Amy and Vicky Child Pornography Victim Restitution Improvement Act of 2014

Madam President, I was on the floor, as was the Presiding Officer, listening to the distinguished Republican leader's glowing tribute to this fallen warrior. We were moved, certainly, by it.

He preceded his comments by talking about what is happening to the Senate and the fact that even though we are debating, supposedly, the first energy legislation to come to the Senate floor since 2007, the majority leader's--Majority Leader Reid, who has the power under the Senate rules to basically be the traffic cop, to decide which amendments get heard and voted on and which ones do not--comment was to the effect that the majority leader has essentially shut the Senate down and denied the minority an opportunity to offer their amendments and to get votes on amendments.

I know people listening must say: Well, here they go again talking about the prerogatives and rights of Senators. But that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about the rights and prerogatives of the people I represent, 26 million Texans who are being shut out of a debate on--of all topics--energy.

We take great pride in the fact that Texas is an energy-producing State, and it is one of the reasons why our economy has been doing better than much of the rest of the country, because we have responsibly, and with the right kind of environmental stewardship, taken advantage of this gift of the natural resources that we have in our State.

Thanks to the innovation, and thanks to the investment and the hard work of a lot of people, we are doing better--thank you--than the rest of the country when it comes to job creation.

It really offended me when the majority leader this morning said:

Mr. President, during today people will be watching

[presumably in the gallery, on C-SPAN, maybe on the evening

news] and they will see a quorum call, nothing on the screen.

Why? Because we are in the midst again of one of these never-

ending filibusters of the Republicans--hundreds of them,

hundreds of them. Let me remind everyone, Lyndon Johnson was

majority leader for 6 years.

Well, I would just interject Lyndon Johnson didn't run the Senate the way Senator Reid does, when he was majority leader. Senator Reid continues:

During that period of time he had to overcome one

filibuster.

Mr. President, I have lost track. It is hundreds and

hundreds of filibusters that we have had to overcome, and we

have the Republicans coming here saying today: Well, all we

want are a few amendments. They do everything they can to

stop us from progressing on legislation and things that are

good for this country.

He is talking about the 45 Senators on this side of the aisle--that we will do everything we can to stop from progressing on legislation and on things that are good for the country. How insulting can you be?

We are going to have differences of opinion, sure. That is why are here. That is why they used to call the Senate the world's greatest deliberative body, because on the floor, not even Majority Leader Reid can shut me down or any other Senator who stands and is recognized by the Chair to speak on a matter of importance to their State or to the country.

But to have the majority leader come to the floor and say that what we are trying to do is stop progress on legislation and things that are good for the country--he goes on. Senator Reid accuses us of trying to stop:

Anything that is good for Barack Obama they think is bad

for the country, and they, for 5\1/2\ years, have opposed

everything that this good man has tried to do. It is a shame.

So anyone out there wondering what is going on, it is

another of the hundreds of filibusters they have conducted.

Majority Leader Reid has been a Member of the Senate for a long, long time. He knows this is not true.

So why he would come to the floor of the Senate and say it is puzzling to me.

We had 2 years when President Obama and Senator Reid's party could do anything they wanted. How is that? Well, because they had 60 votes in the Senate, which is sort of the magic number, when you can basically do anything you want in the Senate because the minority doesn't have enough numbers to stop the majority or to check their power.

So Democrats had the House of Representatives, with Nancy Pelosi as Speaker. They had the Senate, with 60 votes, Harry Reid as the majority leader, and they had Barack Obama in the White House.

What did we get in those 2 years? Well, one of the things we got was ObamaCare. We know it was sold on the basis of: If you like what you have you can keep it, your premiums would go down $2,500 and, yes, you could keep your doctor too. But none of that proved to be true--none of it.

We got Dodd-Frank. Do you remember Dodd-Frank? That was the legislation following the financial crisis of 2008 and the meltdown on Wall Street that was very damaging to the economy of this country; there is no doubt about it. What we got with unrestrained and unchecked single-party efforts during the time when they controlled both branches of government--the executive and the legislative branches--was legislation that targeted Wall Street, but Main Street was actually the collateral damage. I hear that from my credit unions and community bankers in Texas all the time, that the regulations are strangling them and keeping them on the sidelines, hurting the economy and hurting job creation.

My point is the Framers of our Constitution understood it is important to have vigorous debate on the differences of opinion each of us bring in representing our various States. The Constitution makes the point, in Article I, Section 1, that ``all legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.''

I ask the majority leader, if the Constitution vests all legislative authority in the Senate and the House, what happens when half of the Senate is shut down and denied an opportunity to participate in the legislative process?

The Constitution goes on to state what kind of legislative power is vested in the Senate and the House. Section 8, Article I of the Constitution lays out a laundry list of powers the Congress has--the sorts of things Congress is intended to legislate on. It contains everything from the ``Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises . . . To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization . . . To coin Money . . . To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States; To establish Post Offices and post Roads; To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts . . . To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court.''

The list goes on and on. Of course, finally, the last phrase in Article I, Section 8 is laying out the power of the Congress to legislate, where it says, ``To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.''

So I ask the majority leader: If the Constitution grants the Congress the power to legislate and specifies all of the things we are supposed to legislate on and do as the elected representatives of our various States, what happens when we are shut out of the process, when we are denied an opportunity to represent the people who elected us to office, who have entrusted us with a sacred responsibility and a stewardship?

