To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be obligated or expended at a rate higher than the level of the Senate and House of Representative concurrent budget resolution for fiscal year 2012.

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND VETERANS AFFAIRS AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2012

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of H.R. 2055, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (H.R. 2055) making appropriations for military
construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and
for other purposes.

Pending:

Coburn (for McCain) amendment No. 553, to eliminate the
additional amount of $10,000,000, not included in the
President's budget request for fiscal year 2012, appropriated
for the Department of Defense for planning and design for the
Energy Conservation Investment Program.
Johnson (SD) modified amendment No. 556, of a perfecting
nature.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. President, as we begin our third day
of debate on the Military Construction-VA appropriations bill, I would
like to encourage my colleagues to file any amendments they may have as
soon as possible, as we would like to begin disposing of amendments in
short order. While we are waiting, I would like to take a few moments
to talk about the VA portion of this bill.
The bill totals $58.6 billion in discretionary spending for the VA in
fiscal year 2012. Additionally, the bill contains $52.5 billion in
advance appropriations for health care for our vets. One of the very
few funding increases above the budget request contained in this bill
is for VA medical research. As every Senator knows, the unique combat
situations in Afghanistan and Iraq have left many vets suffering
significant injuries, including PTSD and TBI. We have a moral
responsibility to take care of those who have put their lives on the
line to defend our Nation and it would be shortsighted to cut funding
for critical research designed to improve medical outcomes from
injuries suffered on the battlefield.
Over the last several years, tremendous progress has been made by the
Department in reducing the number of homeless vets. According to the
VA, in 2005 an estimated 195,000 vets experienced homelessness on any
given night. Today that figure is down to 75,600. Progress is being
made and this bill continues those efforts.
The bill also includes funding for the VA to transform from a
Department heavily dependent on paper to a modern agency that leverages
technology to shorten the time vets have to wait for services. The
funds contained in this bill are necessary for the VA to deploy its
automated claims processing system on time.
These are only a few highlights of the VA title of the Military
Construction-VA appropriations bill. As I have mentioned from the
outset, this bill is a result of a bipartisan effort. Again, I urge my
colleagues to file any amendments they may have so that we can continue
to make progress in moving this bill toward final passage.
I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Collins be added as a cosponsor to amendment No. 556.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I wish to begin by expressing my
appreciation for the remarks of the Senator from South Dakota about the
need to help our veterans, particularly those who have been serving in
these recent endeavors. I wish to express my personal appreciation once
again for the service his own son has given our country during this
period, and to the service of the Senator from Illinois, the ranking
Republican on this bill, as well as to my own son for having served as
an enlisted marine and infantryman in Ramadi, Iraq, through some of the
worst fighting of that war.
I rise today to discuss two amendments Senator Warner and I have
filed to this particular bill. Each relates to the Navy's proposal to
homeport a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier at Naval Station Mayport in
Florida by 2019.
One amendment would eliminate funding of nearly $15 million for a
Navy

[[Page S4661]]

military construction project--a four-lane divided highway on the naval
station. The Navy describes it as the first in a series of what will be
increasingly expensive projects required to enable the Navy to create a
second homeport for aircraft carriers on the east coast.
The second amendment would eliminate approximately $15 million for
architectural planning and design services for a number of follow-on
military construction projects at Mayport tied, again, to carrier
homeporting.
This is a slippery slope. The Navy says it will cost more than $\1/2\
billion in one-time costs to homeport a nuclear-powered aircraft
carrier in Mayport. Other recurring costs will push the expense much
higher. In fact, there are estimates these costs could achieve more
than $1 billion by the end of this decade.
The reason for filing these amendments is straightforward. We owe it
to the American taxpayers, as well as to the integrity of our DOD
budget process. The Department of Defense has been directed to achieve
reductions in defense spending totaling hundreds of billions of
dollars. No part of that budget should be off-limits, especially a
duplicative, redundant project such as the Navy's carrier homeporting
plan for Mayport.
I wish to make it clear at the outset that this is not a Virginia v.
Florida issue, although there are strong political implications in both
Virginia and in Florida for this move. I have been involved in one way
or another with naval service since I was 17 years old, and I will
continue to be involved in one way or another long after I am involved
as a Senator in the Senate.
I support the Navy's requirement to sustain the naval station at
Mayport in some fashion, but speaking as a former Secretary of the
Navy, I wish to point out there are other ways to get there. I question
the fiscal responsibility and the strategic necessity to homeport an
aircraft carrier in Mayport when less expensive homeporting
alternatives do exist.
These amendments are directed toward necessary congressional
oversight. The GAO has initiated an independent analysis of
alternatives. Its assessment will be completed next spring. Before we
commit to a plan to build expensive, redundant, nuclear-supported
infrastructure on the east coast with long-term spending implications,
our views on the Navy's proposal should be informed by this GAO study.
Let me explain my hesitations about this project. First, the Navy is
proposing to expand a facility at the same time the size of its fleet
has radically declined. This chart shows the size of the U.S. Navy
active ship force vessels levels from 1970 until today. In 1970, the
U.S. Navy had 743 active ships. Today they have 284 deployable battle
force ships. It is rather ironic as I stand here today because when I
was Secretary of the Navy in the late 1980s, the Navy had exactly twice
as many combatants as it does today--568 combatants. It is only logical
that the Navy's shore footprint should reflect this reality. The Navy's
plan to build a large duplicative facility for aircraft carriers in
Mayport contradicts this logic.
In 1970, with 19 aircraft carriers, which is this line showing the
historical trend on aircraft carriers, the Navy homeported carriers at
6 locations. As the number of aircraft carriers has declined from 19 to
11 today, the number of their homeports has held fairly constant. There
are now 5. So when we had 19 aircraft carriers in the Navy, they
homeported them at 6 locations.
Today, with 11 aircraft carriers and 1, quite frankly, at risk, which
I will speak to in a minute, we have 5. The Navy has upgraded its
facilities and home ports on the west coast and in Japan, as well as
our east coast home port in Norfolk to accommodate today's all-nuclear
carrier fleet. With a fleet less than half the size of what it was in
1970--almost one-third of the size of what it was in 1970--it is only
logical that we do not require the same number of shore facilities to
support it.
Quite frankly, if I had $1 billion to spend, I think I would buy a
couple of ships with it and try to get the Navy up to its stated goal,
which I support, of 313 combatants. These are issues of fiscal
responsibility--where the Navy puts its money.
Over the past 5 years, the Navy has had validated unfunded
requirements--validated unfunded requirements--of more than $50 billion
across its operations, military construction, modernization and
acquisition programs. I believe it is more fiscally responsible for the
Navy to reduce these unfunded requirements than it would be for them to
build a redundant facility.
From fiscal year 2008 through 2012, the Navy reported unfunded
priorities totaling $11.8 billion. These are priorities totaling $11.8
billion. They cover shipbuilding, aircraft procurement, aviation and
ship maintenance, military construction, and other programs--all for
future readiness needs.
The Navy's backlog in critical modernization repair projects at the
four naval shipyards increased to $3.5 billion in fiscal year 2010 as a
result of inadequate investment. The Navy acknowledges that the growing
risk for shipyard operations is a major concern. Overall, the Navy's
shorewide modernization backlog grew to $39.2 billion last year--up
nearly $3 billion from the previous year. Simply stated, the Navy needs
to do a better job of managing its existing facilities.
So I ask my colleagues: How can we be sympathetic to the Navy's
request for additional funding to cover such shortfalls when it wants
to invest up to $1 billion in an ill-advised, duplicative carrier
homeporting project in Mayport?
There has been much discussion about the strategic justification and
ramifications of only having one nuclear aircraft homeport on the east
coast. Let me talk about that. First, the Navy says the new homeport is
needed to mitigate the risk of a terrorist attack, accident, or natural
disaster at the homeporting facility in Norfolk. However, every Navy
risk assessment states there is a low risk of such events occurring in
the Hampton Roads region. Alternate maintenance facilities for a
carrier exist at Norfolk Naval Shipyard and the private shipyard in
Newport News. Last year, I supported projects at Mayport to cover this
possibility as well--to dredge its channel and modernize a pier so that
a carrier could make a routine port visit there in the unlikely event
that operations in Norfolk were interrupted so that a carrier could use
Mayport in an emergency.
There has been some talk about the need for strategic dispersal. I
recognize that concept. There have been photographs of Pearl Harbor
with battleship row, with the ships bunched together, showing how the
Japanese aircraft were able to knock them out in 1941. There was
justification for the Navy's concept of dispersal during the Cold War.
But even then many critics from GAO were faulting the Navy at a time
when I was at the Pentagon for its lack of a focused threat assessment
to justify what some people were calling ``strategic home-porking''--
putting ships in too many different locations.
Today's threats are entirely different, and I would make the rather
ironic note that dispersal in many ways has occurred through reduction.
I will say this again: The U.S. Navy today is one-half the size it was
when I was Secretary of the Navy, when we had 568 combatants. A certain
amount of dispersal has occurred by the dwindling size of the Navy.
The second point is a conventional Pearl Harbor-type attack is very
unlikely. Secretary of Defense Panetta mentioned this during his Senate
confirmation hearing in June:

