World War II Memorial Prayer Act of 2013

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I come this afternoon to speak about the regulations proposed by the administration on Monday relating to the Environmental Protection Agency. This time the agency's target is a 30-percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from existing powerplants by the year 2030.

The regulation that has been announced, which has been the subject of a great deal of conversation this week, should not be confused with EPA rules for cooling water intake or for proposed powerplants or for cross-state air pollution or for boilers or for ozone or for incinerators or for regional haze or for fuel economy or for the waters of the United States or for renewable fuels or for cement kilns or for coal ash or for effluent limitations or for any other number of regulatory actions that the agency has taken or is expected to take.

This rule--and there have been so many of them, it almost feels like this should be EPA's rule of the week or rule of the month--is a unilateral effort to bypass Congress and to force into place policies that we in Congress have not approved. The goal is to push our electric supply away from coal and, I think, ultimately, away from natural gas as soon as possible.

As the ranking member on the energy committee, I can attest that energy is always the flip side of the environmental debate. If we have a discussion about energy, we always have a discussion about the environment.

I believe we should advance policies that make our energy abundant, affordable, clean, diverse, and secure. To that end, our environmental goals must be balanced with our energy needs.

Because of this, I have for years expressed concern that EPA's relentless onslaught will harm the affordability and the reliability of our electric supply. In fact, I even released a white paper on this matter earlier this year. We still do not have an accurate accounting of the cumulative costs associated with all of these EPA rules that I just gave in the laundry list, but we do know not to trust their math because EPA has dramatically underestimated the powerplant retirements in very recent past.

I will give you some examples. For the mercury and air toxic rules, EPA estimated only 4.7 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity retirements by the year 2015. But then we see the contrast. The labor unions forecast that MATS alone would result in 55 gigawatts of coal plant retirements and the loss of some 250,000 jobs. Government experts have determined that approximately 10 to 20 percent of existing coal capacity could be retired by the middle of the next decade. This is a calculation that really dwarfs EPA's number and one that doesn't include the potential impact of the latest proposal.

Now, I know that the EPA has an important job to do, and I appreciate that, but I also recognize that it does not and cannot regulate in a vacuum. Baseload coal and the ancillary services that it provides account for almost 40 percent of our power. In many instances the EPA's regulations will render generating units uneconomic, with compliance requiring retrofitting, the use of best available technology, and downtime for installation. So I am concerned--greatly concerned--that the EPA's rules, particularly when you combine them with one another, will result in a grid that is less stable and less reliable. The cumulative effect of federal regulations on baseload capacity resources, whether they are coal or nuclear, which produce electricity on demand has to be looked at. We have to examine and appreciate the cumulative effect of this loss of production and not discount or ignore it.

Many this past winter got a taste of what life in Alaska is like in the wintertime when we experienced the polar vortex here in the lower 48. The polar vortex caused 50,000 megawatts of powerplant outages. For one key system 89 percent of the coal capacity that is scheduled for retirement next year because of an EPA rule was called upon to meet the rising demand.

So again, just think about that.

We had a tough winter. We had coal-fueled facilities that were able to step up and provide for that increased demand--89 percent of that capacity was utilized during this polar vortex. That is fine. But what happens when those facilities are now offline, when they are in retirement, when you do not have that backup?

The question we really need to be asking is, What happens when that capacity is gone? Hoping for a mild winter isn't a viable strategy. You cannot have a hope-and-prayer energy policy, hoping that the weather is not going to be so bad. Our Nation relies on installed dispatchable power generation during extreme weather, which is why we need to ensure grid reliability through a diversity of baseload capacity.

Today it is unclear how many plants will retrofit to comply with various EPA regulations--including this most recent one--as opposed to making a decision to just shut down. It is uncertain if there will be enough time--to say nothing of sufficient capital available for investment--to build these new facilities or other forms of generation needed to ensure the continued reliability of the grid.

I have been talking about grid reliability for a long while now, and I think it speaks to our system that while we may have been pushed to the edge of getting nervous, we have been able to meet that reliability requirement Americans have just come to expect. They want to know that when they want to have the lights on or keep cool or keep warm, there is that availability. Reliability is key here. I am even more troubled that the EPA, which has conceded that a single rule may result in what they have called a ``localized effect,'' has not sought from our grid regulators, FERC and NERC, an analysis of the cumulative impact its rules may have. Understanding the impacts of these rules by checking in with our grid regulators, FERC and NERC, as part of a formal process is an important part of what needs to go on. Yet we are not seeing that follow-through. Instead, EPA appears to be morphing into an industrial planning agency for the energy sector. That is not what they are designed to do. This latest rulemaking makes it even more important for FERC and the Department of Energy to step up, to really go toe-to-toe here with EPA to protect the reliability and the affordability of our power supply.