It is beyond outrageous. It is beyond outrageous for the majority leader to make the remarks he made this morning that I previously quoted because he knows they are not true. He knows they are not factual. The Constitution itself guarantees my constituents, all 26 million of them, the rights laid out in the Constitution in Article I. When

they vote for a U.S. Senator, they are entitled to have their Senator participate in the legislative process. We are not guaranteed the right to win these votes, but we are given the responsibility and the privilege of representing them in this place, and we cannot do it when the majority leader runs this place like a dictator.

We are debating--supposedly--an energy efficiency bill. As I said, it is the first time we have had an energy debate on the floor since 2007. There are a lot of very good ideas that have been offered to improve the underlying piece of legislation. I have no doubt the underlying legislation would pass. It will pass, if the majority leader allows us an opportunity to offer and debate our proposals for improving the underlying bill, but if he is going to shut us out of the process and deny the people I represent a voice and an opportunity to improve this piece of legislation, we are not going to cooperate.

The majority leader keeps saying no to amendments, and he denigrates our right on behalf of our constituents to offer amendments and to get votes on those amendments. I know I have come to the floor before, as other Members have come to the floor, and tried to speak on this topic. I know sometimes this sounds as though it is all just about process. It is about process. How boring could that be. It is important because in essence the majority leader has imposed a gag rule on the minority in the Senate, a gag rule in the world's greatest deliberative body--no more.

I don't know what the majority leader is afraid of. Is he afraid of a vote on the Keystone XL Pipeline? I think I saw a poll the other day that said roughly 61 percent of the respondents to that poll thought this was a good idea, that we get more of our energy from a friendly source, such as the nation of Canada, and rather than having to transport all of it in tank cars on trains that occasionally crash and cause a lot of damage, it might be better to build this pipeline so we could safely transport that oil from Canada down to refineries in my State, where it could be converted into gasoline, aviation fuel, and the like, and in the process create an awful lot of jobs.

Sixty-one percent, according to that poll I read, said they thought that was a pretty good idea. Yet the majority leader will not even allow a vote on that amendment. He will not allow a vote on minority amendments. He will not allow a vote on Democratic amendments. I bet my colleagues on the other side of the aisle must be frustrated, indeed, because they have been denied an opportunity to participate in this process, too, thanks to the autocratic powers being exercised by the majority leader.

Here is another idea this side of the aisle had for an amendment we would like to get some debate and a vote on. We are not asking to win. We can do the math. We know we are in the minority. But these are important topics. Vladimir Putin invades Crimea, the Russian Army is building up in the Ukraine and causing havoc in that country, and it looks like he is not going to stop. The President said we are going to make sure there is a cost imposed as a result of Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine, so we are going to impose a number of sanctions. The fact is, as my colleague from Arizona, the senior Senator from Arizona, has said, Russia is a gas station posing as a country. I think that is a pretty humorous way of saying the energy Russia produces and transmits to Ukraine and Europe is its main source of economic power and revenue. If we could undermine that by exporting more energy from the United States to Europe, that would dissuade Vladimir Putin, perhaps, in addition to other things we might do, but the majority leader will not even allow us an opportunity to vote on that issue. By the way, it will also continue to create more jobs in America.

Here is what the majority leader has done. Since he has been majority leader, he has basically blocked any opportunity for Republicans to offer amendments on legislation 84 times--84 times--including 14 times just this year. He has shut us out. He has imposed the Reid gag rule and said: I don't care what the Constitution says. I don't care that you were elected by the people in your State to come here and be their voice and to offer their ideas on legislation. I don't care. We are not going to allow it, is what Majority Leader Reid has said 84 times.

Then he has the audacity to impugn our motives this morning, to insult the job we are trying to do to represent our constituents. He calls that a filibuster. George Orwell wrote a book called ``Nineteen Eighty-Four,'' where he talked about how people can twist the ordinary understanding of the English language in a way that is very dangerous. But I would suggest that no definition of filibuster could be derived from the fact the majority leader has imposed his gag rule, has shut us out of the legislative process, and denied us the opportunity to do what the Constitution guarantees. He calls that a filibuster? Give me a break.

So the majority leader comes to the floor this morning and says: If you are watching C-SPAN or if you happen to be visiting the Capitol and are in the gallery, all you are going to see are quorum calls. You are going to hear nothing but crickets on the Senate floor because there is not going to be anything happening there.

The reason that is true, in large part, is because he has shut down the process. He has denied us a voice. He has denied us an opportunity to participate in the legislative process the Constitution talks about in the provisions I just read.

I am probably not going to persuade Majority Leader Reid about the error of his ways because I don't think he cares. I don't think he cares. It is not going to affect whether he is reelected in Nevada, perhaps, and there is nothing the minority can do, given the fact the majority leader has extraordinary power under the Senate rules and under the precedent of the Senate. He can get away with it, if the Senate allows it, if the public allows it. But that is why it is important to come to the Senate floor and expose this fraud for what it is. It is a fraud.

The majority leader is trying to deceive the American people into thinking that by speaking out against this gag rule we somehow are an obstacle to passing legislation. We have certain responsibilities to the people who sent us, and that responsibility does not include sitting down and shutting up when we are being run over by a freight train by the name of Senator Harry Reid. It is outrageous. It is outrageous.