The next Pearl Harbor that we confront could very well be a
cyber attack that cripples our power systems, our grid, our
security systems, our financial systems, and our governmental
systems.

I do not minimize the need to protect our fleet from any sort of
attack. We have done an extraordinarily good job of that in the Norfolk
area with high-tech defensive systems. This is not the same type of
situation that people have talked about in terms of what happened at
Pearl Harbor in 1941.
Another point is that less expensive homeporting options do exist.
Our Navy's own studies identify other less-expensive options to sustain
the facility at Mayport, and I do believe Mayport as a Navy town is
very important to the interests of our country and to that region. It
is an important naval base. But we have a clear responsibility to find
more cost-effective, more strategically responsible ways to do that.
Again, if I had $1 billion I would put it into ships. If I were
looking for the

[[Page S4662]]

right kind of ship to go to Florida, I would look for amphibious and
smaller ships so we don't have to build these highly expensive,
nuclear-capable facilities that, again, are redundant.
I must also note that pressures to reduce the Navy budget are getting
worse. Last week, Marine Corps GEN James Cartwright, the Vice Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, highlighted this challenge, saying that
the Defense Department is ``looking at all options'' to reduce its
budget by $400 billion over the next 10 years. General Cartwright then
confirmed that the Navy was considering such options as delaying the
construction of a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier or possibly
cancelling a future aircraft carrier acquisition.
The effects of these budget pressures are manifested in the fleet
today. The Navy's readiness for aviation squadrons and its surface
ships has continued to decline since 2007, owing to inadequate funding
for maintenance, deferred availabilities, and the fleet's high
operational tempo. In their testimony on Navy readiness to the
Readiness Subcommittee on the House side just last week, the Navy
witnesses said, ``This is unsustainable over the long term.''
So do we want to spend $1 billion on a redundant homeport at the
expense of building ships and maintaining our fleet? I would encourage
my colleagues to consider a commonsense approach and to take a year's
time out before embarking on a duplicative enterprise that the Navy
simply cannot afford. The service has far too many higher priorities,
unfunded requirements, and readiness problems on its plate.
The GAO study will be comprehensive, it will be rigorous, and it will
give us the information we need to make informed judgments next year
regarding the Navy's homeporting plan for Mayport. There is no cause to
rush to judgment now. There is $30 million that could be saved
presently.
As I said, this is a slippery slope that could take us down the road
to $1 billion. We don't need it. We need the money in other areas in
the Navy budget.
Mr. NELSON of Florida, Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the
strategic dispersal of our naval fleet, and how this is vital to our
national security. Why is strategic dispersal important? Well, we only
have to look back a few decades to December 7, 1941, to see why all of
our eggs should not be in one basket.
In the Pacific fleet, our Navy has had the forethought to station our
most priceless assets at four different homeports--San Diego,
Bremerton, Everett, and Japan. The Navy has been slow, however, to
accomplish the same thing with our Atlantic fleet. When the last
conventionally powered aircraft carrier, the John F. Kennedy, was
decommissioned in 2007, we had a problem. All five nuclear carriers
were now in one homeport Norfolk, VA. So since 2007 this has heightened
the national security threat.
The threat could be an asymmetric one like the USS Cole bombing or
the sinking of a freighter in the 15-mile-long channel at Norfolk,
which would bottle up the carriers in port.
If we have learned anything, it should be this--we are not
invulnerable to attacks or to the whims of Mother Nature, nor are we
very good at anticipating when and where the next catastrophe will
occur. Mayport, unlike Norfolk's carrier berths, is at the mouth of the
river, adjacent to the ocean, with a protected harbor from the
commercial ship channel.
The President's budget request supports the infrastructure
improvements needed in order to homeport a carrier in Mayport, FL, in
2019. Why? The Chief of Naval Operations, ADM Gary Roughead, said that
``Moving a carrier to Mayport is needed regardless of cost.'' The
Secretary of the Navy, Ray Mabus, said ``We have to disperse our
carrier fleet, from a naval standpoint; it's something we have to do.''
The cost to homeport a CVN at Mayport is much less, almost half, of
what the Navy anticipated. The Government Accountability Office
estimates that the total cost of remaining projects will be from $258
million to $356 million, instead of $537 million. Indeed, this is cheap
insurance when you consider the costs of replacing a carrier at $11.5
billion.
The military decision to disperse the fleet has been studied and
restudied. Admiral after admiral, Secretary after Secretary have all
testified keeping a second Atlantic homeport is essential to national
security. The U.S. Congress has supported this decision for years.
The Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate Appropriations
Committee both have recommended the full funding of the President's
budget request for Mayport improvements in 2012. The carrier move
enjoys broad, bipartisan support in this Chamber.
With that, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 568

