternoons--when the current 
Presiding Officer gets stuck presiding, when I come to the floor to 
talk, yet again, about funding--paying for--these roads and highways, 
bridges and transit systems that we use. I thank the Chair for being 
here. As I look around, sometimes we have more than a few folks on the 
floor, but I think a lot of people are headed for home on Thursday 
afternoon when we have no more votes.
  Looking back over the last several days, there are actually a couple 
of things to feel good about. Last week we passed very important 
legislation improving the strength of our cyber defenses and our 
ability to fend off some of the 24/7 attacks that are being visited on 
financial institutions, on our military, on colleges and universities, 
on research operations, and on businesses in our country. I am very 
proud of the bipartisan work we did on cyber security, information 
sharing, and some of the new technologies that are being deployed to 
help fend off attacks from the bad guys around the world. I felt very 
good about that.
  Not everybody likes the 2-year budget agreement that has been worked 
out in rough form. But I like to say about a friend, when you ask him 
how he is doing, he says: Compared to what? The idea of living from 
week to week, not knowing if we are going to have to shut down the 
government, continuing to spend enormous amounts of human time and 
capital getting ready for a shutdown and hoping it won't happen but 
preparing for the worst and having to do that month after month--I 
think we have, for the most part, said we are not going to do that for 
the next 2 years. Whether one likes every morsel or portion of the 
budget deal, I think we can pretty much all say: Compared to what? 
Well, it is better than the path we were on.
  Today, as we prepare to take up over the next couple of weeks 
transportation policy for our country and transportation funding to 
fund that policy, there is the late-breaking news this morning from the 
House of Representatives that they have taken a very modest 
transportation bill including authorization--it is probably a two-part 
deal where we actually authorize transportation policy and then we try 
to figure out how to pay for it.
  Too often in the past we have decided to pay for it by bailing out 
the transportation trust fund. The legislation we passed and I voted 
against here in the Senate last month on transportation--during the 
last Congress I chaired the Senate subcommittee on transportation 
infrastructure. I am I think the No. 2 Democrat on the Environment and 
Public Works Committee. I am a former Governor. I spent 8 years as 
Governor in my own State of Delaware. We focused on transportation 
infrastructure. I chaired the National Governors Association for a 
year. So I have looked at these issues nationally as well as a 
Governor.
  But if we look at the authorization bill--again, that is one of the 
two parts

[[Page 17492]]

of our legislation, to authorize programs. A lot of what we did in the 
Senate, coupled with what they did in the House, was pretty darn good. 
I was very proud of it. I want to give shout-outs to some of my 
colleagues, including Senator Boxer and Senator Inhofe. I don't always 
think of them as two people who work well together, but on 
transportation and infrastructure, they do. They provide very good 
leadership, and they were good enough to let the rest of us join in. I 
think we had a good policy or set of policies that we can be proud of. 
I will just run through a couple of them here, using of this chart.
  I have made a big focus on freight transportation. It is not just 
people who use roads, highways, bridges, and transit to get places, but 
we move an enormous amount of freight in this country. We move it on 
barges--actually, I don't know how many people think of that--or ships. 
We move a fair amount on airplanes. We move a fair amount on trains. We 
also move a great deal of our freight by roads, highways, and bridges.
  The legislation we passed out of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee on I believe a unanimous vote makes good progress on the 
freight transportation side, trying to make our roads, highways, and 
bridges more reliable, more affordable, and more efficient. That is 
good.
  The legislation we passed out of committee, which I think is mirrored 
in the House Transportation bill, is that we prioritized bridge safety. 
I think something like one out of every four bridges in our country, 
deemed so by people a lot smarter than me, are not safe. So in our 
legislation, we focused on bridge safety and we focused on large 
facilities, large projects of national importance--not little projects 
but big ones of national importance, regional importance.
  The Transportation authorization legislation from the House and from 
the Senate also increases baseline funding and funding for public 
transportation. And it focuses on clean air funding toward the most 
dangerous diesel emissions to increase the bang for the buck, if you 
will. If you ever go by road projects, highway or bridge projects and 
transit projects, you will often see this yellow equipment that is 
almost always powered by diesel, and they put out--those vehicles put 
out a lot of pollution. We provide some money here in the authorization 
legislation to say that can't be good for us. It can't be good for the 
people who work around there and live around there. Let's see if we 
can't get some reduction in those emissions.
  The other thing I liked about our authorization bill is research 
grants that go to States to see if we can't find a better alternative 
to user fees, which we have historically traditionally used, and to 
eventually replace the gas tax or something that makes more sense. It 
could be something called a road user charge, it could be tolling in 
conjunction with public-private partnerships, but just to look at the 
alternatives to user fees like the gas tax and diesel tax, which has 
not been raised for 22 years.
  Let's see what we have next. The last time we raised the user fees in 
this country--part of me wishes I could be doing this speech surrounded 
by former Presidents who have supported the use of user fees. I think 
we go back a long time, actually, when I was a little kid, before the 
Presiding Officer was born. Dwight Eisenhower, the President who 
brought us the State highway system, was an advocate of user fees. 
Since then we have had other Presidents--let me think of another 
President who thought that was a--Bill Clinton thought user fees were 
appropriate. I want to say George Herbert Walker Bush might have been 
one who thought that things that are worth having--that folks who use 
our roads, highways, and bridges ought to pay for it. I think there 
might have been one more. Ronald Reagan supported that notion as well. 
So in a bipartisan way, Democrats and Republicans have said for a long 
time that if we really want to have a better transportation system, we 
have to pay for it.
  The idea is that folks who use that system and the businesses that 
use that transportation system have some responsibility to pay for it. 
That has been the way we have done it for a long time. Maybe someday, 
when we have the ability to do these vehicle-miles-traveled deals, 
where we don't have to worry about privacy concerns, figure out how 
many miles every car, truck, van in the country travels and be able to 
assess a user fee--I don't know if we are going to be able to do it. We 
have been trying for a long time. Maybe somebody will be able to do it, 
but concerns have been raised about doing that as well.
  Anyway, since 1993, what has been happening? Maintenance costs 
continue to rise. We raised the gas tax in 1993 to 18.3 cents per 
gallon. We raised the Federal tax on diesel to I think 24.3 cents. What 
has happened in the last 22 years, believe it or not, is the cost of 
concrete has gone up a lot. The cost of asphalt has gone up a lot. The 
cost of steel and the cost of labor has gone up a lot. And the gas tax 
and the diesel tax have stayed right where they were 22 years ago.
  The gas tax has lost almost 40 percent of its purchasing power--18.3 
cents in 1993 is today worth about a dime. I think the 24.3 cent diesel 
tax is now worth somewhere between 10 and 15 cents. We have done 
nothing about it. We have not even been willing to consider indexing 
these user fees to the rate of inflation.
  Has the highway trust fund eroded? Not everybody knows we have a 
highway or transportation trust fund. We do. Not everybody understands 
it is largely fed by user fees. Not everybody understands that when we 
run out of money in the transportation trust fund, we have to--if we 
are going to still build roads, highways, bridges, and transit systems, 
we have to do something about it. What we oftentimes do is we move 
money from the general fund for our country and move that money over to 
fill up the transportation trust fund or the highway fund. When we run 
out of money in the general fund, we go around the world with a tin cup 
in hand and borrow money from all kinds of people, including the 
Chinese. We say: We would like to borrow some money from you, and, by 
the way, we don't want you to be mucking around in the South China Sea 
and all those other places where I used to fly around. We don't want 
you to be inflating your currency. We don't want you to be dumping your 
stuff on the American markets.
  And the Chinese say: Well, we thought you wanted to borrow money, so 
get off our backs.
  We don't want to be in that situation.
  There is a growing need for road repair, as I mentioned earlier. One 
out of four bridges is bad. Two out of every 10 miles of highway 
surfaces are not good.
  We have vehicles that are more fuel efficient. That is a good thing. 
We adopted CAFE legislation, and Senator Feinstein was good enough to 
let some of us help her write that. But probably over the next 10 years 
or so we are going to continue to require more energy-efficient 
vehicles.
  There has been a reduction in the annual miles driven. A lot of the 
millennial generation don't want to have a car. I remember as a kid 
growing up--maybe the Presiding Officer growing up couldn't wait to 
have and drive a car. That sure was my generation.
  We have an aging system that needs to be addressed. In the face of 
congressional inaction, what have we done to pay for our transportation 
system? Well, we use budget gimmicks. We are pretty good at pension 
smoothing. Our pensions must be pretty smooth, because we have used 
that. We have used unrelated offsets to pay for some. Say, for example, 
monies that go to TSA to supposedly provide for safer travel in our 
airlines and airways, we are going to use that money instead to go into 
transportation--money that should be used to strengthen our ability to 
monitor traffic coming across our borders, a lot of vehicular traffic, 
a lot of trade. We are going to raise those Customs fees, but we are 
not going to use it to build up our defenses along our border and other 
stuff that probably has no relationship with transportation. That is 
what we have done--gimmicks.
  It is not an easy thing to think about, but these are some numbers