The current chairwoman of FERC, while she has not called for a formal official role for the commission--as many of us would like--is certainly up to the task in my view. But with that situation at play right now within the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, it appears that the White House doesn't want to keep the acting chair in charge. Its nominee to serve as chairman is both short on energy experience and largely unaware of the electricity reliability implications of EPA's rules.

In response to a hearing question about grid reliability from Senator Manchin, the nominee conceded that he ``has not been following the decisional process at EPA closely enough to know.''

I find that response not only disturbing, but I think it raises the question of whether anyone within the administration is actually following the EPA process closely enough to know what will happen to our electric grid. I can tell you that I don't think the EPA knows the impact for my State of Alaska. The Agency readily admits that its proposal ``fails to account for the expected costs and benefits for areas outside of the contiguous United States.''

Alaska is one-fifth the size of the country, and we are part of the country. But the EPA, in advancing these proposed regulations, admits that ``we don't know.'' We don't know the cost-benefit for Alaska. We don't know the cost-benefit for Hawaii. That does not mean that my State is exempt from this rule as some reports have led Alaskans to believe. Instead, without the

benefit of any analysis, EPA has directed Alaska to reduce our emissions by 26 percent and this while EPA ignores--totally ignores-- the likely inflationary costs and increases inherent in requiring the revamping of so much power production likely within a single decade.

The EPA has recommended that States work together, work together to figure out how we are going to make these cuts. But again, when you are not part of the contiguous United States, it is a little more difficult for us in Alaska and our neighbors to the south in Hawaii if we are not part of an interstate electricity grid. Alaska is really in many ways on its own. Because of our constant need for Federal approvals or at best Federal cooperation that is too often slow to come, we are not even able to develop our clean hydropower.

Some may ask: Well, I understand that you have about 25 percent of your power in the State of Alaska coming from hydro. That is correct. But because of other Federal policies--whether it is the roadless rule or other policies--we are truly hamstrung in our ability to build out more hydro. Based on more than 50 years of delay or broken Federal promises, there is no guarantee that we will be able to develop fully our abundant natural gas or even our vast renewable resource potential.

We have challenges and we acknowledge them. We are working on those challenges. We are working diligently because there is nobody who wants to get reliable, affordable, clean diverse energy supplies to our State more honestly and earnestly than myself. But it is challenging. So as we work towards that transition, we need that flexibility. We need that time.

Now the EPA has suggested a series of strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But of the five powerplants in Alaska that are directly impacted by this proposed rule, four are natural-gas-fired plants, and they are located near each other and Anchorage. So in the whole State of Alaska there are only five plants that are impacted by this regulation. Everything else is small enough or doesn't sell its power. So of the five, four of them are already natural gas. The fifth already has clean coal technology. The proposed strategies of switching to natural gas, dispatch changes or retiring plants are really just unworkable given the configuration we have in my State. Given that we live in this polar vortex every winter--everywhere is polar vortex in Alaska--many of our houses are well insulated to protect from the cold. So efficiency programs will provide comparatively small gains.

Having said that, I know that we can and must do more when it comes to efficiencies, and I will continue to push on that because that is an area where I think we can make a difference. But trying to get to this 26-percent reduction is a challenge. I am still canvassing my State, but it will be difficult for Alaska to reach our 26-percent emissions reduction without serious economic impact.

Electricity is already more expensive in Alaska than in most of the rest of the Nation. We have to reduce these prices, not engage in policies that will raise those prices even higher. In the lower 48 States, on average, an American family spends a little over 4 percent of their household budget towards their energy--keeping the lights on and keeping the house warm or cool--depending on the season. In many parts of my State of Alaska we have households that pay between 40 and 50 percent of their household budget to stay warm and to keep the lights on. So I am looking at this very, very critically. While I want to ensure that our air is clean, that we are working to reduce health risks, we don't have any room in Alaska to increase our energy costs. We have to be working aggressively with one another to reduce those costs.

So I look at the proposal that has come out from the EPA this week, and I am very concerned about how a State such as mine will achieve the level that the EPA has imposed on it without extraordinary increases to cost.

Some have labeled this recent EPA proposed regulation ObamaCare 2.0, and in many ways it is. The administration insists that there will be no cost increases associated with this rule. All we are missing here is an awful Web site and a pledge that if you like your current electricity bill, you can keep it. The President promises the electricity bills will shrink, but I am not buying that. The Wall Street Journal has rightly labeled this a huge tax on the poor and the middle class, and no one understands what will happen if States perhaps refuse to move forward with their own plans. Again, you have to ask the question: Does anybody really think that the EPA has the ability to impose its Federal will while simultaneously keeping the lights on and keeping power affordable to all 50 States?