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise to make pending the Vitter
amendment which is at the desk, and I will be happy to explain what it
is about. If it is necessary, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment and make the Vitter amendment pending.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to waive reading
of the admendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Vitter] proposes an
amendment numbered 568.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise
made available by this Act may be obligated or expended at a rate
higher than the level of the Senate and House of Representative
concurrent budget resolution for fiscal year 2012)

On page 117, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following:
Sec. 410. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act shall exceed the level of the
concurrent budget resolution for fiscal year 2012.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I will read it. It is very short, and I
will explain it. This amendment simply says:

None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available
by this Act shall exceed the level of the concurrent budget
resolution for fiscal year 2012.

That is the entire amendment.
The point this amendment makes is a pretty simple but a basic and
important one. We do not have a concurrent budget resolution for fiscal
year 2012. We are in the process of passing an appropriations bill,
spending money without a budget, without a game plan, without a
framework. That is clearly putting the cart before the horse and
clearly having things backward in a dysfunctional process.
Every Louisiana family, every Louisiana small business, as families
and businesses do in Minnesota, sits down and makes a budget, and then
they spend money under that budget. That is the rational,
straightforward way to do things. Unfortunately, that is not what we
are doing in Congress and in the Senate.
This simple, straightforward process is not only rational, it is not
only commonsensical, it is also required by law. Under Federal law, the
Congress is mandated to pass a budget, to pass a concurrent budget
resolution by April 15 of every year. We are months beyond April 15--
several months and counting--and not only do we not have this required
budget, this game plan, this framework which we are supposed to be
living by, but on the Senate side we have not even made a meaningful
effort to get there.
The distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee has not made an
effort in committee to come up with a Senate budget resolution. There
has been no effort in committee, and so no Senate budget has been sent
to the floor. In fact, the same thing happened in the previous fiscal
year. So we are now not just several months past this year's April 15
deadline, but we are over 800 days since the last time we had a budget
resolution as required by Federal law--800 days, over 800 days and
counting.
I am afraid this is exactly the sort of thing the American people
shake their

[[Page S4663]]

heads at. This is exactly the sort of thing they scratch their heads
about, shake their heads at, and say: What is wrong in Washington?
Every Louisiana family has a budget they have to live within. Every
Louisiana small business has a budget and that is their framework and
they operate within that. Yet Congress, apparently, does not get it,
particularly the Senate does not get it under this majority leadership
and is not even making an attempt to do what is not only a good, sound
idea but is required by Federal law.
Again, I just suggest we put first things first: We have a budget and
then we only spend money, only pass appropriations bills pursuant to
and consistent with that budget. That is why, again, my amendment is
very simple:

None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available
by this Act shall exceed the level of the concurrent budget
resolution for fiscal year 2012.