Thanks to the majority leader we likely will not have any amendments on this piece of legislation. I think at last count there were roughly 30 ideas we had that we would like to offer amendments on. We have even proposed to Majority Leader Reid that we would take those 30 or 40 amendments and talk among ourselves and maybe we can reduce those to 5 or so relevant amendments--items that have to do with energy, with jobs, with national security. His answer is, no, forget it.

Instead of accepting responsibility for his decision, he blames us for filibustering. What does he expect us to do? To be quiet? To sit in our offices while he runs this railroad that used to be known as the world's greatest deliberative body, runs over our rights and the rights of the people we represent? Well, we are not going to sit down and shut up. We are not.

Back in my younger days I used to be a practicing lawyer. I would be hired by a client to come into court and make an argument on their behalf, to give them the representation they were entitled to under our system of justice. I had my argument and the opposing party had their argument and their lawyers and their witnesses, and they came in and presented it before a jury of either 6 people or 12 people, depending on the court you were in, and we would ultimately settle that dispute between the parties, kind of like the difference of opinion we have here on how the Senate ought to operate and what business we ought to be conducting.

In court, when you have a dispute between opposing parties, the judge and the jury who are impartial will listen to the facts, and the judge will decide what the law is that applies in that kind of case, and then you will have a verdict. And that law, with the judgment the judge signs incorporating those findings of fact by the jury, is how the case is decided.

How does that work here in the Senate? What is the analogy? The best analogy I can think of is that we will indeed have a verdict, but it is going to be by the voters in the midterm elections come November.

My only conclusion is that the majority leader must be afraid of having this sort of robust debate because he knows it will expose some of his members to votes they may have a hard time explaining back home. There actually may be some accountability, Heaven forbid. So his answer is to shut down the Senate. It is very sad.

Veterans Administration

Mr. President, with each passing week we are finding out more and more about institutional failures within the Department of Veterans Affairs. We recently learned that the Phoenix VA system had a secret waiting list designed to conceal a massive backlog of delayed appointments, and that some of the veterans who were put on this secret waiting list actually died while waiting to get the treatment they deserved.

Now we are learning that staffers at a VA outpatient clinic in Fort Collins, CO, were deliberately showing their clerks how to create fraudulent appointment records. In the meantime, there are still more than 589,000 VA pension and compensation claims pending nationwide, and a majority of them are backlogged according to the VA's own criteria, which is more than 4 months.

Every day it seems as though we learn of a new part of this scandal because whistleblowers stepped forward and said: Yes, that was happening where I worked too.

Yesterday, the Austin American-Statesman published a story entitled ``VA employee: Wait list data was manipulated in Austin, San Antonio.'' The story says:

A Department of Veterans Affairs scheduling clerk has

accused VA officials in Austin and San Antonio of

manipulating medical appointment data in an attempt to hide

long wait times to see doctors and psychiatrists, the

American-Statesman has learned.

. . . the 40-year-old VA employee said he and others were

``verbally directed by lead clerks, supervisors, and during

training'' to ensure that wait times at the Austin VA

Outpatient Clinic and the North Central Federal Clinic in San

Antonio were ``as close to zero days as possible.''

The medical support assistant . . . said he and other

clerks achieved that by falsely logging patients' desired

appointment dates to synch with appointment openings. That

made it appear there was little to no wait time, and ideally

less than the department's goal of three months.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.

Scandals such as these confirm the VA lacks safeguards against official abuses, and it also lacks accountability--the kind of accountability that would ensure American veterans get the care and support they need in a timely fashion.

In the wake of the Phoenix revelations--and now, more urgently after what happened at Fort Collins and now reports of abuses at San Antonio and Austin, perhaps--I have called on the majority leader to hold hearings on these scandals, and I reiterate that call today.

I also reiterate my call for VA Secretary Eric Shinseki to resign his position and to let someone else take on the reforms necessary to get the VA back on track.

As I said yesterday, and as the American Legion noted, Secretary Shinseki is an American patriot who did multiple combat tours in Vietnam and has devoted his life to serving his Nation. He deserves nothing but our respect for that service. But, unfortunately, the VA scandals on his watch have been so numerous and so outrageous that they demand immediate accountability, and it has become clear to me that Secretary Shinseki is not the right person for the job.

He has been in charge of the Department more than 5 years. Under his watch, many of the VA's problems have gotten worse, not better. These problems call for new leadership and a new direction.

As Dan Dellinger of the American Legion said on Monday:

There needs to be a change, and that change needs to occur

at the top.

I emphasize again the urgency of the situation.

I know the President yesterday was talking about the urgency of dealing with climate change. I hope the President and Congress would act with at least the same kind of urgency the President was arguing for when it comes to climate change, when it comes to our veterans-- some of whom are dying, waiting to get the treatment they are entitled to.

What the VA needs is full-scale institutional reforms which introduce much stronger safeguards against administrative abuses and much greater accountability for senior officials. Because, let's face it, the VA's problems go well beyond a few rogue health care personnel and administrators in Phoenix and Fort Collins, CO.