Despite negative economic growth last quarter and despite far better approaches pending in Congress to promote energy efficiency and energy innovation, such as an energy efficiency bill that my colleague from Ohio has been working doggedly to try to advance--a measure that I think is smart and sound and built on good policy--to not only help States like mine but all across the country, we do have some good proposals out there. We have initiatives we can move forward. But instead the President has decided to push ahead and to propose sweeping new regulations on our still weak economy.

We must keep costs and reliability in mind as regulatory mandates push more and more baseload coal plants offline. FERC must be the unambiguous champion of reliability with a formal and a documented role with respect to EPA's rulemaking process. Powerful regulatory laws must be judicially administered, and only Congress--not the EPA--should decide such consequential changes for our energy supply, our economy, and our people. I think anything less is unacceptable and could very well yield significant negative consequences for a wide variety of American families and our businesses.

I thank the Presiding Officer for her attention and the opportunity to discuss a very important issue for our entire country.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, a momentous occasion is occurring tomorrow; that is, the 70th anniversary of D-day. Seventy years ago tomorrow, as the American people slept in their beds, the greatest naval invasion in history was underway.

On D-day, June 6, 1944, tens of thousands of American soldiers, sailors, and airmen joined allies from around the free world to begin what General Eisenhower called a great crusade--one that sought to free a continent. They came by amphibious landing craft, and I think my colleague from Louisiana is going to talk more about that in a moment. They also came by gliders laden with men and materiel and by parachutes deployed deep behind enemy lines. At beaches called Omaha and Utah and at the cliffs of Pointe du Hoc, they struck a mortal blow to the Nazi regime. Thousands would give their lives that day for that noble cause.

Like many in this Chamber, I have seen the American cemetery over there with rows of white crosses and Stars of David. They are a stark reminder of the price those brave heroes paid for all of us. These men did not go into battle alone. General Eisenhower said to the Allied Expeditionary Force on the eve of the battle, ``The hopes and prayers of liberty loving people everywhere march with you.'' Eisenhower was not exaggerating. As word of the invasion spread through the predawn hours of Tuesday morning, people gathered all over this country in churches, synagogues, meeting houses, public places

large and small, to seek God's blessing on men who were even then in harm's way.

As the battle raged on that day, President Franklin Roosevelt spoke to the Nation. He did not choose to address the American people with a speech; instead, he delivered words of prayer by radio address as the fate of Europe and, indeed, the entire free world hung in the balance. It is a very powerful prayer, transcending all faiths. It is a prayer that tells the story of why America fought and makes evident the sacrifices we were willing to make to see through to victory with God's help. It is a prayer that speaks to the horrors of war and the beauty of peace. It is a prayer that captures--perhaps better than anything else written since--the magnitude of what happened that day as we hit the beaches of Normandy.

I hope that prayer will never be forgotten, and that is why Senator Landrieu and I believe that prayer should be added as part of the World War II monument pursuant to bipartisan legislation we have been working on for a few years. I previously cosponsored it with Senator Lieberman and now with Senator Landrieu. It has gone through the Energy Committee twice with unanimous votes. It is called the World War II Memorial Prayer Act of 2013. This legislation also passed the House of Representatives by a significant vote, 286 to 26.

I would like to recite that prayer now with my colleague from Louisiana. I would like her to begin this prayer. After nearly 70 years, it still has the power to bring us together as a people and remind us that while we may have differences at times, there are so many things that do unite us.

Mr. President, I defer to my colleague from Louisiana.

Mr. President, the prayer continues:

And for us at home--fathers, mothers, children, wives,

sisters, and brothers of brave men overseas, whose thoughts

and prayers are ever with them--help us, Almighty God, to

rededicate ourselves in renewed faith in Thee in this hour of

great sacrifice.

Many people have urged that I call the nation into a single

day of special prayer. But because the road is long and the

desire is great, I ask that our people devote themselves in a

continuance of prayer. As we rise to each new day, and again

when each day is spent, let words of prayer be on our lips,

invoking Thy help to our efforts.

Give us strength, too--strength in our daily tasks, to

redouble the contributions we make in the physical and the

material support of our armed forces.

And let our hearts be stout, to wait out the long travail,

to bear sorrows that may come, to impart our courage unto our

sons wheresoever they may be.

And, O Lord, give us faith. Give us faith in Thee; faith in

our sons; faith in each other; faith in our united crusade.

Let not the keenness of our spirit ever be dulled. Let not

the impacts of temporary events, of temporal matters of but

fleeting moment--let not these deter us in our unconquerable

purpose.

With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces

of our enemy. Help us to conquer the apostles of greed and

racial arrogances. Lead us to the saving of our country, and

with our sister nations into a world unity that will spell a

sure peace--a peace invulnerable to the schemings of unworthy

men. And a peace that will let all of men live in freedom,

reaping the just rewards of their honest toil.

Thy will be done, almighty God. Amen.

Mr. President, that was the prayer that Franklin Roosevelt gave on that fateful day. Of course, many of the men who fought that day have gone on to their eternal reward, and some of them will mark tomorrow with quiet remembrances with families and friends.