[[Page 17493]]

that we ought to look at. We bailed out the transportation trust fund 
in 2008 to the tune of $8 billion. We bailed it out again in 2009, $7 
billion; the next year, 2010, almost $20 billion; 2013, over $6 
billion; and we really got into the bailout business in 2014, $23 
billion; and for the current year, 2015, $10 billion. Add it all up, it 
is about $75 billion in bailouts. We moved money from the general fund. 
That means we don't have money to spend on other things that are 
legitimate needs in our country, and we are using it to pay for things 
that ought to be actually paid for by the folks and businesses that use 
our roads, highways, and bridges.
  Now, a lot of people are saying to me: Why should we raise the user 
frees? Why should we raise the gas tax or the diesel tax? Because it is 
fair. The notion that people and businesses that use these roads and 
highways and bridges ought to pay for them, to me, that seems fair. 
Frankly, it seemed fair in this country for about 60 years. We seem to 
have gotten away from that. We need to get back to that.
  Here are a couple of questions--or the same question asked several 
times. Why raise the gas tax and fix the trust fund? This is $324. What 
is that number? That is how much the average driver in this country 
spends a year in vehicle repairs, such as replacement of tires, axles, 
wheel rims--you name it. I have seen it actually as high as $500, but 
we will take the low range of $324. We pay for it one way or the other, 
and that is how much we spend on average in vehicle repair.
  Again, the same question: Why raise the gas tax and fix the trust 
fund? The number 42 shows up. That is because that is how many hours a 
year we spend sitting in traffic. These are not my numbers. Every year 
Texas A&M updates this number, and they say that in Washington, DC, and 
up the road from where Senator Coons and I live, in New York City, 
where some of our family members live, or Denver or LA, it is about 82 
hours per year sitting in traffic, wasting gas, and putting out harmful 
emissions.
  This is the number of billions of gallons of gas we waste just 
sitting in traffic every year--2.9 billion gallons of gas a year. That 
is a lot.
  I don't know if it is the last poster that we have, but it is not a 
bad one to close on. One of the major roles of government is to provide 
a nurturing environment for job creation and job preservation. It is 
not the main role of government, but a major role of government is to 
provide a nurturing environment for job creation and preservation. We 
don't create jobs. Senators, Governors, and county executives don't 
create jobs, no matter how talented they are. Presidents don't create 
jobs. What we do is create a nurturing environment to help support job 
creation and job growth. What does that include? A world-class 
workforce, young people and not-so-young people coming out of colleges 
and universities who can read, write, think, and use math and 
technology, and who have a good work ethic--public safety and rule of 
law, affordable energy, affordable health care, access to foreign 
markets, and also the ability to move goods and products from place to 
place in this country and through our export markets.
  McKinsey has a piece of their operation that does consulting and it 
is called McKinsey Global Institute. They have done a little bit of 
thinking and calculating to see if we actually made robust 
investments--not just little investments, not just creeping from year 
to year borrowing money from the general fund but actually making 
robust investments.
  What would it do? We are talking about $150 to $180 billion of annual 
investments from all sources--State, local, and Federal--and to do this 
for 15 to 20 years. What would it do in terms of employment and GDP? 
Here is what it would do. Those kinds of investments in our 
transportation system would raise GDP anywhere from 1.4 to 1.8 percent 
per year. In addition to that, it would add almost 2 million jobs. Half 
of those jobs would be men and women going to work building highways, 
roads, bridges, and transit systems. We would have a more efficient 
economy--an economy to move products and goods more effectively, more 
efficiently, and more productively.
  We say thanks very much to the McKinsey Global Institute. If we did 
this, a lot of people would be put to work building our roads, 
highways, bridges, and transit systems. They haven't been working much 
because we have underfunded transportation investment now for years at 
the local, State, and Federal levels. If we had funded it in a more 
appropriate and robust way, then a lot of people who have been on the 
sidelines who are either unemployed or underemployed would be doing 
something productive with their lives and at the same time strengthen 
our economy.
  I see my colleague has been waiting patiently for me to finish. I 
will close with these words. Someone said to me: How do you feel that 
the House seems to have come up with a little bit more money?
  We are not sure what the pay-fors are that they are using. Somehow we 
found some magic money in the Federal Reserve, and I hope it is 
legitimate. I hope there are no unintended consequences that we are 
aware of, but we will find out about that over the next several days, I 
hope. I am not outraged.
  I was, frankly, outraged by what we passed here a month or so ago--so 
grossly underfunded, 3 years of not very thoughtful funding. What we 
hear from the House is that it is more robust, and I am happy to take a 
look at that. But it is not a user fee approach. It basically doesn't 
say: OK, those who use our highways, roads, and bridges ought to pay 
for those. We strayed from that. It is sort of a grab bag from places 
that have nothing to do with transportation. We are going to use that 
money, and it is only for a short while. We will be back in the soup 
again in 4 or 5 years.
  This Senator thinks we can do better than that. It is not just me who 
is disappointed. People are disappointed, but we will live to fight 
again another day. It is too bad that we didn't take advantage of this 
day and seize the day.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, it is my desire to address the Senate 
about a particular serious problem that faces us. I ask unanimous 
consent that I be granted 7 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                  Guantanamo Bay Detention Facilities

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today regarding President Obama's 
most recent, egregious attempt to close the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base 
detention facilities and relocate enemy combatants, i.e., terrorists, 
to the United States.
  Who are we talking about here when we say enemy combatants with 
regard to our national security and the problems that this may pose? We 
still have some high-level terrorists at Gitmo. It reminds me of the 
five terrorists that we let out sometime ago in exchange for a Sgt. 
Bergdahl. These are high-level terrorists. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed we 
know is the mastermind of 9/11. Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the USS Cole 
bomber. I was a member of the Intelligence Committee when that 
happened, and I was concerned that we didn't connect the dots with 
regards to our national security and our national safety. That 
certainly was the case. We have Hambali, who is the Bali bomber. We 
have four coconspirators with Khalid with regards to 9/11--Ramzi bin 
al-Shibh, Mustafa Ahmed al Hawsawi, Abd al Aziz Ali, and Walid bin 
Attash.
  These are folks that are still determined to do great harm to the 
United States. I don't think they changed their minds.
  The President's determined effort to close Gitmo began his first days 
in office when he signed Executive Order 13492, requiring the close of 
Gitmo within 1 year. Fortunately, for the security of the United 
States, the Congress stood up to this Executive order and stopped it, 
and the President's attempt to close Gitmo was also met by strong 
objections from all across the country, even in his home State of 
Illinois. Illinois turned its back on a plan