At a time when American veterans are facing enormous physical and psychological and financial challenges, the Federal Government is letting them down. Don't take my word for it. According to a recent survey of war vets from Afghanistan and Iraq:

Nearly 1.5 million of those who served in the wars believe

the needs of their fellow vets are not being met by the

government.

One Iraq veteran--a former Army staff sergeant named Christopher Steavens--told the survey group he had been trying to get health care and financial relief for more than a half year, and had yet to hear back from the VA. They hadn't even gotten back to him and responded. He said:

When I raised my right hand and said, ``I will support and

defend the Constitution of the United States of America,''

when I gave them everything I could, I expect the same in

return. . . . It's ridiculous that I've been waiting seven

months just to be examined by a doctor--absolutely

ridiculous.

Sergeant Steavens is right. It is ridiculous. But it is more than that. It is disgraceful, and it dishonors the brave service our men and women in uniform have given on our behalf. It is past time for us to get serious about fixing the problem.

Again, to underscore the urgency of these issues, the survey I mentioned a moment ago found that one out of every two Afghanistan and Iraq war veterans says they know a fellow servicemember who has attempted or committed suicide. One out of two knows somebody who has tried or has successfully committed suicide, and our message to the veterans is: Just wait. Be quiet. Sit down. Shut up.

It is unacceptable. As I said earlier, Secretary Shinseki is an American patriot. But after 5 years as head of the Veterans' Administration, it is time for him to step down and make way for new leadership.

More important, it is past time for the Veterans' Administration to start honoring its promise to America's heroes. The status quo is unacceptable and no one disputes that. The only question is: Are we going to do something about it? Appointing a new Secretary would be a good start.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, earlier this morning it was suggested that Republicans are creating a problem on the Portman-Shaheen bill because we are insisting on amendments. I am stunned that anybody would think that insisting on amendments would be unusual or out of order. That is what we used to do in the Senate. We had amendments offered and we had votes on them by both sides.

One Senator, it was suggested, insisted on an ObamaCare amendment. That was dropped 5 days ago. Nobody is insisting on an ObamaCare amendment on the Portman-Shaheen bill. Senator Vitter had suggested that earlier but decided that was not a good idea on this particular bill because it was the opportunity, we hoped, to get four or five votes on important energy-related amendments. Senator Durbin actually objected.

So I think it is important to set the record straight this morning. What Senate Republicans are asking for is four or five amendments related to the subject of energy. I would remind our colleagues that the minority in the Senate has had eight rollcall votes on amendments it was interested in since last July--since last July.

During that same period the House of Representatives, where it is often thought the minority has no influence at all, has had 125 rollcall amendment votes. So what is going on is the Senate is being run in a way that only the majority leader gets to decide who gets to offer amendments. He says: Maybe I will pick one for you.

That is not the way the Senate used to operate, not the way the Senate should operate, and I hope not the way the Senate will operate starting next year.

The majority leader, as I indicated, is basically shutting down the voice of the people here in the Senate; that is, the people who are represented by 45 of us. For 7 long years he has refused to allow truly comprehensive debate on energy in this Chamber. We have not had a comprehensive debate since 2007. He had a chance to change that yesterday. Dozens of Senators asked him to do that. We know the American people want us to do it. But he refused. Apparently he does not think the American people deserve a vote on a single energy amendment. Apparently he does not think the American middle class, which is being squeezed by rising energy costs and over-the-top government regulations, needs the kind of relief Republicans are proposing. He clearly must not think the people of eastern Kentucky deserve our help either. Kentuckians in the eastern part of my State are experiencing a depression--that is a depression with a ``D''--that the President's energy policies actually created and are making worse.

The administration has proposed new rules that would make life even harder for those folks, rules that would make it effectively impossible to build another coal plant anywhere in the country. Coal is a vital industry to the livelihood of literally thousands of people in my State. We should be allowed to help them, but the majority leader said no.

Let's be honest. He does not seem to think the people we represent deserve a say on much of anything anymore. Democrats over in the Republican-controlled House, as I indicated earlier, have had 125 amendment votes since last July, but here in the Senate the Democratic majority has allowed us nine. I said eight earlier. It is actually nine amendments since last July, that is, rollcall votes. It is shameful. But it says a lot about which party is serious these days and which one is literally playing games. It says a lot about the complete lack of confidence Washington Democrats have in an open debate. What is wrong with having an open debate? They are completely out of ideas, and apparently they do not want anybody to know that Republicans have suggestions to be made. So they are attempting to muzzle us at a time when middle-class Americans are in need of some relief. Do they really think that Americans who have had to cope with rising electricity prices, stagnant wages, and growing hopelessness in the Obama economy-- do they really believe the Senate should not even be debating ideas that might help them?

It is hard to think otherwise. So I think middle-class Americans, looking at the Senate these days, are left to draw an obvious conclusion: That their concerns matter far less to today's Senate Democrats than the political imperatives of the far left. We know the President's political team must be pleased. One White House aide said they plan to lean on Senate Democrats to ``get the right outcome'' this week; in other words, to stop the American people from having a real debate on energy policies.

For the President and his political pals, it must feel like ``mission accomplished.'' This means he can avoid having to sign or veto legislation that might be good for the middle class but offensive to the furthest orbit of the left. It also means he can continue to impose energy regulations such as the one I mentioned earlier, through the back door, to govern by executive fiat, without having to worry about niceties such as Democratic accountability.