Senator Landrieu has noted that there will be people from Louisiana going over to the D-day celebrations--it sounds like some by boat--also from Ohio and from all over the country. Our President will be there. Some will go there to retrace their steps and to see where they were on those beaches. Others will go just to see the cemeteries and remember their fallen comrades. There is a 93-year-old gentleman from Ohio named Jim Martin. He will be there too. He will be jumping from an airplane at 93 years old and parachuting onto the same soil he took back from the Nazis 70 years ago. On behalf of all of us, I wish Jim Godspeed.

There is very little we can add to the legacy they have created for themselves, but we can honor it and we can remember it, and that is what this bipartisan legislation is all about. Again, I crafted it originally with then-Senator Joe Lieberman and now have joined with Senator Landrieu to introduce it in this Congress. It directs the Secretary of the Interior to install in the area of the World War II Memorial a plaque with the inscription of the prayer we have just read.

Last Congress, the House of Representatives passed this legislation with an overwhelming vote of 386 to 26, and after a hearing on May 29, they are moving forward with doing so again. Today, on the eve of this historic anniversary, it is time for the Senate to lead the way toward enshrining this

singular moment in the history of our great country.

Senator Landrieu and I intend to call up Calendar No. 339 later this afternoon, and we hope in doing so we will achieve unanimous consent to be able to have the Senate proceed to consideration of this legislation, and then ask unanimous consent for it to be passed by this body. This is legislation we have worked on carefully. It has gone through the process of working with the Department of the Interior. We have ensured that it is consistent not just with the Department of Interior but also specifically with the Commemorative Works Act. It is something that, again, has been bipartisan and something that helps to bring this Congress and this country together during a critical time.

I thank my colleague from Louisiana for working with me. I think it is an incredibly important opportunity for us, on the eve of the 70th anniversary, to pass this legislation here in the Senate, thereby doing something positive for the future by telling them the importance of the past. This prayer is certainly part of that.

I yield for my colleague from Louisiana.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Louisiana and I look forward to being back on the floor shortly to propound the unanimous consent request to pass this legislation and to do so prior to this momentous 70th anniversary tomorrow.

I yield back my time, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I commend my colleague from Alaska, who is the ranking member, and thank her for her hard work. She mentioned the energy efficiency bill. I know she strongly supports that bill, and I hope it will come back to the floor. It is a more logical way to get at some of these issues.

I come to the floor to follow up on the conversation I had earlier with Senator Landrieu. She and I announced earlier this afternoon that we were going to offer unanimous consent in the Senate on bipartisan and noncontroversial legislation. I had hoped Senator Landrieu would come back to the floor, but apparently she can't, so I will offer this on behalf of both of us.

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

Memorial Plaque

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, as if in legislative session, that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 339, S. 1044.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, the clerk just read part of the description of this legislation, and I thank this body on both sides of the aisle for working with us.

Tomorrow we mark a momentous occasion. It is the 70th anniversary of D-day. It is a day, of course, that will go down in history as one of the greatest naval invasions in the history of our country but also a day when we lost many brave American soldiers and one where the country came together to pray for them and give them the strength they would need not just on that D-day but to go through Europe to ultimately vanquish the Nazis and liberate that continent.

On that day, 70 years ago tomorrow, Franklin D. Roosevelt decided not to give a speech at the White House but instead to give a prayer for the troops and for the Nation. This body has just passed legislation to make that prayer a part of the World War II Memorial. That prayer will help to give it some additional context and interpretation at a critical time. The prayer helps us look at our history and shows how our country came together at a critical time. It is a very powerful prayer. My dad was a World War II veteran, and I always found it to be one of the most moving prayers in our Nation's history.

I will mention a couple of aspects of this prayer. President Roosevelt explained--I thought in very powerful words--why America fought. When talking about the troops, he said:

They will be sore tried, by night and by day, without

rest--until the victory is won. The darkness will be rent by

noise and flame. Men's souls will be shaken with the

violences of war.

For these men are lately drawn from the ways of peace. They

fight not for the lust of conquest. They fight to end

conquest. They fight to liberate. They fight to let justice

arise, and tolerance and goodwill among all Thy people. They

yearn but for the end of battle, for their return to the

haven of home.

That is why we fight.

Again, I think that prayer is an important part of our history but also an important message for us even today.

The prayer also includes a number of other very powerful messages that brought the Nation together in a single day for prayer and thanksgiving. It asks for God's help in a number of ways, and one that I think is particularly poignant is where it asks God to give us the ability to deepen our faith.

It says:

And, O Lord, give us faith. Give us faith in Thee, faith in

our sons; faith in each other . . .

Again, I appreciate the work of Senator Landrieu and, before her, Senator Lieberman, who was the original cosponsor with me on this legislation.