I urge us all to do the right thing. We will have different ideas
about a budget. We will have different priorities. We will have an
important and healthy debate, but we need to follow the law. We need to
follow common sense. We need to have a budget and then only pass
spending and appropriations bills under that budget and consistent with
it.
With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant editor of the Daily Digest proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KIRK. 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. KIRK. Mr. President, I share very much the sentiments of my
colleague from Louisiana, Mr. Vitter, but I would urge us to not
support the amendment because the Senate has already ruled on this
question.
When we debated whether to take up this bill, we voted on a cloture
motion in order to bring up an appropriations bill. Normally, we would
want to pass a budget resolution before bringing up an appropriations
bill, and it has been, I think, over 800 days since the leadership of
this institution has even written and presented a budget. But I would
put forward that this bill is rather unique because it conforms to the
House Paul Ryan budget that passed the House on April 15. The
legislation before us has come before the Senate because Chairman
Johnson and I have agreed to put forward a VA-MILCON bill that is
$1.255 billion in discretionary budget authority below the President's
request. We are coming in $620 million below the 2011 enacted level.
We all remember that the House of Representatives has already adopted
the MILCON-VA appropriations bill under Chairman Culberson, and the
Senate bill actually spends in budget authority on the discretionary
side $2.5 million less than the House bill. Because we did that, 71 to
26 was the vote on cloture to bring up this bill, including the support
of the Republican leader, Mr. McConnell, and our vice chairman on the
Republican side of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Cochran.
I do think for a bill that has been endorsed by the Veterans of
Foreign Wars and other veterans service organizations, a bill that gets
the Senate moving again for its regular duties as part of the
appropriations process, and for a bill that actually cuts funding--
Chairman Johnson and I have reduced funding in 24 separate programs in
this budget, including denying a brandnew courthouse for the Court of
Appeals for Veterans Claims and pressuring the Army, for example, when
we found a proposal to spend $1.4 million on a general's garden in
Germany. When all those 24 reductions were made--when we denied the new
building, when we made the other reductions--we came in with a bill
that is below the bill passed by the House of Representatives.
That is why this legislation has come up. That is why the Senate
voted 71 to 26 for cloture to bring up the bill. I would just put
forward that the fact is, this bill does actually comply with a budget.
It complies with the budget of the House of Representatives, which is
why it has such strong bipartisan support.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana is recognized.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I congratulate Senator Kirk for bringing
this legislation to the floor and getting it through committee in a way
that is indicative of where we need to go. We were sent here not to
increase spending. We were sent here to try to find a sensible way of
moving forward by reducing expenditures and still providing essential
services that only the Federal Government can provide. His subcommittee
and committee have done that with this bill before us.
I commend him for bringing this in under budget. Savings actually
have occurred. We are changing the culture of the Senate from one of
increasing spending to one of oversight and looking carefully at how
Washington spends taxpayer dollars. Every dollar is important. We have
a lot of those dollars stacked up, in terms of debt, that have to be
addressed. Looking at each appropriations bill and getting them through
regular order is how the Senate needs to function. We know we cannot
get there until we settle this debt limit situation with a sensible,
rational plan that is credible with financial markets.
I have looked at details of this legislation as a member of the
Appropriations Committee, and I think the Senator from Illinois and his
colleague, the chairman, Senator Johnson, have come forward with a very
good product that addresses our military construction needs and our
welfare benefits and does it in a way that shows we can achieve
savings.
What I wish to speak about is the balanced budget amendment we will
be dealing with later this week. When I first came to Congress, I
committed to the people of Indiana to support a balanced budget
amendment. I have watched the process, and since I have left office and
now come back, I have continued to watch the process, and we simply
don't have that discipline that enables us to keep our fiscal house in
balance.
There are so many temptations as a Member of Congress to say yes to
everybody. Everybody pleads their cause. They come in and make their
case. Over the years, our country has accumulated gradually a
substantial amount of debt that we no longer can afford.
Washington needs something that locks us into a commitment to be
careful with taxpayers' money and not spend more than we take in. Every
family understands this. There is a point at which we simply have to
say stop spending at this rate because we cannot afford it. Every
business understands that. Most of our local governments and State
governments are now realizing that.
As we see across the country, very drastic steps need to be taken to
get the fiscal house back in order. That hasn't happened yet at the
Federal level. Thankfully, we have before us this week attempt to
debate and address the issue of a constitutionally mandated balanced
budget. I look forward to that debate.
Let's just look back at a little history. When the balanced budget
amendment came before the Senate in 1997, our Nation's debt stood at
$5.36 trillion. Today, the debt has accelerated to $14.3 trillion and,
as we know, it is accelerating even faster and climbing toward much
higher numbers. We are borrowing more than 40 cents of every $1 we
spend. That is unsustainable. Ultimately, it is having a negative
impact on our economy, but it will continue to have an ever-increasing
negative impact in the future if we do not get our fiscal house in
order.
We clearly need a commitment. When we put our hand on the Bible and
raise our right hand and swear to uphold the Constitution of the United
States, that includes a commitment to be careful with the taxpayers'
dollars and particularly understand the impact that deficit spending
has on our economy and on unemployment--a commitment to be open and
fair and upfront with the taxpayers who are funding all this.
Our State of Indiana has to go before the taxpayers each year and say
this is a nice proposal, but this is how much it is going to cost. If
we, the taxpayers, want to pay for such a proposal with increased taxes
or we want to pay for it by reducing spending somewhere else, one of
those processes will keep us in balance. Congress cannot end this
session without achieving that balance. Our State has to go through
that every

[[Page S4664]]

year. That is true of the majority of the States in this country.
That doesn't happen here in Washington. We just borrow more and worry
about it later. The end of that road is here. We have hit the wall.
Later is no longer a viable option. More debt is no longer a viable
option. Without a constructive plan in place to address this now, we
are going to continue to, in my opinion, remain at a stalemate. There
is a lot going on in the Senate. There have been hours upon hours of
discussions. Both sides, together, are trying to figure out a plan that
will put us on a path to fiscal responsibility, which can both pass the
House and the Senate.
The opportunity now is here to include in that plan a balanced budget
amendment. We know it is going to take time to pass this. It requires a
two-thirds vote of each House. If passed and agreed on, it has to be
sent to the States, and three-quarters of the States have to ratify it.
If the American people understood that behind whatever plan we put in
place to deal with our fiscal problems we had a balanced budget
amendment to the Constitution in place, they would have assurance that
we are on the right track. I think that signal to the financial markets
and the world. It would show that the United States is aware of its
problem, has taken action, and is getting its fiscal house in order.
The dollar will stay the world's currency, and America will remain the
safest haven in the world to invest.
We are seeing debt crises all over the world, and we see our own
dollar being challenged. The rating agencies are coming forward and
announcing the possibility of a drop in our credit rating. The
statistics show that a 1-percentage point increase in interest rates--
which investors will demand if we don't show them a credible plan--
produces, over a 10-year period, $1.3 trillion of extra money that we
will have to spend to cover our debt. We simply cannot continue this
process and ignore the problem. The time to do it is now.
Is it difficult? Yes. We have been trying to debate this and work on
it ever since January. We are not there yet, and the clock is ticking
toward August 2. A balanced budget amendment will help enforce a debt-
reduction plan and gain the confidence of the American people that this
will not just be something overturned by the next Congress, and it will
not just be a piece of paper that doesn't have a long-term effect.
Backing up a plan with a balanced budget amendment will provide the
assurance that going forward America will tend to its fiscal needs and
stay strong as a nation financially, as well as every other aspect.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask for 10 minutes in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise to address an issue of fairness
for our National Guard soldiers. They serve with honor and bravery at
home and abroad. They have earned the respect and admiration of an
entire Nation with their incredible sacrifices over the last decade.
We must not forget they have also, in addition to our respect and
admiration, earned their compensation and their benefits. To take back
a veteran's compensation after she or he has fulfilled the requirements
for it is unthinkable. Yet that is exactly what is happening around the
country in regard to National Guard bonuses.
Let me share the story of PFC Chelsea Wells. This story is emblematic
of the struggle many men and women in the National Guard are facing
today.
I thank Congressman Walden for bringing this situation to the
public's attention and to my attention. I add my voice to his to call
for fairness for PFC Chelsea Wells and for all other members of the
National Guard.
Private First Class Wells is from my home State of Oregon, where she
has served in the Oregon National Guard for the last 3 years.
In 2007, she enlisted as an intelligence analyst in response to the
needs of the Army. At the time when she signed her enlistment document,
she signed an additional document that stipulated she would receive a
$20,000 bonus for enlisting in a critical Military Occupancy Specialty
or MOS.
That agreement, which was also signed by the enlisting official at
her processing station, also stated she would receive the first half of
her bonus upon completion of her initial training and the second half
after 36 months of service.
As planned, Private First Class Wells received that first $10,000
upon completion of her initial training. However, when her 36 months of
service was completed, the second half of the bonus was nowhere to be
seen. In fact, it was denied.
Following an inquiry from Congressman Walden, the National Guard
stated the payments had been denied because her specialty was not on
the critical skills list at the date of enlistment. However, the very
document Private First Class Wells signed--also signed by the enlisting
official--very specifically listed her Military Occupancy Specialty,
35F, as indeed being a critical skill specialty.
I have that document here: ``Annex E to Defense Department Form 4,
Non-prior Service Enlistment Bonus Addendum.''
It says the purpose of this form is ``to explain and confirm
obligation and to ensure that agreement to these conditions is a matter
of record.''
The entire point of this document is to ensure that there is a clear
understanding in regard to eligibility for bonuses. This document says
on its list of eligibility--and this section is signed by the soldier:

I am enlisting into a critical skill MOS under the 6x2 or
8XO enlistment option and will receive a NPS Critical Skill
Bonus (50/50 payment.)

That means 50 after initial training and 50 at the end of 3 years.
At the end of this document, it has section IX, ``Certification by
Service Representative,'' and this is in regard to the enlisting
official, the recruiting officer. It says:

I certify that I have witnessed the reading and signing of
the above agreement and the signature appearing is that of
the applicant. I have verified the soldier meets the
eligibility requirement of NGR 600-7, paragraph 2-3, and the
applicant's MOS/unit is currently eligible for an enlistment
cash bonus.

I think that is pretty clear. The story gets even worse. Not only is
our own military saying they are not going to award the second half of
the bonus, but they want her to return the first half because,
apparently, they made some kind of mistake in between the recruiting
officer and the higher-ups. I must say any individual should have the
right to a reward that he or she was contractually owed. And there are
no individuals who deserve their reward more than our brave men and
women in uniform who have already made so many sacrifices, large and
small, to ensure the security and safety of our Nation.

Private First Class Wells upheld her end of the bargain. She signed
this enlistment document in good faith. She answered the call to serve
when she was needed, and she served with honor for the full term. Now
we must uphold our promise to her and to other National Guard veterans
who find themselves being punished due to a dispute that was no fault
of their own. They signed these documents in good faith, with the
certification of the listing officer that they were indeed eligible.
What is absolutely clear is that whatever dispute there may be between
the listing officers and authorities higher up the chain, that is not
Chelsea Wells' fault. She served in good faith under a very clear
document, and we owe her and all the National Guard soldiers who are
being pursued in the same fashion the bonuses that were promised to
them.
We ask a tremendous amount of those who serve. Now is when we should
be giving back, not asking for more. Asking a soldier to give back
money they have received under a document they signed in good faith and
fulfilled in good faith is 100 percent unacceptable. I and my
colleagues from the State of Oregon call on the National Guard today to
resolve this matter and to make sure this wrong is made right.
Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page S4665]]

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Amendment No. 570, As Modified

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending business to call up my amendment, amendment No. 570, as
modified.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Wyden], for himself and Mr.
Merkley, proposes an amendment numbered 570.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide for the closure of Umatilla Army Chemical Depot,
Oregon)

On page 84, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following:
Sec. 127. (a) Closure of Umatilla Army Chemical Depot,
Oregon.--The closure of the Umatilla Army Chemical Depot,
Oregon, and subsequent management and property disposal, may
be carried out in accordance with procedures and authorities
contained in the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of
1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C.
2687 note).
(b) Retention of Property and Facilities.--The Secretary of
the Army may retain minimum essential ranges, facilities, and
training areas at Umatilla Army Chemical Depot, totaling
approximately 7,500 acres, as a training enclave for the
reserve components of the Armed Forces to permit the conduct
of individual and annual training.
(c) Office of Economic Adjustment Activities.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Office of
Economic Adjustment Activities of the Department of Defense
may make grants and supplement other Federal funds, using
funds made available by title, in connection with the closure
and management and disposal provided for in this section, and
the projects so supported shall be considered to be
authorized by law.

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I ask for the immediate consideration of
amendment No. 570, as modified.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment has been reported. It
is now pending.
Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, when we have a conflict or a problem in
my home State, we resolve it the Oregon way: by finding consensus and
building common ground.
That is why, when it became apparent 20 years ago that the U.S.
Army's Chemical Depot in Umatilla, OR, would be closing once all the
chemical weapons were destroyed, the community leaders gathered all the
stakeholders and began the process of planning what to do with the land
once the facility closed. The Umatilla Depot straddles two counties,
several cities, and historic tribal lands, so there are a lot of folks
in my home State who are interested in what happens to the land.
As progress was made in destroying the weapons at Umatilla, the
community built common ground and found a genuine consensus. The
Federal Government would support it. It gave more than $1 million in
assistance. When the facility was listed in the 2005 BRAC
recommendations for closure, the Pentagon eventually recognized the
group of stakeholders as an official Local Reuse Authority.
Everything appeared on track until last month. That was when, at the
eleventh hour, the Pentagon changed the rules. After decades of
planning and $1 million in preparation, a lawyer at the Pentagon
decided to reinterpret the law and declared that the 2005 BRAC report--
which became law when Congress didn't pass a resolution of
disapproval--didn't matter. That lawyer decided that the Umatilla Depot
would be closed outside of the BRAC authority because the last of the
chemical weapons wouldn't be destroyed until after the 6-year limit for
completion of BRAC actions. What this lawyer either didn't know or
somehow missed is that this was precisely the intention of the BRAC
Commission when they put the Umatilla Depot on the closure list.
The BRAC report discusses the fact that the mission of destroying the
chemical weapons wouldn't be completed until after the deadline. On
page 239 of the report, the Commission found that Secretary Rumsfeld's
assertion that the chemical demilitarization mission at Umatilla would
be complete by the second quarter of this year was optimistic. The
Commission wrote:

An examination of status information for the depot's
mission completion and subsequent closure revealed that dates
may slip beyond the 6-year statutory period for completion of
the BRAC actions.