After all, far-left activists presumably demand that the President impose those regulations because they do not want the American people getting in the way again. They know what happened the last time they let that happen, when a fully Democratic-controlled Congress could not even pass a national energy tax.

As long as it has a Senate Democratic majority on its side, the far left knows it will not have to worry about the American people messing up its plans again. The majority leader proved that again this very week. The far left will not have to worry about the representatives of the American people voting through the Keystone XL Pipeline either.

Here you have a project the American people support overwhelmingly that would create thousands of jobs when we have rarely, rarely needed them more, and that would pass Congress easily if the majority leader would allow a vote, but he will not because the far left will not let him. If we do get a vote, the Democratic leadership will be sure to filibuster against the jobs the Keystone XL Pipeline will create.

Activists on the left positively hate this energy jobs initiative. They rail against it constantly, even though they cannot seem to explain in a serious way why it is a bad idea. But it is a symbol in their minds, so they demand Senate Democrats block its approval and Senate Democrats dutifully do just that.

Again and again we see the needs of the middle class subsumed to the whims of the left. That has become the legacy of today's Democratic majority. They have diminished the vital role the Senate plays in our democracy. We do not seem to debate or address the most serious issues anymore, even with significant events at home and abroad that deserve our attention, because for the Senate Democrats who run this place, the priority is not on policy, it is on show votes and political posturing 24/7. This reflects a party that has simply run out of ideas, that has failed to fix the economy after 5\1/2\ years of trying, and now sees its political salvation not in making good policy for the middle class but in exciting the left enough to save the day come November.

I guess we will see if this strategy pays off. But that is not what truly matters around here. What matters is that millions in our country are hurting and that Senate Democrats do not seem to want to act. Look, they should be joining with us to help our constituents because the American people did not send us here to play games or to serve the far left. Our constituents sent us here to have serious debates on issues that matter to them, such as energy security, national security, economic security. All three can be addressed if the majority leader would simply allow Republican amendments to be considered.

Our constituents want Congress to make good policy. The fact that we do not seem to do that under the current majority is quite tragic. The American people deserve better. They deserve a debate and they deserve to be heard.

Honoring Our Armed Forces

Specialist Russell E. Madden

Mr. President, I want to pay tribute to a brave and honorable young man from Kentucky who was tragically lost in the performance of his military service. SPC Russell E. Madden, of Bellevue, KY, was killed on June 23, 2010, in Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom.

Specialist Madden volunteered for his final mission and was in the lead vehicle in a convoy that was attacked by the enemy. His vehicle was struck by a rocket shell. He was 29 years old.

For his service in uniform, he received the Bronze Star Medal, the Purple Heart Medal, the Army Good Conduct Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, the Afghanistan Campaign Medal with Bronze Service Star, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, the Army Service Ribbon, the Overseas Service Ribbon, the NATO Medal, and the Combat Action Badge.

Russell Madden joined the Army just under 2 years before his death. His father Martin Madden reflects on his son's time in service by saying:

Nineteen months is not a long military career. But 19

months was long enough to graduate basic training at Fort

Sill, Oklahoma, with honors.

His dad continues:

Nineteen months is long enough to be running and gunning as

a lead convoy gunner on convoys that sometimes took 16 hours

to move 40 miles to replenish forward operating bases,

completing over 85 missions outside the wire in nine months .

. .

Nineteen months may not represent a prolonged period of

time in the minds of most Americans; however, it is just long

enough to create a patriot, to define heroism, and accept a

place of honor among those who stand in silent testimonial to

the strength of this great nation.

The bond between father and son that moves Martin to speak these words was forged, of course, not just over 19 months but over Russell's entire lifetime. Like so many of the extraordinary heroes who hail from Kentucky, Russell's childhood is full of examples of a young man devoted to a cause greater than himself.

He was the oldest of three children, along with his younger sister Lindsey and younger brother Martin. Like most young siblings, at times the kids would fight. Russell's parents had a unique way to defuse family tussles. Martin said:

In order to settle [disagreements], we placed both [Russell

and Lindsey] in the middle of the living room and told them

to stand there hugging each other. After about 20 minutes of

standing there hugging, we would begin to hear them laughing

and having a good time, and we would go in and tell them if

they could get along they could stop.

Little sister Lindsey remembers childhood stories like these, just as she remembers her brother's dedication to service. She said:

All he ever told me, every time I talked to him, was that

he wanted to make me proud. And he has. He always made me

proud.

Russell attended Bellevue High School, where he displayed his dedication to serving on a team as a star athlete in football, baseball, and track. During his senior year, the track team was 1 week away from the State meet when the top hurdler was injured. The whole team was in danger of not qualifying unless someone stepped in. Russell volunteered to run the hurdles, even though he had never run a hurdle event in his life.

Martin Madden recalls:

Russell took off running at full sprint, stopped when he

got to the hurdle and jumped over it, then took off running

at full speed until he reached the next hurdle and stopped

and jumped over that one, throughout the track. It was the

most unorthodox style the coach had ever observed, but with

the state qualifier taking place next week, the coach allowed

Russell to represent the team.