I thank my friends from Ohio, the Christian Alliance, and others who have brought this to my attention over the years.

I thank my colleagues in the House, who passed this legislation last year with a resounding vote. I hope they will take up this legislation and pass it again in the House this year so we can indeed move to have this inscription placed in the World War II Memorial in order to remind us of a day in our Nation's history where our country did come together and where we, as Americans--not as conquerors but as liberators-- provided for the liberation of a continent and established this precedent for our country that with God so much is possible.

I yield back my time and note the absence of a quorum.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

I would like to say to the Senator from Vermont that I respect a great deal the work he has done on this legislation. I respect his commitment and his leadership of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. I respect the fact that Bernie Sanders is known as a fighter, and it has been a pleasure to do combat with him.

But I also would like to say that at the end of the day with strongly held views on different aspects of this issue, we were able to come together in a way that will help to relieve this terrible tragedy that seems to have befallen our Nation's veterans. It started in Phoenix, AZ, as my colleagues know, but it has spread all over the country. It begins with the terrible story of perhaps 40 veterans having literally died for lack of care.

I do not need to go through all of the different problems that have surfaced in the ensuing days since that began, but there should be no doubt in anyone's mind that we should accept the word of the inspector general who said these are systemic problems. This is not a scheduling problem. These are systemic problems that need to be addressed.

Our hope--as we concluded this legislation--was that perhaps we could put some of our other differences aside that have beset this body and move forward and address this legislation as quickly as possible and begin to repair the damage because we have, for all intents and purposes, in some ways betrayed the brave men and women who were willing to go out and sacrifice for the well-being and freedom of the rest of us.

So, again, I say to Senator Sanders, I appreciate his leadership and I appreciate the fact that we both had to make some very tough compromises, but I have found in my experience that when tough compromises are made, usually that is a sign of bipartisanship and a sign that it is a good piece of legislation. I know that is not the popular thing to say nowadays in today's political environment, but I do not believe, if compromises had not been made, that we would be bringing to the floor of the Senate--and working with the House's chairman Jeff Miller over there--that we would be doing what we are introducing today.

I would also like to say a word about two other individuals; that is, Senator Burr, the ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, whom I admire enormously--he has worked tirelessly on behalf of the veterans and he is a most respected member of our conference--and of course our most unique treasure, Dr. Tom Coburn, who had been my nominee to take over the Veterans' Administration, which almost destroyed a long and beautiful friendship, but Dr. Coburn is the conscience of our conference. He is the person whom we look up to and admire the most for his integrity, for his honesty, his intelligence. I thank both Senator Burr and Dr. Coburn for their enormous work. In some ways, I am sort of the spokesperson, when they did a great majority of the work.

As Senator Sanders pointed out, I would like to just cover several aspects of this legislation and try to explain a little bit why some of these provisions are there.

Of course, a top priority for me for many years has been to give the veteran a choice. We ought to give the veteran a choice--the same choice as people who are Medicare recipients, those who have TRICARE; that is, the military health care program--where if they are outside of 40 miles from the nearest VA facility, if there is a wait time which is unacceptable, then they should be able to go to the health care provider right near their home, not have to get in a van and ride for 2 or 3 hours for routine medical care.

I also want to emphasize what I hope my colleagues understand, that this is in no way a comment on the Veterans' Administration--I will leave that to others and other judgments--because there are things done in the veterans health care system that only the veterans health care system can handle: PTSD, traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury, prosthesis, war wounds, that only the VA can do. None of this that we are saying in any way denigrates or does anything that is uncomplimentary to the outstanding men and women who work in this system. We are proud of their work. It is the system that needs to be fixed. So I do not want anybody who is associated with the Veterans' Administration to believe we are criticizing them.

We are talking about a system that must be fixed. It is urgent that it be fixed. Every single day that goes by a veteran is deprived of the care he or she has earned serving this country is wrong. That is why I urge my colleagues: If you have amendments, if you think you can make this bill better, we welcome it. We would be glad to discuss with you amendments to this legislation. We would be glad, if you know how to make it better.

But in the meantime, can we sort of pledge that we are committed to seeing this thing all the way through? I would urge my colleagues to do that. Again, I know I speak for Senator Sanders when I say: If you have a way to make this bill, this legislation, better, come on in. But let's not get hung up on certain other aspects of our differences that have characterized what most people would view as gridlock in this body.

I urge my colleagues to look at this compromise. It is a compromise. If you think you can make it better, we welcome your input. But also, we would like to have your commitment to seeing this through to the President's desk. I know that over on the other side of the Capitol they are working hard on this issue too.

So we bring up, as I mentioned, veterans should have that card. That veteran should be able to go to a facility of his or her choice. Accountability. Senator Rubio and others, Congressman Miller and others, have introduced legislation. Senator Sanders has improved on it. This calls for the immediate firing--an immediate firing if there is evidence of work that is not in keeping with the standards we expect of our employees.