[[Page 17494]]

to transfer detainees to a state-run prison, the Thompson Correctional 
Facility.
  More importantly, the Congress laid down its first marker on 
prohibiting the President from transferring or releasing detainees to 
the United States through the Supplemental Appropriations Act passed in 
June of 2009. Every year since then--7 years--the Congress has 
maintained this prohibition.
  This year's National Defense Authorization Act continues to enforce 
the will of the American people and the Congress. Yet just yesterday 
the President's Press Secretary announced blithely that the President 
is not bound by Congress--and I would include the American people--and 
the President will do what he wants to do by another Executive order if 
he determines that is the best approach.
  National Security Advisor Susan Rice has just been quoted as saying: 
``I can't say with certainty that we're 100 percent going to get there, 
but I can tell you we're going to die trying.'' That is a pretty bold 
statement.
  What the President wants to do doesn't equate with national security. 
I think he wants to fulfill his campaign promise and preserve his 
alleged legacy and simply close Gitmo, not taking a hard look at what 
may take place.
  Now I have gone head-to-head with this administration on many issues 
but none are as close to my strong belief and commitment to protect the 
United States, the people of Kansas, and all Americans. It does not 
make sense to locate terrorists at Fort Leavenworth, KS, which is the 
intellectual center of the Army, and to pose a threat to that 
community. I have often said that the first obligation of any Member of 
Congress is to protect our national security. Allowing Gitmo terrorists 
to set foot in the United States is in direct violation, in my view, of 
that commitment, and we should not stand for this President or any 
future President to threaten our security by Executive order.
  It is regrettable that I have to be here making this speech at all in 
response to the administration and the news that suddenly appears in 
the Nation's press that there were people visiting Colorado, Fort 
Leavenworth, and Charleston, SC.
  In September, in response to the administration's visit to Kansas, I 
placed a hold on the administration's nominee to serve as Secretary of 
the Army. I don't like doing this. I have no personal bias whatsoever 
with regard to this person politically or the ability to do the job. I 
did so with purpose and respect. I articulated this to the Army. I 
articulated this to my good friend and colleague John McHugh, who was 
the Secretary of Army, to the Department of Defense and the Secretary 
of Defense. During my conversations I was reminded that the 
administration could not implement any parts of this study without 
explicit authorization from Congress. So if and when a study is 
produced--if there is a plan, and we don't know if there is a plan--the 
administration would come before Congress to ask for that authority and 
the money. Guess what; no money can be spent on that. So it seems to me 
that is already a violation.
  The administration's threat to act by Executive order yesterday 
speaks to the exact opposite of the understanding that I have. Congress 
has listened to the American people and done what is necessary to 
uphold national security and prohibit this administration from behaving 
in an unleashed fashion.
  I know the President is resolute. He reminded us of that fact by 
signing 223 Executive orders during his Presidency. It is not so much 
the number of Executive orders but Executive orders that are in direct 
violation or in opposition to the intent of the Congress.
  I just don't think this should be determined by ignoring the Congress 
and simply issuing an Executive order. That is not the way to go. It 
just raises all this dust in opposition, and people like me come to the 
floor extremely worried about what this could bring.
  I remember before 9/11, when I made the statement that the oceans no 
longer protected us. Our threat level remains high today. The threat of 
ISIS grows, stability in Syria continues to erode, Russia is advancing 
in the Middle East, and Iran continues to churn its nuclear reactors.
  We cannot, it seems to me, we must not act politically. We must not 
take action simply because of ``legacy'' and a political campaign 
promise. Instead, we must act conscientiously. The only conscientious 
way forward on this issue is to maintain detention at Guantanamo Bay. 
To do otherwise would be a violation of U.S. law, not to mention a 
bull's-eye on Fort Leavenworth, where we have the intellectual center 
of the Army and the Army Command and General Staff College. That is not 
wise. That does not make any sense.
  Let me say that there is another issue the President has brought up, 
and that is the issue of recruitment. We hear this from people who 
honestly believe that if we close Gitmo, somehow it will take away the 
incentive for various terrorist groups to recruit other terrorists from 
this country and all across Europe, all around the world, saying: Oh my 
goodness, we have terrorists at Gitmo, and when will the United States 
close that so that we can close our recruiting?
  If we have terrorists located in the United States, it seems to me 
that the recruiting would simply be this: All right, Gitmo is closed, 
but we have our brothers at Fort Leavenworth, we have our brothers in 
Charleston, and we have our brothers in Colorado. What do you think 
would happen with regard to what they would do in response to that, not 
only to recruit people but to act? This goes back to the welfare of all 
Americans, not to mention those in Colorado, Kansas, and South 
Carolina. This is a bad idea--a very bad idea.
  I hope those of us in the Congress will maintain our vigilance and 
make sure that no money will ever be authorized or appropriated with 
regard to taking terrorists from Gitmo and locating them in the United 
States. We must not do it. It is the wrong decision. It is a bad 
decision. I don't know why the President is so stubborn about it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.


                      National Apprenticeship Week

  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I rise today to shine a spotlight on 
apprentices, one of our Nation's oldest forms of education and still 
one of the smartest investments we can make as a nation. The week we 
are in the middle of right now--this very week--is National 
Apprenticeship Week. I am honored to be joined today by Senator 
Franken, who will also be making remarks in support of the value of 
apprenticeships.
  In this body, we often discuss the importance, the value of expanding 
early childhood education, strengthening our public schools, and making 
college more affordable. Indeed, these investments are critical, but 
let's not forget about what I call the other 4-year degree. It is a 
degree that guarantees you a well-paying job and a career path after 
graduation. It is a degree that gives you experience that employers 
demand and teaches you skills that last a lifetime. It is a degree that 
provides a paycheck even while you are still in school. And it is a 
degree that leaves you debt-free. But where is the catch? Well, you 
might have to wake up early every day. You might have to work on nights 
and weekends. You will definitely have to complete thousands of hours 
of hands-on on-the-job training and 4, 5, or more years of work in your 
trade. In many apprenticeship programs, if you miss even a few days of 
work, that is it, you are done. On-the-job training, years of work 
experience, and a limited number of absences does not sound like a 
typical college curriculum, and it is not. It is an apprenticeship.
  Broadly defined, apprenticeships are programs that train workers in 
highly skilled occupations by providing instruction and on-the-job 
training. After apprentices complete their programs, they receive 
journeyman papers and are set up for a job with the employer, the 
union, or the association that sponsored the program. These programs 
are long, challenging, and competitive. An appropriate question at the 
outset is, Do they work?
  Well, ask Ed Woodrum, an instructor at the Carpenters Joint 
Apprenticeship

[[Page 17495]]