As a result, Russell's first-ever hurdle event was the State- qualifying match. Even using what his father calls his ``God-awful ugly style,'' Russell qualified and ran in the final State competition, where he placed sixth.

Russell was a winner on the football field just as he was in track and field. Every Friday night, during the 1999 season, fans packed Gilligan Stadium to watch Bellevue High play out what would be an undefeated season. Russell played running back and was such a talented athlete that he could also kick field goals and extra points, return kickoffs, punt, quarterback, and play wide receiver--and that is only on the offensive side of the ball. He also played linebacker on defense.

As a result of his all-around athletic success, volunteer work, and coaching of youth football teams, Russell was inducted into both the Bellevue High School Sports Hall of Fame and the Northern Kentucky Youth League Football Hall of Fame. He was also recognized by the Northern Kentucky High School Football Coaches Association for his sportsmanship. Russell graduated from Bellevue High School in 2000.

In 2008 Russell and his wife Michelle learned that their son Parker had a preliminary diagnosis indicating a high potential for cystic fibrosis. Martin said:

Russell joined the Army to fight for his country and

provide the medical treatment necessary for his young son.

Russell enlisted in 2008, and during his deployment to Afghanistan was assigned to the 1st Squadron, 91st Cavalry Regiment, 173rd Infantry Brigade Combat Team based out of the Conn Barracks in Germany.

Russell's father Martin recalls how Russell's fellow soldiers felt about Russell's dedication to them and their team--a dedication that echoed the drive of the young man who volunteered for the hurdles and excelled on the gridiron.

``This . . . is what the soldiers in his platoon told me,'' Martin said.

Russell said to them:

Guys, I will not let you down. We will get there. . . .

If ever there was going to be a problem, they wanted to be with Russell because they knew he would never let them down.

Respect and admiration for Russell's dedication to a cause greater than himself even reached the halls of the Kentucky General Assembly, which passed a joint resolution to designate Kentucky Route 1120, within the city limits of his hometown of Bellevue, as the ``SPC Russell Madden Memorial Parkway.'' Russell's family was present as the new street sign was unveiled for the first time.

Russell's wife Michelle said:

It is an awesome tribute to my husband. He deserves it. I

want this sign for my son to say, ``Hey, that's my dad's

sign. That's what my dad's done for us.'' This is what is

going to carry on his legacy.

We are thinking of SPC Russell E. Madden's family today, including his wife Michelle, his son Parker, his stepson Jared, his parents Martin Madden and Peggy Davitt, his sister Lindsey, his brother Martin, and many other beloved family members and friends.

It is important that Russell's family knows that no matter how long or how short his time in uniform may have been, Martin Madden is absolutely right that his son will and must be forever remembered and revered for the sacrifice he has made on behalf of our country.

I know SPC Russell E. Madden certainly will be remembered by this Senate. I ask all of my colleagues to join me in expressing the utmost respect for his life and his service.

We extend our greatest condolences to his family for a loss on behalf of our Nation that can never truly be erased.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, it has been my position since late last week that it would be appropriate for the minority--not having had but eight rollcall votes since July--to have five amendments of our choosing on this bill, and therefore I am going to propose a counter consent request at this time.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 368, S. 2262; that the only amendments in order be five amendments to be offered by myself or my designee related to energy policy, with the first amendment being my amendment No. 2982 on saving coal jobs, and with a 60-vote threshold on adoption of each amendment; that following the disposition of these amendments, the bill be read a third time and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of the bill, as amended, if amended.

I object.

Mr. President, earlier this morning I noted that the majority leader has refused for 7 years to allow a serious debate on energy in this Chamber. I said he has tried to stifle the voice of the American people again this current week as well, at a time when so many middle-class Americans are suffering from high energy costs, lost jobs, and stagnant wages in the Obama economy; at a time when global crises clarify not just the need but the opportunity for America to establish a greater energy presence overseas that would grow more jobs here at home; at a time when eastern Kentuckians are suffering a depression, made so much worse by this administration's elitist war on coal.

Well, Republicans are going to keep fighting. Even if Senate Democrats would rather pander to the far left and shut down debate, Republicans are going to keep fighting for the middle class. That is why we had hoped to offer forward-leaning amendments today which aim not just to increase energy security but also to improve national security and economic security for our middle class.

One amendment I had hoped to be able to offer would approve construction of the Keystone Pipeline, which everyone knows will create thousands of jobs right away.

One amendment would expedite the export of American energy to our global allies, which would create more of the jobs we need right here in the United States.

One amendment would have prevented the administration from moving forward with its plans to impose a national carbon tax through the back door, even though Congress already rejected the idea several years ago and even though we know it would devastate an already suffering middle class.

There is another amendment too, one I had planned to offer personally, along with the junior Senator from Louisiana and the senior Senator from North Dakota. It would halt the administration from moving forward with new regulations on coal-fired powerplants until the technology required to comply with the regulations is commercially viable, which it currently is not.

The Obama administration's extreme regulations would hammer existing coal facilities too, taking the ax to even more American coal jobs in the midst of an awful economy. These coal regulations are especially unfair to the people of my State. We know they would hit Kentuckians who are already suffering--constituents of mine who just want to put food on the table and feed their families. Congress needs to do something to help. That is why I would have offered that amendment today.