During that period, under appeal, that person will not receive a salary. That person will have some due process: 7 days to appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board and there are 21 days for that Merit Systems Protection Board to render a final decision. Yes, we should have, as many of our colleagues want, accountability. But that accountability also in this proposal allows for due process for someone to at least have their case heard.

There is expedited hiring authority for VA doctors and nurses, and additional authority to hire new providers. There are unobligated funds out there. We are going to use unobligated funds to hire more doctors and nurses where they are needed. But I would also point out, in some cases doctors and nurses have to work harder where they are. Also, there are now pending, over the years, administration requests for 26 major facility leases to be entered into.

This has been the President's request. This has been a bipartisan agreement on the need for these facilities. I believe we should proceed with it. I would also point out to my colleagues, this legislation has some expenses. But the major expense is to move forward with the construction of these major medical facilities all over America. In the view of all, it is necessary.

This improves the access to health care for individuals who are the victims of military sexual assault. Sexual assault is probably one of the most vexing issues we face in the military today outside of combat. We do not know exactly what causes some of this. We do know many times it is because of a lack of discipline. But there is no doubt this is a problem in the military that needs to be addressed; otherwise, mothers and fathers will be not agreeable--in fact reluctant--to have their sons and daughters serve in the military unless we address this issue of sexual assault.

There are many efforts going on, in the Defense authorization bill, in the military, many other areas where we are working on this issue. But I think this provision in the bill will be very helpful in attempting to address that issue.

A commission needs to be appointed on scheduling and care. We know one of the problems is scheduling, and this whole issue of phantom lists and waiting lists that disappeared. We have to get to the bottom of it. I think the smartest people in America could help us on that. There is another commission on capital planning. What are the needs of our veterans?

One of the things we do know is we have an aging veteran population from World War II, those who are, God bless them, still with us, Korea and Vietnam. That is an aging veterans population and requires a different kind of care than those of Iraq and Afghanistan. To be frank, a lot of that is geriatric care. To be frank, geriatric care is very expensive. But we have to understand who this population is and what their needs are, just as we have to understand the Iraqi and Afghanistan war veterans and what their needs are.

Very frankly, our planning so far has not been very impressive to me. We need to have--this is a pure Senator Sanders initiative--a GI bill tuition, eligibility for surviving spouses of those who died in the line of duty. It seems to me that is only fair. And a provision also that in-State tuition will be provided for all veterans at public colleges and universities.

Again, finally I want to say thank you to Senator Sanders. I also want to say to my colleagues again: This is not a perfect document. We are ready to see any changes that we would consider, and perhaps germane amendments. But I would also hope we could focus our attention on the bill and the efforts to help our veterans, as opposed to other issues which seem to be with us on a daily basis.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, July 30, 2013, at 10:00 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills:

S. 37, to sustain the economic development and recreational

use of National Forest System land and other public land in

the State of Montana, to add certain land to the National

Wilderness Preservation System, to release certain wilderness

study areas, to designate new areas for recreation, and for

other purposes;

S. 343, to provide for the conveyance of certain Federal

land in Clark County, Nevada,

for the environmental remediation and reclamation of the

Three Kids Mine Project Site, and for other purposes;

S. 364, to establish the Rocky Mountain Front Conservation

Management Area, to designate certain Federal land as

wilderness, and to improve the management of noxious weeds in

the Lewis and Clark National Forest, and for other purposes;

S. 404, to preserve the Green Mountain Lookout in the

Glacier Peak Wilderness of the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie

National Forest;

S. 753, to provide for national security benefits for White

Sands Missile Range and Fort Bliss;

S. 1169, to withdraw and reserve certain public land in the

State of Montana for the Limestone Hills Training Area, and

for other purposes;

S. 1294, to designate as wilderness certain public land in

the Cherokee National Forest in the State of Tennessee, and

for other purposes;

S. 1300, to amend the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of

2003 to provide for the conduct of stewardship end result

contracting projects;

S. 1301, to provide for the restoration of forest

landscapes, protection of old growth forests, and management

of national forests in the eastside forests of the State of

Oregon;

S. 1309, to withdraw and reserve certain public land under

the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior for

military uses, and for other purposes;

H.R. 507, to provide for the conveyance of certain land

inholdings owned by the United States to the Pascua Yaqui

Tribe of Arizona, and for other purposes;

H.R. 862, to authorize the conveyance of two small parcels

of land within the boundaries of the Coconino National Forest

containing private improvements that were developed based

upon the reliance of the landowners in an erroneous survey

conducted in May 1960;

H.R. 876, to authorize the continued use of certain water

diversions located on National Forest System land in the

Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness and the Selway-

Bitterroot Wilderness in the State of Idaho, and for other

purposes, and;

H.R. 993 and S. 507, to provide for the conveyance of

certain parcels of National Forest System land to the city of

Fruit Heights, Utah.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, 304 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to John_Assini@energy.senate.gov.