Therefore, the Commission took the Secretary of Defense's
recommendation ``Close Umatilla Chemical Depot, OR'' and changed it to
``On completion of the chemical demilitarization mission in accordance
with treaty obligations, close Umatilla Chemical Depot, OR.''
These facts make it clear the Commission did not--as the Pentagon has
claimed recently--make a conditional recommendation that the facility
only be closed if the chemical demilitarization mission is completed by
September of 2011. Rather, the Commission acknowledged that the closure
will have to happen when the demilitarization mission is completed even
if that is after September of 2011. That decision by the Commission
became law.
It is also important to note that the Commission is aware that the
demilitarization mission had a deadline of its own. Under the terms of
the Chemical Weapons Convention Treaty, Umatilla must complete the
mission by April 29, 2012.
UMCD will meet this deadline, if not beat it. The Commission was not
giving authority for the mission at UMCD to be one of a never-ending
nature. They were simply giving UMCD the additional 8 months provided
under the Chemical Weapons Convention.
The depot should be closed under BRAC so the will of the community,
in the form of the local reuse authority, and the will of Congress in
the BRAC law will be taken into account.
I strongly believe the local community should decide what to do with
the land and not somebody who is off in the basement of the Pentagon.
I have spoken with Secretary Panetta about this matter, and he is
fully supportive of our efforts.
I wish to also thank Senator Johnson and my good friend from Arizona,
Senator McCain, who have also been very helpful--and their staff--in
working with us. The Pentagon has to implement the law as it is, not,
in my view, as it wants. But since the lawyers at the Pentagon have in
recent weeks thought there was some ambiguity, I wished to clarify it
for them with the amendment that has been modified with the good
counsel of the staff of Senator McCain.
Let me also say, the staff of Senator McCain has been very helpful in
saying this would be permissive authority in terms of the Pentagon and
that the Senator could join me in a letter making it clear it is
important this be moved expeditiously. I hope we can complete this
matter at this time.
My amendment, which I offer on behalf of myself and my colleague,
Senator Merkley, would allow the Pentagon to follow the BRAC
commission's report and close the Umatilla Depot under BRAC.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, first of all, I wish to thank the Senator
from Oregon. This is an issue that needs to be resolved, and it has
been a pleasure working with him on not only the behalf of the people
of Oregon but also on behalf of the Department of Defense.

Amendment No. 564

Mr. President, I join the Senator from Oklahoma in supporting the
amendment which Senator Coburn had intended to propose. The amendment
would have amended Public Law 102-4, the Agent Orange Act of 1991,
which I cosponsored, to provide clarity on the factual basis required
for the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to make future determinations on
the presumption of connection of military service in Vietnam with
diseases associated with exposure to the herbicide commonly known as
Agent Orange.
Agent Orange was unanticipated and certainly not something that at
the time, given the scientific knowledge and information we had, was
thought would be detrimental to the health of the men and women who
were serving in the Vietnam war. But the fact is, Agent Orange did have
a very serious health effect on the men and women who were serving and
those who came in contact with it. For years, we delayed compensating
our veterans, those who were exposed to Agent Orange.
In 1991, the act was a long overdue answer to questions on the health
effects of exposure to Agent Orange, and it directed much deserved
compensation to our veterans for certain diseases, including non-
Hodgkin's lymphoma and certain cancers.
What has happened, and the reason why I appreciate the Senator from

[[Page S4666]]

Oklahoma raising this issue, is it has obviously now reached a point
where the Secretary of Veterans Affairs has now expanded the
eligibility to the point where it is beyond any scientific evidence
that compensation would be required.
In 2006, it was found that the evidence linking ischemic heart
disease to exposure to herbicides was inadequate or insufficient. Heart
disease, as we all know, is the leading cause of death in America today
and has been so for decades.
In 2008, they updated their findings based on two epidemiological
studies which provided ``statistical'' evidence of a relationship.
Still, they categorized the link between ischemic heart disease and
exposure to Agent Orange as ``limited or suggestive evidence of an
association.'' That already low standard was further qualified with the
following statement:

Epidemiologic evidence suggests an association--

Suggests an association--

between exposure to herbicides and the outcome, but a firm
conclusion is limited because chance, bias and confounding
could not be ruled out with confidence.

Despite this doubt, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs decided to
grant a new presumption for ischemic heart disease, which according to
the Department of Veterans Affairs will cost nearly $31.9 billion over
the next 10 years. Similarly, with Parkinson's disease, which was also
found to be in the category of ``limited or suggestive evidence,'' a
decision was made to grant compensation and benefits based on exposure
to Agent Orange, which according to the VA will cost $3.5 billion over
the next 10 years.
This process is a risky, hit or miss, and costly way to administer
the veterans disability program and resources, which are in scarce
supply and which our veterans need and deserve in return for their
sacrifice to our Nation.
In its report to the congressionally mandated Veterans' Disability
Benefits Commission in 2007, the Institute of Medicine itself found
that the ``association'' standard contained in the Agent Orange Act was
inadequate and potentially misleading. That report recommended the goal
of the presumptive disability decisionmaking process be to ensure
compensation for veterans whose diseases are caused by military service
and a new primary standard that sufficient evidence to support a
determination of presumption would exist when evidence is sufficient to
conclude that a causal relationship exists.
The Veterans' Disability Benefits Commission endorsed the need for
establishing a new framework for presumptions with more transparent
processes, but it failed to take the full step of embracing causality
in decisionmaking.
The amendment my colleague from Oklahoma so bravely intended to offer
would have achieved the goal identified by the Institute of Medicine to
ensure that scientifically based causality is at the heart of the
disability determination process.
My vote in favor of the Agent Orange Act of 1991 was a vote to
discern facts from rhetoric and even politics and to put the welfare of
our veterans above all other considerations, including costs. My
support of the Coburn amendment would be no different. It is
appropriate to adopt a clearer, stronger standard for the presumption
of service-connected disabilities to ensure greater consistency in this
process and, in doing so, to help ensure that our Nation's resources
are available to provide appropriate compensation and benefits for
veterans of wars to come.
Former Secretary of Veterans Affairs, the Honorable Tony Principi,
before the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, on September 23, 2010, on
this very subject--the subject of presumptive disability
decisionmaking--said:

Make no mistake: these decisions do not merely affect those
who may or may not receive presumptive service connections
and their families. The American people watch these decisions
closely, both to ensure that those who have defended our
Nation while in uniform are treated fairly, and to ensure
that those who have been given the responsibility to
administer the program are good stewards of the resources
with which they have been entrusted. If the American people
lose faith in the integrity of our disability benefits
system, veterans and their families will be the ones who
suffer. The surest way for that to happen is for the public
to be convinced that presumptive service connection decisions
are based on anything other than sound scientific advice.