I remind my colleagues that the amendment we had hoped to offer is almost identical to legislation offered by the Democratic senior Senator from West Virginia that already passed the House of Representatives on a bipartisan basis. So there is no excuse not to pass it here. We hope the Senator from West Virginia and his Democratic colleagues will stand with us to do just that.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, it is my understanding that the Senator from Missouri Mr. Blunt will be recognized next for 10 minutes or so.

I ask unanimous consent that following the remarks by Senator Blunt, I be recognized for up to 15 minutes.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, let me first say to my good friend from Missouri, I plan to talk about energy, the very thing he is talking about. If we go back and look logically, if we are dependent upon fossil fuels for 75 percent of our ability to run this machine called America, and we extract that, what is going to happen? I think we all know what is going to happen and I think people need to be forewarned.

I am going to tee this up by talking a little bit about President Obama's climate assessment meeting he had yesterday. All of these people were talking about the world coming to an end, the report he came out with--let me, first of all, ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my remarks, the Senator from Delaware be recognized.

The whole idea in this report by design is to spark fear in the American people so they will go along with the administration in implementing their policies that will kill

fossil fuels and leave us with nothing but a broken economy. When I say broken economy, if, in fact--and no one would refute this--we are dependent upon fossil fuels--coal, oil, and gas--for 75 percent of the energy to run America, then what is going to happen to our economy if we extract 75 percent? I think we all know logically what is going to happen.

In the words of White House counselor John Podesta this morning: ``The American public doesn't feel that sense of urgency about the impacts of climate change and I think this report will help influence that.'' That is nothing but an admission. The whole reason for this report is to try to resurrect the issue of global warming. We heard my good friend from Massachusetts talking about that. He is very knowledgeable, and I will refer to some of his activities in a minute.

But keep in mind, this is John Podesta. It is the same John Podesta who is representing some of the terrorist regime from Sri Lanka that is no longer in effect. He is the same one who ran the White House during the Clinton years. So he comes from a very partisan perspective. But nonetheless, I appreciate the fact that he is admitting this is the reason for the climate assessment President Obama did yesterday, because he wants to try to bring this up again.

I can remember back when the polling showed that global warming was either the No. 1 or No. 2 of the environmental issues in America. Do we know where it is now? It is No. 10, according to the last Gallup poll. So people have forgotten about it. People have caught on. They have seen the scientists come in and refute all this IPCC stuff that the United Nations has been putting forth for a long period of time. I think it is a recognition that people have caught on to this and it is no longer the issue they want it to be.

Whether it is a drought or a flood, high temperatures, low temperatures, you can't find a job, you are finding more allergic reactions, then the White House blames it on global warming. Fear has always been a tactic the administration and other global warming alarmists have used to spur people into action. Time and time again, when the American people learn the details and the costs of the solutions to global warming that they contend exist, they don't want anything to do with it--and the costs are enormous.

Congress last debated global warming when my good friend, now Senator Markey, was in the House of Representatives. It was the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill. This bill would have cost, according to Charles River Associates--and I think people recognize them as authentic-- between $300 billion and $400 billion a year. That is the cost. I would contend this would be the largest tax increase in the history of this country. That is consistent with other analyses. One was the Wharton Group and many of the scientists there who were making evaluations came out with the same thing: between $300 billion and $400 billion a year. MIT came out with about the same amount of between $300 billion to $400 billion a year. The cost estimate has been the same over the last 15 years since we first started debating this issue. I don't think anyone is challenging that.

But what is important--and this is kind of in the weeds, but we have to talk about this: I applaud Senator Markey for at least the levels of pollution--of emissions, I should say--that come from different sources that he was wanting to regulate, and that was those with 25,000 tons of CO2 emissions or more. That would be, quite frankly, the major emitters, the refineries and all of that. Here is the problem we have today. It is far worse than the Waxman-Markey bill would have been, because it wouldn't call for the regulation of just those entities that emit 25,000 tons or more, but the same as the Clean Air Act.

The Clean Air Act has a threshold of 250 tons of greenhouse gases a year. Stop and think about that: If it costs between $300 billion to $400 billion to regulate the emitters who emit 25,000 tons of CO2 a year, how much more if we regulate everyone with 250 tons? It has never been calculated. It would be very difficult. But we are talking about billions and billions of dollars more. So the regulations are far worse.

The first of these regulations now being developed is the New Source Performance Standards for newly constructed powerplants. The rule would essentially make it illegal to build new coal-fired powerplants. That is what it was designed to do.

The next step would be to take the existing powerplants--those that are employing hundreds of thousands of people in America today--and they would be out of a job. So that would go to the refining industry, and so forth, and establish new regulations for each and every industry. These greenhouse gas regulations mark the latest attempt by the EPA to destroy affordable and reliable electricity and energy supplies that have been the hallmark of our economy for a long period of time. They are already doing it in other areas too. It is not just regulating the greenhouse gas emissions or CO2 emissions; it is other regulations that are unbearable.

This one right here--they are talking about changing the ocean regulation. This chart is an interesting one because this shows that virtually every county in America would be out of attainment with their new goals. In my State of Oklahoma, we have 77 counties. All 77 counties would be out of attainment if they are able to do that.

In 2011, the EPA finalized its utility MACT. By the way, that stands for maximum achievable control technology. That is what we are talking about. So they passed this. Now it is passed. It is history now. They finalized utility MACT with a rule that costs over $100 million and would result in 1.65 million lost jobs.