For further information, please contact please contact David Brooks (202) 224-9863, or John Assini (202) 224-9313.

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on National Parks. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, July 31, 2013, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills:

S. 398, to establish the Commission to Study the Potential

Creation of a National Women's History Museum, and for other

purposes;

S. 524, to amend the National Trails System Act to provide

for the study of the Pike National Historic Trail;

S. 618, to require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct

certain special resource studies;

S. 702, to designate the Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers

Valley National Heritage Corridor as ``The Last Green Valley

National Heritage Corridor'';

S. 781, to modify the boundary of Yosemite National Park,

and for other purposes;

S. 782, to amend Public Law 101-377 to revise the

boundaries of the Gettysburg National Military Park to

include the Gettysburg Train Station, and for other purposes;

S. 869, to establish the Alabama Black Belt National

Heritage Area, and for other purposes;

S. 925, to improve the Lower East Side Tenement National

Historic Site, and for other purposes;

S. 995, to authorize the National Desert Storm Memorial

Association to establish the National Desert Storm and Desert

Shield Memorial as a commemorative work in the District of

Columbia, and for other purposes;

S. 974, to provide for certain land conveyances in the

State of Nevada, and for other purposes;

S. 1044, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to install

in the area of the World War II Memorial in the District of

Columbia a suitable plaque or an inscription with the words

that President Franklin D. Roosevelt prayed with the United

States on D-Day, June 6, 1944;

S. 1071, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to make

improvements to support facilities for National Historic

Sites operated by the National Park Service, and for other

purposes;

S. 1138, to reauthorize the Hudson River Valley National

Heritage Area;

S. 1151, to reauthorize the America's Agricultural Heritage

Partnership in the State of Iowa;

S. 1157, to reauthorize the Rivers of Steel National

Heritage Area, the Lackawanna Valley National Heritage Area,

the Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage Corridor, and the

Schuylkill River Valley National Heritage Area;

S. 1168, to reauthorize the Essex National Heritage Area;

S. 1252, to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to

designate segments of the Missisquoi River and the Trout

River in the State of Vermont, as components of the National

Wild and Scenic Rivers System;

S. 1253, to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to

designate certain segments of the Farmington River and Salmon

Brook in the State of Connecticut as components of the

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and for other

purposes;

H.R. 674, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to

study the suitability and feasibility of designating

prehistoric, historic, and limestone forest sites on Rota,

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, as a unit of

the National Park System;

H.R. 885, to expand the boundary of the San Antonio

Missions National Historical Park, and for other purposes;

H.R. 1033 and S. 916, to authorize the acquisition and

protection of nationally significant battlefields and

associated sites of the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812

under the American Battlefield Protection Program, and

H.R. 1158, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to

continue stocking fish in certain lakes in the North Cascades

National Park, Ross Lake National Recreation Area, and Lake

Chelan National Recreation Area.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, 304 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to John_Assini@energy.senate.gov.

For further information, please contact please contact David Brooks (202) 224-9863 or John Assini (202) 224-9313.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, July 30, 2013, at 2:30 p.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 1240, the Nuclear Waste Administration Act of 2013.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record may do so by sending it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150, or by e-mail to Lauren_Goldschmidt@ energy.senate.gov.

For further information, please contact Sam Fowler at (202) 224-7571, Dave Berick at (202) 224-2209, or Lauren Goldschmidt at (202) 224-5488.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I believe every Member of this Senate and every American understands the very deep debt of gratitude we owe to the men and women who put their lives on the line to defend this country. That should not be a political issue. It should not be a partisan issue. I think all of us have been appalled by what we read about in Phoenix and in other locations about people manipulating data, pretending veterans were getting care in a timely manner when that was not the case.

It is my strong belief, as chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, that every veteran in this country is entitled to high- quality medical care and that they should get that care in a timely manner. I am going to do everything I can to make that happen.

We live, as everybody knows, in a politically divided country and a divided Congress. Reaching agreements is not easy and, quite frankly, does not take place very often in the Senate. Unfortunately, for whatever reason--without casting blame--it just does not happen. The American people understand that and are not happy about that. So reaching a compromise among people who look at the world very differently is not easy, but in this process, Senator John McCain of Arizona and I have tried our best to come forward with an agreement. It is an agreement which I am sure he is not 100 percent happy about and I can fully assure you I am not 100 percent happy about. I would have written a very different bill. I thank Senator Harry Reid for his strong support for this process, and Chuck Schumer, Patty Murray, and Dick Durbin for pushing this effort forward. I hope we will be back on the floor to continue the effort to deal with the many unmet needs of veterans, but right now we have a crisis on our hands and it is imperative we deal with that crisis.