There is no sound scientific advice that indicates that many of these
decisions are valid and directly connected to exposure to Agent Orange.
I urge the chairman of the committee to look into this issue. We are
talking about $31.9 billion and another $3.5 billion which may not be
necessary to be spent.
I believe and understand the emotion associated with the issue of
Agent Orange because for so many years our Nation neglected--that was
not benign neglect, it was neglect--the plight of veterans who were
exposed to Agent Orange and the terrible physical problems that ensued
as a result of that exposure. But now it is pretty clear that the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs has gone way over in the opposite
direction in giving presumptive service connection when there is no
valid scientific evidence to convince me that kind of illegibility is
there.
So I thank my colleague from Oklahoma.
I urge the Senator, the distinguished chairman of the Veterans'
Affairs Committee, to look at this issue, look at whether this $31.9
billion, plus $3.5 billion--over $35 billion--over the next 10 years is
wisely spent. That does not mean we do not provide disability payments
to those who actually have been exposed and need it. But there is a
lack of scientific evidence that many of the benefits that are being
extended are absolutely warranted.
So I know the Senator from Oklahoma will not be proposing this
amendment, and I understand that. But I wish to assure the committee
chairman that when we are talking about this kind of money, we need to
investigate it very seriously and reach decisions which are in the best
interests of our veterans. There are veterans out there who need
compensation, and every day, unfortunately, we are having young men and
women return from the battlefield who have disabilities as a result of
serving our Nation in combat. So I hope the chairman of the committee
will look at this issue very seriously.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, let me update my colleague. I do plan to
call up this amendment, and I do plan to ask for a vote on it because
it is important. I will call up the amendment in a moment.
What has happened--the Senator from Arizona has had the disease
melanoma, cancer melanoma at his age. We kind of know somebody at his
age, if they have large amounts of Sun exposure over prolonged periods
of time on nevuses or birthmarks, can develop melanoma. There is
causation related to that. I have also had melanoma, but I had it as a
very young man. What science also knows is that one can develop
melanoma without any Sun exposure to a birthmark or a nevus or a mole.
What has happened within the VA, we have taken and gone away from
causation and gone to any association that could ever be made.
I am a survivor of colon cancer. What we know is, our risk for colon
cancer goes way up if we eat a highly refined diet, with very few
vegetables, and have that kind of a diet associated also with high
levels of sugar. I did not have any of those things, but yet I had
colon cancer. Because there is an association, we cannot infer
causation.
So what is happening now?
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs has put us on the hook for people
who have no causation but do have association. This amendment, which I
will call up, does not change our ability to do that in the future when
we, in fact, would see causation. But the presumption that association
with the Sun caused my melanoma is wrong. The assumption that my diet
caused my colon cancer is wrong. It does cause colon cancers, but we
cannot show causation.
Nobody can speak for veterans better than John McCain, having served
the amount of time he did in Vietnam as a prisoner of war. He has the
body image that shows his sacrifice. Let me tell you what has happened.
We are transferring $\1/2\ million to veterans under this decision by
Secretary Shinseki for people who weigh 350 pounds, smoke three packs
of cigarettes a day, and have hyperchol-

[[Page S4667]]

esterolemia because they will not take their medicine. We are saying
the reason they have heart disease is because, at some point in time
they were in Vietnam, because they moved from causation to association.
I can think of nothing unfairer to those who are truly needing to
benefit from this than to give the benefit to somebody whose lifestyle
absolutely caused their heart disease, and there is no association with
dioxin or Agent Orange, the active ingredient that causes disease,
which we know several of them actually did have. But now we have moved
to a whole new level where we are saying if someone was exposed, both
above or in Vietnam, and they have any of these other diseases which he
has listed, that there can be an association.
Let me remind you that an association doesn't prove anything about
cause. It just says there is a statistic out here, and it may be right
or may not in fact be right. All of the evidence is the other way. The
Secretary has chosen to spend $42 billion--counting last year and this
year--on this program for diseases that are not caused by Agent Orange.
How is that fair? How is it fair to the people who are administering
this? I found out about it because VA workers called me and said: This
cannot be right. What are you all doing? Why are you giving money to
people who have no association with the disease caused by that? Yet you
are paying them out of money that should be reserved for those who have
a disease really caused by Agent Orange. Consequently, we are going to
spend $42 billion that we don't have to pay people.
Another interesting fact is, I have a brother who has idiopathic
pancreatitis. The VA told him that under this new guideline he can be
eligible for Agent Orange compensation. He served in Korea, but because
he has a chronic disease now, they are lining him up to get a payment
from the VA because he has idiopathic pancreatitis. He is going to get
approved. There is absolutely no association or causation with that.
Yet that is what is happening.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 564 be
called up, and the pending amendment be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an
amendment numbered 564.

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

(Purpose: To require evidence of causal relationships for presumptions
by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs of service connection for diseases
associated with exposure to certain herbicide agents)

=========================== NOTE ===========================

On page S4667, July 19, 2011, the Record reads: (Purpose: To
require evidence of casual . . .

The online Record has been corrected to read: (Purpose: To
require evidence of causal . . .

========================= END NOTE =========================

On page 112, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
Sec. 230. (a) Section 1116(b) of title 38, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``positive association''
and inserting ``causal relationship''; and
(2) by striking paragraph (3).
(b) The amendments made by subsection (a) shall apply with
respect to determinations made by the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs under section 1116 of such title after the date of
the enactment of this Act.

Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. COBURN. Yes, I will.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to make it clear that in this
amendment there is no desire to deprive someone who was actually
exposed to this herbicide called Agent Orange and suffered physical
consequences as a result; that this amendment basically draws a
difference among three words: One is ``causation,'' which is generally
the criteria used in any of these cases, the causation, and that would
replace the current ``positive association.''
As the Senator just described, positive association could be most any
encounter that anybody would have had who served. I always thought it
was in Vietnam, but now he tells me it is even adding someone who
served in Korea.
Isn't it true that we are not trying to deprive anyone who was
legitimately exposed to Agent Orange and shows the causation, and that
they are entitled to benefits from the taxpayers of America? What we
are talking about, isn't it true, is that ``positive association'' is
such an amorphous definition that it leads to an enormous waste of
taxpayer dollars, while there are veterans out there who are in need of
these taxpayer dollars for their legitimate reasons?
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, the answer is that the Senator is
absolutely correct. We have a lot of science that shows causation with
this herbicide and disease. We have made the assumption that any other
association should fall into that same category, such as hairy cell
leukemia, and we know lots of things about this group to which there is
only an association, statistical association, and no correlation, no
causation, such as if someone has Parkinson's, they are compensated
from Agent Orange. Yet there is not one scientific study that will show
there is any causal relationship between those two diseases.
I will answer that I want every veteran to get the compensation due
them when they have a disease related to this chemical. If we find in
the future more science that would say so, then we will go on the
science.
Now, we have had a Secretary who doesn't understand the difference
between association and causation, and we are going to spend $42
billion that we don't have, giving it to people whose diseases were not
caused by Agent Orange. That is my problem.
As a physician, I could never defend myself in a court of law using
this logic on anything I would do in practicing medicine. As I stated
while the Senator was talking with the chairman, we have both had
melanoma. The Senator's came from something that we know is associated
with it and also a cause--it is called the Sun, ultraviolet radiation.
Mine didn't come from that because I didn't have that kind of exposure,
and I experienced it at a very young age. Under the guidance of the
Secretary, we both would be compensated as if ultraviolet light was the
cause of both of our melanomas--the Senator from Arizona,
appropriately; me, inappropriately.
So the fact is, no one ever wants to move back, but this is a mistake
the Secretary made. My intent is not to harm any veteran who has a
disease that is truly caused by Agent Orange. My intent is to make sure
we can have the ability to take care of our veterans in the future by
spending money wisely to compensate those who are truly injured, truly
inhibited and limited by their exposure to that as a result of their
service to this country.
With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I first want to say what a good job--
actually, a wonderful job--the Military Construction Subcommittee
appropriators have done. They have adopted a very strict budget line,
the same as the House of Representatives, and the chairman, Senator
Johnson, and the ranking member, Senator Kirk, have put together a very
good, solid proposal for military construction, and I appreciate
working with them. I was the chairman and ranking member of that
subcommittee, and I loved working on it because I wanted to take care
of our troops and to make sure they had the construction they needed
for housing and for training headquarters. So I commend the great staff
of that subcommittee and am very pleased it is continuing in good hands
since I have left that committee to go to the Commerce, Justice,
Science, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.
I also want to say that there is so much going on in the Capitol
right now. I think America is focused on the debt ceiling issue, the
overwhelming debt we have in this country. We know it is too much, and
so many have been working in different quarters trying to solve this
issue.
Senator McConnell, the Republican leader, came out with a proposal
early this week to try to assure the markets

[[Page S4668]]

and all of the people watching so carefully that we were going to
address this issue, even if, in the end, we couldn't come to an
agreement. So I commend Senator McConnell. He has taken a lot of
criticism for the proposal he made, but I think he said from the
beginning that it was the last effort so we wouldn't have a default by
our country. It wasn't his first choice or his second choice or even
his third choice, but leaders have to make tough decisions to ensure
bad things don't happen, if they can avoid leading Members into bad
situations. So he was trying to ensure that we wouldn't. I think
Senator McConnell's proposal has actually spurred people to get going
and try to come to agreement.
I believe the group who is being called the Gang of 6 has come up
with some very concrete proposals. It is the first plan I have seen
that I believe really begins to cut spending, and it cuts spending
immediately. It also has mechanisms that will ensure that the spending
cuts happen. Caps are put in place.
There is a freeze in spending for 4 years. There is a freeze in all
the elected representatives' pay. Every Member of Congress and the
President would have a freeze in pay. There is a freeze in budgets.
I think it also begins entitlement reform, which is very bold, and it
is very important that it be done in a bipartisan way. It would go to
the chained CPI, which is a better base for determining what kinds of
increases there should be for payments that have to be adjusted. So I
believe they have taken a first major step. Now, I put out a Social
Security reform proposal that also lowered the rate of increase of the
COLAs. This one does it in a different way. All I wanted to do was to
make sure we address that issue as part of Social Security reform, but
it also affects many other areas, and I think it is something all of
us, in a bipartisan way, can accept as a reasonable adjustment that
will preserve the basic benefits that go across many areas.
Also in the proposal that was put out today is a safety net for
people at 125 percent of poverty. They will be getting a benefit that
increases more--and I think everyone would agree that is a good thing--
and then the CPI adjustment will be in place for others.
I think it also has a very good proposal in the area of taxes because
they want to lower the overall rates for everyone and make fewer rate
groups, so the top rate would be 29 percent. They even cut the lower
rate down to 9 percent.
So these are good proposals, and I think tax reform is something that
will bring in more revenue, and it will bring in more revenue in the
right way. It will bring in revenue by building the economy, by
ensuring a more fair tax system so there will be less fraud and fewer
numbers of people who don't pay taxes.
So I think this group has done a good thing--three Democrats and
three Republicans working together. Not one of us would have written a
proposal exactly the same way, but there are 100 in this body, so we
know we cannot dictate exactly what we want. I do believe this is a
responsible approach that should give us a good start and something
that, over a 10-year period, will put us in the position of bringing
down our enormous debt, lowering our deficits, lowering our interest
costs, and also beginning to reform entitlements.
There is going to be so much written and talked about--a lot of
education. This plan will begin to go into legislative language, and
there may be refinements of it. I am sure there will be amendments. But
it is a great start, and it has provided great leadership. So many
people have been involved in this process--our leaders, the group who
has been meeting for months, others who have come together in a
bipartisan way to do what is right for our country and for our children
and grandchildren.
So I am very pleased we can start this debate and get these things
out in a way that the American people will have the confidence we are
going to address the debt, do the right thing, bring down the deficits,
bring down the interest our country is paying, and, most of all, put
people back to work by enlivening our economy.
That is the key. You can't have 9.1 percent unemployment in this
country and believe that is a recovery. You can't do it. You have to
put people back to work. That is the way you increase revenue, by
putting people back to work and having the economy revived. That should
be all of our goal, and I think that maybe, just maybe, we are on the
right track and can do in a bipartisan way the entitlement reforms, the
tax reforms, and the spending cuts that will put together a package
that will put our country on a fiscally responsible path for the
future.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.

____________________