Center in New Castle, DE. Ed tells the story of Scotty. Scotty is a 
Delawarean who was literally living on the streets, destitute, who was 
blessed to land an opportunity through the Challenge Program, a not-
for-profit rehabilitation and skills organization in Wilmington which I 
know well and have always supported and have enjoyed seeing the impact 
of their work, both the materials they introduce and the impacts on the 
lives of the young men and women they train.
  The Carpenters have a partnership with the Challenge Program, and 
through that relationship Scotty began working as an apprentice with 
the Carpenters. Fast-forward to today, years later, and Scotty is still 
a journeyman with the Carpenters. He recently got engaged, he owns a 
car, and he is living in a townhouse in Wilmington. So do 
apprenticeship programs work? In Scotty's case, it transformed his 
life.
  If you want to know if they really work, ask Jim Maravelias with 
Laborers Local 199, also from Delaware. The laborers apprenticeship 
program requires 4,000 hours in the field and at least five core 
classes in heavy construction, although most apprentices take over a 
dozen classes in that time. Jim has seen his laborers journey men and 
women go on to leadership and management roles in construction as 
foremen or shop stewards or business agents. Jim knows how important 
apprenticeships are not only for the construction industry but for the 
lives and futures of the Delawareans who are so deeply affected 
positively by their apprenticeship experience. As Jim puts it, through 
these apprentices, ``we offer them a career, not just a job.''
  So do apprenticeship programs work? Ask Tony Papili, my friend from 
the Glasgow area who runs the Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 74. Fresh 
out of college with a traditional bachelors's degree, Pip went back to 
school as an apprentice. Today Pip knows from firsthand experience how 
valuable apprenticeship programs are, which is why Local 74 trains 
fitters, plumbers, HVAC service technicians, welders, and instrument 
technicians. Local 74's program is no cakewalk. Once an applicant is 
accepted, they are committed to 5 years of night classes, on top of the 
8,500 hours they will spend in the field learning their trade before 
becoming a journeyman.
  Apprenticeship programs are not just difficult, they are competitive 
too. Take the program at the IBEW 313 in New Castle, DE, of which Doug 
Drummond is one of the leaders and a trustee. The IBEW's apprenticeship 
program is the largest in Delaware today with 120 active apprentices. 
Each year, 313's apprenticeship program has 2,500 applicants competing 
for just 1 of 24 open spots. That is a 1-percent acceptance rate.
  The fitters, the electricians, and the carpenters in these programs 
are just some of the 1,100 Delawareans actively working through 
apprenticeship programs with lots of different businesses, unions, and 
organizations. Last year, my home State saw 119 apprentices complete 
their programs and get their journeyman papers. So far, 109 have gotten 
their papers this year, and we want to see these numbers continue to 
steadily rise.
  Right now, across the entire country, over 440,000 aspiring 
journeymen are working through apprenticeship programs, knowing that if 
they put in the time and effort, they will earn an opportunity to 
unlock a steady, high-paying job. On average, the starting salary for 
an apprentice is $50,000, which is several thousand dollars more than 
the average starting salary for a college graduate with a bachelor's 
degree, and typically there is no debt for an apprentice.
  The benefits of apprenticeship programs are sustainable. Over the 
course of their career, American workers who complete an apprenticeship 
program can expect to earn $300,000 more than their peers who don't go 
through a comparable program. If that is not the ticket to the middle 
class, I don't what is.
  I want to commend today the 150,000 employers across this whole 
country who host apprentices, who partner with apprenticeship programs. 
Businesses are not doing it as a public service; they are investing in 
apprenticeships because they typically get $1.50 in return for every $1 
they invest. Tony Papili and the members of Local 74 pay for their own 
apprenticeship program out of pocket. They take money that would 
otherwise go to a pay raise or their benefits and put it back into the 
program. The electricians at Local 313 put in over 1 million hours of 
work a year, and for every hour they work, they put 55 cents back into 
their apprenticeship program. These are significant investments. More 
importantly, they are smart investments that are helping to fill a much 
needed gap in the American workforce with high-quality, high-paying 
jobs and by helping train workers for skilled trades and the vital 
manufacturing jobs of this century.
  Strengthening America's 21st-century workforce is essential to the 
competitiveness of our economy in the world today and to the continued 
revitalization of our manufacturing sector. That is why it is one of 
the four core pillars of the Manufacturing Jobs for America Initiative, 
which includes a number of additional proposals to strengthen career 
development and on-the-job training programs.
  Last year's reauthorization of the Workforce Innovation and 
Opportunity Act, which was a real win for job-training programs across 
the country, included five different policy ideas, many of them 
bipartisan, which came from the Manufacturing Jobs for America 
Initiative. I would like to see this momentum continue by making a 
sustained commitment to expanding apprenticeship programs.
  The thousands of hours of on-the-job experience produce journeymen 
with a keen understanding of the techniques and the tools they need to 
do their jobs, and it makes them safer, more skilled, and more 
productive employees. Employers know this too. Electrical contractors 
in Delaware are hiring journeyman straight out of the IBEW's 
apprenticeship program because they know they are well trained, well 
equipped, and ready to work. Same for the pipefitters.
  Pip said he is training apprentices to be ``smarter and better 
skilled than the last generation,'' but he adds, ``I don't think people 
realize what we do to train these young men and women to become 
journeymen in the field.'' Pip is right. That is why after I get off 
the 5 o'clock train I am taking home to Wilmington tonight, my first 
stop will be a trade and apprenticeship open house at Delcastle High 
School.
  I urge my colleagues to learn about the apprenticeship programs in 
your States. Go and visit employers who depend on apprentices and talk 
to your constituents who have gone through these programs. I know you 
will be impressed.
  Too often we define ``education'' too narrowly here. We talk about 
education as a ticket to the middle class, but we often don't include 
apprenticeship programs. That has to change. Apprenticeship programs 
work.
  Ed Woodrum with the Carpenters sees it as simple math. He describes 
apprenticeship programs as ``opportunity plus resources plus support 
which equals changed lives.'' Ed is right.
  That is why I am so proud to join Senator Franken in cosponsoring 
Senator Murray's bipartisan resolution honoring the inaugural National 
Apprenticeship Week this week. I am also proud to join President Obama 
and Delaware's own Vice President Joe Biden in support of their goal to 
double the number of apprenticeships in 5 years--a goal all of us 
should share. I especially want to recognize and thank the Vice 
President for his effective and long leadership in reviewing our 
Nation's job-training programs and finding ways to meaningfully improve 
them.
  I commend the administration's efforts to expand access to registered 
apprenticeships to make it easier for apprentices to turn their 
experience into college credit. Besides apprenticeships, there are very 
few other Federal programs we know that are estimated to return $27 in 
economic productivity for every dollar we invest. Budgets are tight 
today, and we are all looking for smart, cost-effective investments 
that create jobs and that can help revitalize

[[Page 17496]]

manufacturing. That is why apprenticeship programs deserve our 
continued support.
  Before I yield the floor, I want to thank my colleague Senator 
Franken for his passionate, engaged, and sustained leadership on making 
sure that community colleges and apprenticeship programs work for the 
working men and women of this country and help create new opportunities 
for manufacturing jobs that are high-skill, high-wage, and high-quality 
for folks all over this country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I would like to return the kind words of 
my colleague from Delaware and thank him for his leadership in this 
whole field of manufacturing and filling the skills gap that we see all 
over this country and getting young people and getting people in 
midcareer trained up to do jobs that manufacturers and people in the IT 
industry and other industries need to fill.
  I rise today to recognize the very first week of November as the very 
first ever National Apprenticeship Week. I want to talk a little bit 
about the benefits of apprenticeship training programs, about what I 
hear in my State of Minnesota, and about my bill, the Community College 
to Career Fund Act, which would expand apprenticeship training programs 
through partnerships between employers and community and technical 
colleges.
  When I travel around my State--and I am sure the Presiding Officer 
hears this in Louisiana as well--I hear over and over again that 
employers are desperate to hire good people with the right skills for 
jobs that pay well.
  Today there are over 6,500 open manufacturing jobs in my State. And 
other sectors such as IT, health care--and mechanics for the aerospace 
industry, for airplanes--these sectors in our economy are experiencing 
similar problems. They cannot find workers with the necessary training 
and the right skills to fit jobs that are there. These jobs are there. 
This is what is called the skills gap. I am sure that my friend, the 
Presiding Officer from Louisiana, sees the skills gap in his State as 
well.
  One Minnesota employer, Kimberly Arrigoni of Haberman Machine in 
Oakdale, MN, put it this way:

       For my company specifically it no longer is a capacity 
     issue because of equipment, but one with people. We are 
     limited in what we can produce and ship out the door. . . . 
     Imagine what this very ripple effect is causing my state and 
     our country as a whole.