To my mind, the essence of the crisis is that we have learned in many parts of this country--not all parts but in many parts of this country--veterans cannot get the timely care they need. They cannot walk into a VA facility and within a reasonable period of time get the treatment they need.

So this bill, in a significant way, begins to address that important issue. Let me very briefly tell you how it does that.

For a start, there are many locations around the country where we need new facilities, we need refurbished facilities, we need expanded facilities. In fact, there are 26 locations in 18 States where that is the case. This legislation would allow the construction of 26 major medical facility leases in 18 States around the country. I believe that will help us in many parts of the country in providing the quality, timely care our veterans deserve.

In my view, there are areas of the country where we simply do not have the doctors, the nurses, and the other staff we need to provide the care our veterans deserve. Many primary care physicians get burned out by working 12, 14 hours a day. They quit. The turnover rate is too high. It is my view that the VA, by and large--and this is echoed by the views of the veterans community itself in independent studies--that when people get into the VA, the quality of care is good. But I will tell you, if we do not have the primary care physicians, the other physicians, the nurses we need to treat veterans, they are not going to get the care they need.

This legislation will target $500 million in unobligated balances for the hiring of new VA doctors and nurses. I see that as a significant step forward.

One of the great embarrassments or shocks that all of us feel is that within the military we have seen in recent years horrendous accounts of sexual assault. What this legislation does is say to those women and men who were sexually assaulted in the military that when they get into the VA, there is going to be quality care for their needs.

This legislation also touches on a couple of issues that are not directly related to health care but have overwhelming support in the House and the Senate.

We have heard from many young veterans who are in college as a result of the post-9/11 GI bill who right now cannot afford it because they are not getting instate tuition. This legislation addresses that issue.

I have talked, as I know Senator McCain has, to Gold Star Wives. These are the women who have lost their husbands in combat who, I think for not a sensible reason, are unable to take advantage of the post-9/ 11 GI bill. They want to get their lives together. They want to be able to go to college or whatever. This bill addresses that issue.

There is another provision which was strongly supported by Senator McCain and other Republican leaders--and Senator McCain, I am sure, will go into it at great length, but essentially what this provision does is say if someone is 40 miles or farther away from a VA health care facility--a medical center, a CBOC or whatever it may be--they will be able to go to the doctor of their choice, under the strict supervision of the VA.

What this will do is prevent people from, in some cases in very rural areas--I think this is mostly a bill for people in very rural areas who now have to travel long distances to get their health care--this will make their lives easier. This is a 2-year trial project. We will see how it turns out, but that is in the bill as well.

The last point I wish to make is I do not think there is any disagreement in the Senate nor among the American people that when we have incompetent people in the VA or worse--dishonest people in the VA--they should be removed from their jobs immediately and that the Secretary of the VA should have the power to get rid of them. I do not think there is any debate about that.

Where there has been some debate is that in my view those employees deserve due process. I say that because I

do not want to see a situation where a new President comes in and for political reasons fires 400 top executives because they are Democrats or because they are Republicans or whatever. I do not want to see a situation where somebody is fired because she is a woman or Black or Hispanic or maybe gay, and maybe that is the underlying motive and that person has no course of appeal.

So what we have done is developed a very expedited process in terms of dismissal. We say if someone is dismissed, they are off the payroll tomorrow, they are gone, but they are going to have a week to file an appeal, and the appropriate body will have 3 weeks to rule on their appeal. I think that makes sense. I think when you think about it, it does make sense.

There are a few other important provisions. It is important, in my view, for the Nation to take advantage of the expertise that is out there in the private sector. How do we develop information technology for people accessing the VA? We want to do that. We have a commission that would help us do that. We have another Presidential commission that will help us with construction, which has been an ongoing problem in the VA.

That is a brief overview of what is in the legislation. Does it solve all of the problems facing our veterans? Absolutely not. Should we come back and continue to deal with this issue? Absolutely. But I think, given the crises we have right now, this is an important step forward.

I thank Senator McCain. Senator McCain's views on many issues are not my views. We look at the world differently, but that is what democracy is about. Our job was to sit down and work out the best agreement. We did. I think from day one Senator McCain showed absolute good faith in this, a desire to reach a compromise. I hope he feels I did the same. We are where we are today.

So with that I yield the floor for Senator McCain and thank him very much for his efforts.

Madam President, I thank Senator McCain again. I think his remarks were right on in terms of describing what is in this legislation. I support his appeal.

Look, everybody has an issue. Every time a bill comes up, I have my pet concerns that I could bring forth amendments on, Senator McCain has his. But what we are appealing to right now is if you have a way to improve this bill for our veterans, bring forth that amendment. But please, please, do not bring forward extraneous amendments. Let's focus on the needs of veterans. Let's not make them political footballs. I hope very much we can proceed in that direction.