  She is right, by the way. I visited Haberman Machine, and it is a 
very good precision machine tooling company. It is a family-owned 
business, and it is great. They have jobs they want to fill, but people 
aren't being trained up fast enough.
  There are many registered apprenticeship programs nationwide in more 
than 1,000 occupations that prepare workers with the skills they need 
for tomorrow's jobs, yet they don't get the support they need. I have a 
bill that would address that and provide that support. My bill, the 
Community College to Career Fund Act, would encourage apprenticeship 
training programs by supporting public-private partnerships among 
communities, technical colleges, and businesses. These partnerships 
create job-training programs that provide direct hiring opportunities 
for students, and they give businesses the trained workforce they 
desperately need at little or no cost to the student. Programs such as 
the one supported by my bill will help employers fill available jobs, 
they will help students get those jobs and graduate with very little or 
no college debt, and they help our economy stay competitive globally. 
This is a win, win, win.
  Labor Secretary Tom Perez has described apprenticeship programs as 
college ``without the debt'' or ``earn while you learn.''
  In Minnesota we have many great examples of such programs. I want to 
talk a little bit about one of them.
  Erick Ajax is the co-owner of EJ Ajax Metalforming Solutions in 
Fridley, MN. This is the third generation of Ajaxes. It was Ajax and 
Son, but the son, I think, is too old to be called a son anymore. Erick 
is third generation.
  They make 70 percent of North America's appliance hinges. His company 
has over 70 employees--one for every percent, evidently, of our 
appliance industry. Half of his employees were trained, hired, and had 
their college tuitions fully paid through his earn while you learn 
registered apprenticeship program. To do this, Erick partnered with 
local community and technical colleges to find and train students, 
including veterans, women, first-generation Americans, and ex-
offenders.
  I went to his factory floor, and he introduced me to an ex-offender 
who had been working there at EJ Ajax for 6 years. He just bought his 
first home because of a training program he had taken that had been 
made available through a community technical college.
  For all of these categories I am talking about, I met first-
generation Americans who have great middle-class jobs, got their 
training, and received degrees. There was a veteran who has his 
bachelor's degree now, paid for by Erick, by the company. These are 
full-time, high-paying, solid, middle-class jobs.
  Because Erick fully covered college tuition for his employees, some 
of his veteran employees were able to transfer their GI bill benefits 
to their spouses and their children to help pay for them to go to 
college. This is a great answer to our college affordability, our 
vexing college affordability problem that we all talk about. Erick 
Ajax's employees are evidence that apprenticeship training programs 
work. They increase their career opportunities, they provide businesses 
with skilled workers, they generate higher paying jobs, and they help 
our competitiveness globally.
  Did you know that individuals who have completed registered 
apprenticeship programs earn, on average, a starting salary of $50,000 
a year and $300,000 more over their careers than their peers who did 
not participate in registered apprenticeship programs? In fact, the 
apprenticeships can be the start of a pathway to business leadership 
positions.
  Take Martin Senn, who is Swiss. Martin is the CEO of the Zurich 
Insurance Group, a Swiss company with offices around the world. The 
last I checked, it was one of the Fortune 500 companies--well, 
actually, in the Fortune 200 companies in 2012. I don't know exactly 
where it is now, but Martin is CEO of a huge company. Like many Swiss 
executives, he is a believer in apprenticeship programs.
  When he was asked why Swiss executives choose to implement 
apprenticeship programs in the United States, he said: ``I started my 
career as an apprentice and know first-hand how powerful such a program 
can be in inspiring young people to achieve their full potential.''
  From apprentice to CEO, I would like to see more of these success 
companies involving U.S. companies here at home. Not all apprentices 
are going to become CEOs, but apprenticeship programs--their training 
programs--are providing a proven path for workers to enter the middle 
class and for business owners to develop a high-skilled workforce to 
fill today's available jobs.
  So as we recognize the first ever National Apprenticeship Week, I 
invite my colleagues to take a close look at my Community College to 
Career Fund Act. Let's expand the apprenticeship training model so we 
can better serve the needs of our students seeking good-paying jobs and 
of our businesses looking for qualified employees.
  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.
  Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Export-Import Bank

  Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, finally we see the light at the end of 
the tunnel, and it is not a train. It is, in fact, the eventual and 
necessary passage of the Ex-Im reauthorization bill.

[[Page 17497]]

  As you know, last week the Ex-Im bill passed the House by a vote that 
was 72 percent in favor. We have been told for months and months as we 
debate the Ex-Im Bank that this bill could not possibly pass the House 
as a stand-alone bill. Remarkably, when that myth was put to the test, 
we found out that not just 51 percent, but 72 percent of the House 
supports reauthorization of the Ex-Im bill.
  Last night we faced another challenge for the Ex-Im bill which was, 
in fact, a series of amendments on the Ex-Im portion of the 
Transportation bill. Once again, we exceeded expectations by having 
supermajorities on almost--in fact, all of these amendments suffering 
defeat at a very wide margin. So now what we know is we have a bill 
that continues to have broad-based support and continues to represent 
the necessary steps that need to be taken to reauthorize and reopen the 
Ex-Im Bank.
  Let's just recount history. The Export-Import Bank has been closed 
for over 3 months, preventing needed support for small business across 
the country. Many of those small businesses--guess where they are? They 
are in States such as North Dakota. A lot of people, such as my 
colleague from Washington State who has come on the floor--I think 
everybody understands the significance of exports to States on the 
Pacific Rim and understands that story, but I don't think anyone really 
thinks about the Ex-Im Bank in conjunction with places such as North 
Dakota. So I wish to take a few moments today to talk about small 
business, to talk about the people who have been dramatically affected 
by the closure of the Ex-Im Bank and why it is so important that we 
understand, appreciate, and not have a long-term history that does not 
move the Ex-Im Bank forward.
  Let's start out by talking about the 5,800 small businesses around 
the country that depend on the Export-Import Bank to finance export 
deals and how many of them right now have no support as this issue has 
languished in the Senate. I think we all know that small business makes 
up a large percentage of that economic opportunity in the United 
States. That is true in North Dakota and true to a greater extent 
because probably 95 percent of all employers in North Dakota qualify as 
small businesses. For many of these businesses, if they do not have 
help exporting their products, that help, which the Export-Import Bank 
provides, they can't grow. With more than 95 percent of all consumers 
in the world living outside the United States, if businesses in the 
United States do not export, if they are not competitive, we will lose 
economically.
  Several of my colleagues have been on the floor talking about 
manufacturing and talking about economic opportunity. At the end of the 
day this is about small business, but it is also about the jobs that 
small business create. So we have seen companies such as GE and Boeing, 
which use, interestingly enough, 16 suppliers in North Dakota that are 
dependent on the work GE and Boeing does--and their necessary reaction 
to the failure of this Congress to appropriately and timely reauthorize 
the Ex-Im Bank has been to look for other ways to encourage their 
business growth, and that encouragement has not been in this country. 
They have had to look overseas.
  So it is critically important we understand the idea of a supply 
chain. Everybody says: Well, this is a bank for big business. This is a 
bank for these people. That is just pure nonsense. In every one of 
those deals that is done for one of these major manufacturers, inside 
that deal are literally thousands of small businesses and hundreds of 
thousands of jobs created in those small businesses as they support the 
supply chain.
  I want to talk about a number of the export-import uses in my State 
and brag a bit about the work they do because they are on the cutting 
edge with a lot of their technologies. The first business I want to 
talk about is Amity Technology. It is a 20-year-old family-owned 
company based in Fargo that sells farm manufacturing equipment to 
companies around the world. They began in August of 1977. They sold 
their first business to Case International and then built Amity in the 
winter of 1996.
  What I love to tell about this story is these brothers--one of whom I 
went to college with--come from the family who actually created the 
Bobcat. So they have been entrepreneurs, they have been inventors, they 
have been innovators, and they have driven a lot of jobs in North 
Dakota.
  Amity is a big user of the Ex-Im Bank. It is the largest distributor 
of sugar beet equipment, working with some of the world's largest farm 
equipment companies around the world. With agriculture markets slowing 
down, business is harder to come by and so it is particularly important 
they have all the tools in their arsenal. Without the help of the 
Export-Import Bank, the company, which employs 70 North Dakotans, could 
quickly lose out on at least 10 percent of their business and face 
tough questions about the future of their exports.
  The next business I want to talk about is WCCO Belting in Wahpeton. 
Wahpeton is a small community in the far southeastern corner of our 
State. It is a 60-year-old, family-owned rubber supply company often 
used in farm equipment that is supplied to every major farm equipment 
company in the world.
  For 12 years, the Export-Import Bank has allowed WCCO Belting to 
continue to export opportunities it had previously been ignoring. The 
Bank has supported over $850,000 in exports from the belting company 
since 2007. The company employs 200 employees who generate more than 60 
percent of their annual revenue from customers that are located outside 
of the United States. That would not be possible if it were not for the 
Ex-Im Bank; if that 60 percent of their business is driven by the 
opportunity that the Ex-Im Bank gives them.
  I want to talk about JM Grain. That is a small grain company in 
Garrison. They are a young family-owned pea, lentil, and chickpea 
distributing company that supplies their products to top packaging and 
food companies around the world. When you look at their numbers, $15 
million--in fact, 70 percent of the company's annual revenue for almost 
a decade--has been backed by the Ex-Im Bank. It has allowed JM Grain to 
pursue export opportunities to top manufacturing and packaging food 
ingredient companies that demand buyers to provide financing for 90 to 
100 days--something they could not do on their own.
  Incidentally, they could not find a private bank that would be 
willing to do it. Without the Export-Import Bank, JM Grain would not 
have been able to pursue exports to such high-quality, high-selling 
companies because it would have to significantly cut its price or risk 
going under.
  The company now has doubled or tripled the pay of its workers, 
retaining its workforce throughout the oil boom, which has been awfully 
tough in North Dakota given high living costs, and has been able to 
hire top technological workers. It is incredible. It is an incredible 
story, but it is a story that would not be possible without the Ex-Im 
Bank. It is responsible for $10 million of the company's annual $15 
million in revenue. Without the Export-Import Bank, the company would 
risk losing sales to competitive exporting companies abroad, including 
companies from India, China, and South America.
  The last company I want to talk about is Equipment Wholesalers based 
in Fargo, ND, and Sioux Falls, SD. They sell equipment such as John 
Deere tractors in the United States and abroad. Equipment wholesalers 
told us if the Export-Import Bank is not reauthorized, it will have a 
negative impact on the company's sales. How great is that? Well, it 
will be a 35- to 40-percent impact on their sales. Imagine that. Just 
because of the inactivity of Congress, we have risked 35 to 40 percent 
of this company's business. The company acknowledges it has already 
lost business to companies in Germany that have access to Germany's 
export-import agency. They say without the Export-Import Bank being 
reauthorized, Equipment Wholesalers will lose even more business.
  While our businesses are left at a disadvantage because the Export-
Import

[[Page 17498]]

Bank expired, foreign--foreign--export-import banks, including those in 
India and China and 60 other places around the world, are hugely 
benefiting. In fact, they are wondering what is going on in the United 
States, but we are not going to let any grass grow under our feet as we 
run to daylight and a take advantage of the inaction in Washington, DC. 
They are already stepping in and filling our place.
  If we do not reauthorize the Export-Import Bank to support American 
businesses and manufacturers, China and India will step in. There is no 
doubt about it. They are already doing it. In fact, during the recent 
downturn in both of those economies, the first investment they made was 
putting billions more in their export credit agencies. Do you know why? 
Because it made business sense. It made sense to their balance of 
trade. It made sense to their economy to support their manufacturers, 
especially in an environment where we weren't supporting ours.
  Last week my bipartisan bill with Senator Kirk, which would 
reauthorize this agency, passed with the support of more than 70 
percent of the House. Just yesterday--again, I will repeat--the Export-
Import Bank reauthorization was attached to the House Transportation 
bill. Despite efforts to once again derail the Export-Import Bank from 
people who believed they could kill it altogether with amendments, over 
two-thirds--and in most cases those same House Members who tried to 
kill it--voted against those Export-Import Bank-killing amendments.
  Doesn't that tell us something? Doesn't that tell us that the vast 
majority of people here are not ideologues; that they look at the 
facts? They say: In what world would you not support exports?
  We used to do this in State government when I was attorney general 
and when I served on the Industrial Commission. We would talk about 
North Dakota's economy and we would say: What do we do to grow 
economies? We say: We have new wealth creation. I am not picking on 
retail businesses. Retail businesses typically, unless we are inviting 
Canadians, which we do, to come down and spend money, they are not new 
wealth creation. It is those things that bring new dollars to our 
State. If you look at new wealth creation in this country and look at 
what creates wealth in this country, guess what it is. It is exports. 
It is having a favorable balance of trade. It is making sure we are a 
country that believes in reaching out to the 95 percent of the 
consumers in this world and saying to them: We produce the best quality 
agricultural products, we produce the best quality manufacturing 
products, we are the top supplier and the most trusted source of 
products in the world, but we need the tools to make those sales, and 
the Ex-Im Bank is a critical tool. It is part of that structure of 
trade infrastructure that we need to make this work.
  I hope, I sincerely hope--because I don't know whether I am going to 
be here when we go through this again--I hope the lessons of the last 3 
months have been learned. I hope the lessons we have been preaching 
since really this spring--that we cannot let this Bank expire and there 
will be dire consequences if we do--have been learned and that the Ex-
Im Bank and the people at the Ex-Im Bank, but more importantly that our 
American businesses that rely on the Export-Import Bank, our jobs that 
rely on the Export-Import Bank, and our opportunities created by the 
Export-Import Bank, are never forgotten; that they are never left 
behind.
  Once again we have cleared yet another hurdle. The light is at the 
end of the tunnel. We believe we are ready, willing, and excited about 
the opportunity of once again opening the doors of the Export-Import 
Bank and welcoming American business in and saying once again, 
``America is open for business'' to the rest of the world.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor to my friend from Washington.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from North Dakota 
for coming to the floor again to talk about the Export-Import Bank and 
today specifically outlining how this program of credit insurance helps 
finance the sales of U.S. products in overseas markets, particularly 
for small businesses.
  She and I, obviously, are stalwarts on what are economic 
opportunities in a global economy. We want to make things in the United 
States of America and we want to sell them to overseas markets. So we 
are here today to thank our House colleagues for standing up and 
defeating amendments last night that would kill the Export-Import Bank 
as a part of a package in the transportation deal. We are proud of 
those Senators who have supported this in the Senate, but we are 
especially proud of those House Members who went to the extent of 
getting a discharge petition to demonstrate that 313 Members of the 
House of Representatives support this policy.
  My colleague and I are not giving up on trying to emphasize to people 
we have waited way too long to get this done and now we should not wait 
one moment longer. We should make sure this part of a transportation 
bill--while not necessarily our choice for how this gets done--finally 
gets over the finish line so we can put our small businesses back to 
work.
  As my colleague said, small businesses are the key to her State's 
economy. Well, they are really the key to the U.S. economy. Fifty 
percent of all U.S. jobs are provided by small businesses. So that is 
why we have talked about this issue as it relates to those job 
providers.
  If you are in North Dakota and Washington State and you are growing 
an agricultural product, you show me the bank that is going to finance 
that sale. I know maybe people don't think about agricultural products 
when it comes to Ex-Im Bank, but that is exactly what we have in mind 
because our States produce so many agricultural products.
  The fact is small businesses need global customers. Why? Because if 
we are just going to grow product for the United States of America, we 
are not going to be growing much job opportunity. Ninety-five percent 
of consumers live outside the United States, and we want to make sure 
we are selling to them, but when we are selling to a country in Africa 
or we are selling to a country in Asia and you go to that bank in North 
Dakota or even in Walla Walla, WA, or someplace, and you say: Listen, I 
want you to help me do a deal with this buyer in a very small country, 
they want to know, what the securitization is. The securitization of 
that issue is usually all the capital of that company, which means they 
are not going to do the sale or they are going to try to find a bank 
that is also not going to do it because they do not have the security 
to put behind that.
  That is why credit insurance was created--to help those sales 
actually happen. That is why this is such an important issue to small 
businesses. People think, well, OK, we get it, you are concerned about 
jobs. This is not just about the jobs in our State today, although we 
care immensely about that; this is about the way the Senator from North 
Dakota and I view the economy of the future. We view it as an economy 
that is taking opportunity of what is happening with the growth of the 
middle class outside the United States, that and selling them U.S.-made 
and U.S.-grown products.
  Less than 3 percent of small businesses today are exporters. How are 
we going to get them to be exporters? We want them to take risks. How 
are we going to get them to take risks if they can't get financing for 
their products? If 95 percent of consumers live outside the United 
States, that is where the rising growth is happening, that is where the 
big opportunity is, and we want our small businesses to do something 
about it. Yet we take away the one tool that has been there to help 
small businesses finance those. It was
a big mistake. My colleague talked about that.
  There were more than 3,300 small business deals approved by the 
Export-Import Bank in 2014, so that was a lot of economic opportunity. 
I have met people from many of those companies. They warm my heart and 
make me believe the United States of America can win at any economic 
opportunity it sets its mind to.

[[Page 17499]]

  When I think about a Yakima company that makes music stands--
Manhasset has been in the music stand business for 40 years. They are 
selling music stands all over the United States of America. They get up 
every morning, they go into that factory, and they try to figure out 
how they are going to improve their processes, how they are going to 
improve access. But if you say to them that every sale they make to an 
overseas market has to be backed with their own capital--from 
Manhasset--how long will it take before someone comes in and competes 
with them and basically knocks them off and defeats them? It is not 
going to take long.
  What they have to do is constantly grow their market opportunities 
and stay ahead of technology investments, even with a music stand, the 
best techniques, the best practices, and get your reputation as the 
best product and advertise and continue to dominate in the marketplace. 
That is what selling and exporting are all about.
  The two of us come from export States, Washington State being a major 
exporter and North Dakota being an exporter. We know in our DNA that we 
have to compete. We want our small businesses to compete, and that is 
why both of our States have been big users of the Export-Import Bank, 
and we want these deals.
  In helping to support those small businesses, the Export-Import Bank 
has done $10 billion worth of exports. Isn't this what we want? Isn't 
this what we want in the United States of America, to help small 
businesses grow and become exporters? They are winning. They want their 
products to be purchased by overseas consumers.
  When they don't support the Export-Import Bank, they are saying: I 
want to make it really, really, really hard or impossible for you to 
make that sale, because you are going to have to go find somebody to 
finance it. And we all know that people would rather do a lot more 
financing of dark derivative markets than helping small businesses get 
their deals done.
  We are so happy that our colleagues in the House of Representatives 
last night defeated 10 amendments to kill the Export-Import Bank and 
that it is now traveling over here as part of a transportation package 
that will go to conference, and hopefully in the next 2 weeks we will 
be able to rectify this issue and put our small businesses back to 
work. This is so important not just for the companies using the Export-
Import Bank today but because my colleague and I know we have to grow 
our economy. We know we do great work and we produce great products. We 
need to make sure that in the developing world, we can access the 
opportunity to get our foot in the door and make the sale. Don't stop 
us from doing that. Let's finally get this Bank reauthorized and get on 
our way to growing a stronger economy.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I want to make one final point, along 
with my colleague from Washington State. I don't know how many times 
the Senator from Washington and I have been on the floor telling the 
story of the Ex-Im Bank, about what the problems have been since we 
have closed the Bank for business, talking about what this means for 
small business, trying to reflect the amazement we get from our small 
businesses: Why is this happening when we return money to the Treasury 
and this doesn't cost anything?
  I find it curious that as many times as we have been down here, there 
has been no one down here arguing the counterpoint. There has been no 
one down here willing to ask us to yield for a question about why we 
believe what we believe about the Ex-Im Bank. There is no one down here 
challenging what we are saying about the Ex-Im Bank. I find that 
interesting, and I think it is a lesson maybe for the future--let's not 
mess around with jobs; let's not mess around with people.
  I think everybody thinks they are picking on some kind of large 
corporation, but the reality is that those large corporations in many 
ways can wait this out or they can devise a business plan that gives 
them a workaround from the Ex-Im Bank or they can assemble their 
materials someplace other than the United States. But my small 
businesses, the ones I just outlined, don't have that choice, and they 
don't have a big line of credit they can use to just wait this out. 
They don't have the ability to wait.
  It is one thing to say we are all about small business and helping 
small business. We hear it every time. The two great lines that are 
used here: We care about the middle class and we care about small 
business. But as it relates to the Ex-Im Bank, there has been no 
activity here that would actually prove the point that we care about 
small business.
  So I want to say I do find it extraordinarily curious that we have 
gone unchallenged in this whole discussion. No one really wants to take 
us on because at the end of the day there is no argument on the other 
side. Yet we have closed this Bank for over 3 months. We have closed 
this Bank and this opportunity for America's manufacturers, America's 
small businesses, and all of the great people who work there.
  Just know that I am so grateful for the work of my colleague from 
Washington. She has been an incredible leader. I thank her for 
everything she has done. She is an expert on the Export-Import Bank but 
also a woman who has been in business most of her life and who 
understands the critical importance of the Ex-Im Bank.
  So let's not unlearn this lesson. Let's make sure this never happens 
again and that we never disrupt Americans' economic opportunity the way 
we have by shutting down the Export-Import Bank for the last 3 or 4 
months.
  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. SCHATZ. 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. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I ask to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Solutions to Deforestation

  Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I rise to talk about one of the solutions 
to one of the driving forces behind global climate change; that is, 
deforestation. After fossil fuel combustion, deforestation is the 
single largest contributor to human-induced climate change, but the 
exciting thing is that we have proven cost-effective solutions at hand 
that can go a long way in addressing this problem.
  Forests in the United States and around the world provide important 
services to people--services that are not adequately or appropriately 
valued by the free market, creating a market failure. These services 
include many things that we all take for granted--clean air, clean 
water, wildlife habitats, and long-term carbon sinks that absorb and 
sequester carbon pollution for years. Because these functions of a 
healthy forest ecosystem don't have a dollar sign attached to them, 
they are often not incorporated into decisions made by businesses, 
consumers, and governments, but just because they don't have a pricetag 
does not mean they are without value. In fact, the 2008 study pegged 
the cost of deforestation to the global economy at between $2 trillion 
and $5 trillion per year.
  As the U.S. Forest Service put it, ``When our forests are 
undervalued, they are increasingly susceptible to development pressures 
and conversion. Recognizing forest ecosystems as natural assets with 
economic and social value can help promote conservation and more 
responsible decisionmaking.''
  I agree. Adequately valuing forests, and the services they provide 
offers many benefits to local populations to the climate. Limiting 
deforestation and forest degradation will not reduce global carbon 
pollution and slow the pace of climate change. It will also help to 
safeguard the livelihoods of the more than 1.6 billion people who the 
U.N. estimates depend on forest services.

[[Page 17500]]

  What is more, tropical forests are the source of over one-quarter of 
all modern medicines. Forests impede the transmission of insect- and 
animal-borne infectious diseases. So beyond the economic benefits, we 
know that keeping our forests intact can improve the livelihoods of 
billions of people while avoiding drastic increases in global 
temperatures.
  Thankfully there are good solutions available to address 
deforestation. We can start by properly enforcing laws that are already 
on the books. I plan on working with my colleagues to ensure that we 
fully fund the agencies charged with enforcing the ban on illegally 
sourced timber and paper included in the 2008 amendments to the Lacey 
Act.
  When the leaders, environmental ministers, finance ministers, and 
climate negotiators from all nations meet in Paris later this month, I 
hope they will keep in mind the many advantages of reducing forest loss 
in rainforest nations and other developing countries. I hope my 
colleagues will recognize the crucial role that the United States can 
play in sharing our best practices and helping to build capacity in 
those countries so we will all be better stewards of our natural 
environment.
  A changing climate brings with it a unique set of challenges, but it 
is not too late to take the necessary steps to avoid the worst impacts 
of climate change. There is good news to be had. We have at our 
disposal a wide range of solutions for reining in our emissions of 
carbon pollution. Addressing deforestation is one of the most effective 
and cost-effective ways to slow global warming, while enhancing the 
lives and livelihoods of the hundreds of millions of people who rely on 
forests and the services they provide.


                            Clean Power Plan

  Mr. President, I wish to talk about another aspect of climate change 
and another reason for hope. Two weeks ago the Clean Power Plan was 
published in the Federal Register, meaning that it is now the law of 
the land. This is the signature achievement of President Obama's 
efforts to reduce carbon pollution. It will reduce carbon emissions 
from the power sector by 32 percent by the year 2030. The power sector 
is the source of some of the most cost-effective emissions reductions, 
and the Clean Power Plan is the most critical and vital step toward 
putting the United States on a path to a low-carbon economy.
  Powerplants are the largest single source of greenhouse gas emissions 
in the Nation, accounting for more than 30 percent of all U.S. carbon 
pollution. There are currently no limits to the amount of carbon 
pollution that can be emitted from powerplants. I want to repeat that. 
There is no limit under the law before the Clean Power Plan to the 
amount of carbon pollution that can be put into the air.
  This is despite having landmark legislation already in the books 
called the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act requires the Federal 
Government to regulate airborne pollutants. It doesn't require or allow 
the Federal Government to select from among a menu of airborne 
pollutants and decide which ones will be most cost-effective or most 
important to regulate. It says the EPA is charged with taking airborne 
pollutants and regulating them, to place limits on them. It is a 
mistake that over the last 20 years, even though we have recognized 
that carbon is an airborne pollutant, that it is not regulated under 
the Clean Air Act.
  The Clean Power Plan fixes this problem. It is an innovative and 
flexible solution that gives States the right to develop their 
individual plans. This is also an important point. The first iteration 
of the Clean Power Plan was a little more of a blunt instrument. It was 
geographically constrained. It was powerplant constrained. Therefore, a 
lot of States, a lot of utility companies came back and said: Look, 
there are going to be individual instances where it is going to be very 
difficult to reduce carbon pollution at a particular site because it is 
rural, because it has already been capitalized, because we can't get 
the financing to reduce the carbon pollution at a particular site, but 
if you allow us to work what they call outside of the fence and you 
allow us State by State to reduce in the aggregate the amount of carbon 
pollution put into the air, then we can make this work. We can still 
have what they call good power quality, which is to say you don't want 
undulations in power quality to the point where you have blackouts and 
brownouts. That was industry. That was regulators. That was a public 
utilities commission. That was energy companies coming back and saying 
this is not workable.
  The EPA came up with a scenario where we are still regulating carbon 
pollution under the Clean Air Act, but we are doing it in a way that is 
totally workable for every State and every energy portfolio in every 
region in every State. It gives States the rights to develop their own 
individual plans to cut carbon pollution from the energy sector. The 
Clean Power Plan has sent a signal to the rest of the world that the 
United States is serious about preventing catastrophic changes to our 
climate.
  The American public knows that climate change is a problem and large 
majorities want us to act. A Stanford poll found 83 percent of 
Americans, including 61 percent of Republicans, say that if nothing is 
done to reduce emissions, global warming will be a serious problem in 
the future. Now, 77 percent of Americans say the Federal Government 
should be doing a substantial amount to combat climate change, and 67 
percent of Americans support EPA action to curb carbon pollution.
  In other words, 67 percent of Americans support the EPA action that 
is being undertaken right now. They support the Clean Power Plan. They 
may not know the details, but they understand the basic premise which 
is that the Clean Air Act is the law of the land. It was passed a long 
time ago with large bipartisan majorities. The basic idea that the 
Federal Government has some simple responsibilities, and one of them is 
to keep us safe from air and water pollution, is a bipartisan consensus 
not in this Chamber, unfortunately, and not in the other Chamber, 
unfortunately, but across the country, everybody understands that 
carbon is a pollutant, and we should try to reduce it over time as much 
as we possibly can.
  I think it is time we acknowledge that the electricity industry is 
already changing. We are rapidly moving away from fossil fuels as the 
dominant source of electricity generation. Soon even low-priced natural 
gas may not be able to compete with wind and solar energy. We should be 
celebrating these advances and devoting ourselves to finding ways to 
accelerate this transition, not throwing up roadblocks.
  The truth is the Clean Power Plan is merely accelerating market 
trends that are already underway. Listen to this. Through the first 9 
months of this year, over 60 percent of new U.S. capacity additions 
were renewable energy. More than 60 percent of the new power generation 
in the United States over the last 9 months has been clean energy. That 
is the change that is happening. That is the clean energy revolution.
  In 1998, when I was in the State legislature and I was helping to 
work on net energy metering laws, solar tax credits, and a renewable 
portfolio standard, this was aspirational. This was something we hoped 
we would eventually achieve, but 60 percent of new generation this year 
in the United States is clean energy. It is already happening.
  As wind and solar prices fall, they are increasingly competitive with 
new fossil generation in more and more places around the country. To my 
colleagues who warn of massive price shocks from the transition to 
clean energy, I point out that we are already underway with our 
transition, and the massive price shocks have not happened. The Clean 
Power Plan is the most important power tool that we have in our arsenal 
to fight climate change.
  To my colleagues who are trying to stand in the way of making real 
progress toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions, I say this: When you 
are ready to be constructive and work on a comprehensive energy policy, 
to work on a comprehensive climate policy, we are open.
  I have continued to come to the floor of the Senate over the last 
several

[[Page 17501]]

months, over the year of 2015, and have said this is an issue that has 
unfortunately become incredibly partisan. This is an issue where we 
have Democrats coming to the floor offering constructive solutions and 
an empty side of the Chamber on the other side, but this is the 
challenge of our generation. This is our obligation as the 
indispensable Nation. The United States has to lead. The Senate has to 
have a real debate on climate and energy policy, and we need 
Republicans to step up. This issue is crying for Republican leadership, 
and I am looking forward to the day--hopefully very soon--where we will 
have it, where we will have a serious negotiation.
  I understand that not all of my ideas will win out, not all of the 
progressive perspectives will win out, but that is the legislative 
process. We need a dance partner. We look forward to that moment.
  Mr. President, 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. 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.

                          ____________________