The EPA put this rule out without even considering the cost of it, saying it wasn't required to do so. In other words, the law does not say they are required to say what it costs. I take issue with that. They estimated the rule would result in the retirement of less than 10,000 megawatts of electricity generation, but today we know the power companies around the country have announced the retirements totaling more than 50,000. So they are off by 500 percent. Fifty thousand megawatts in direct response to the EPA regulation.

By the way, when we had the utility MACT, I filed a CRA, and this is something I want to make sure people are aware of, and certainly my colleagues and friends on the other side of the aisle. On all of these regulations, when they reach the point where the regulation is final-- and we know for a fact it is going to cost dollars and it is going to cost jobs--I am going to file a CRA. A CRA is a Congressional Review Act. A CRA provides that if there is a regulation--and I hear so often my colleagues in the Senate will say to their constituents, Don't blame me for these regulations because that is the regulatory--that is the EPA and other regulators doing it. But a CRA forces them to take an issue. So all one has to do is find 30 people in the Senate, have them sign a CRA, file the CRA, and then it is simply a simple majority--51. In the case of this utility MACT, I only lacked three votes for stopping that rule. So we anticipate that we are going to be able to stop a lot of these rules.

In about 10 days, the EPA is poised to propose another new rule, the 316(b) cooling water intake rule. This rule is designed to protect fish from being caught and killed in nets designed to prevent them from entering powerplant systems. While the rule doesn't have any human health benefits, it is expected to cost industry over $100 billion in compliance costs, which, of course, will be passed on to everyone in America who ends up paying these bills.

The North American Electric Reliability Corporation, which is called NERC, has warned that this rule will have a far worse impact on electricity affordability and reliability than the utility MACT did. We know it will.

In fact, the FERC Commissioner recently said that because of EPA's rules, the United States is likely to see rolling electricity blackouts over the summer months in the next few years as demand for electricity outstrips the supply remaining after all of the powerplant shutdowns that are slated to occur in response to EPA's rules.

The EPA has been systematically distorting the true cost of its regulations for years, and I have been raising this as an issue for some time now, but it has been very difficult to air them out before the entire Senate simply because at this point the sole goal of the

Democrats seems to be to protect their majority.

If we look at this chart, this was prior to the 2012 election. What we found they were doing, prior to the 2012 election, was postponing many of these very onerous regulations because they knew we would be doing a CRA and the public would know who is responsible for these. They had postponed this. This is a report I put out in October 2012, and that was to try to force the administration to not wait until after the election to come out with their rules. That is what they did.

They are doing it again. Last week I released documents revealing that the EPA intentionally delayed the release of its greenhouse gas new source performance standards--that is the NSPS--by 66 days in order to avoid it being finalized before the midterm elections--the same thing as 2012.

I also sent a letter to Gina McCarthy, who is the Director of the Environmental Protection Agency, asking why the rule was delayed, especially when she had previously told me it was the result of a blacklog in the Federal Register. In other words, she was saying: The Federal Register did not post this rule until 66 days after we gave it to them. We checked with the Federal Register, and they said that is absolutely false. They have an immediate turnaround for these rules.

So now I am waiting for a response to that letter. I do not want to use the ``L'' word. I know there is a lot of pressure put on the employees and certainly the Director of the EPA to try to minimize what the public feels is going to be the cost of these regulations.

Had the EPA stuck with its original timeline of finalizing this rule by September 20 of this year, then I would have been able to work with my colleagues to force a Congressional Review Act vote to overturn the rule just weeks before the election. Then people would know the cost of these things.

But what we could do right now is vote on a few of the amendments. Our Senator from Missouri was talking about these amendments. We have a bill that is coming up. We have amendments that should be considered-- all having to do with energy, so they are all appropriate amendments to offer, as he articulated for about 10 minutes a few minutes ago.

I have some amendments that would do this. He mentioned one of them that he and I are together on. But one of my amendments is amendment No. 2977, entitled the ``Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2014.'' It simply prohibits the EPA from promulgating any greenhouse gas emissions regulations to combat climate change because they are denying this is the reason they are doing it. Of course we know what has happened to the science they are relying on through the United Nations that has now been refuted.

The second amendment I have is amendment No. 2979. It would prevent the EPA from issuing any new Clean Air Act regulations--such as those on climate change--until it complies with section 321(a) of the Clean Air Act. Let's keep in mind, this is the Clean Air Act, as shown on this chart. We are talking about decades ago. This is what the Environmental Protection Agency is supposed to do:

The Administrator shall conduct continuing evaluations of

potential loss or shifts of employment which may result from

the administration or enforcement of the provision of this

chapter. . . .

It is saying they are supposed to already tell the public what the cost is in terms of jobs and money. That is the law, but they are not obeying the law. So I have an amendment that puts teeth in it and says you cannot have any new rules until you comply with section 321(a) of the Clean Air Act. Very reasonable, and it is the law today.

Unfortunately, the EPA is not interested in doing this. With the Utility MACT rule, it completely dismissed the rule's cost and did not consider it when putting out the rule.

The EPA acted in contradiction to Supreme Court precedents that decisionmakers are required to ``weigh advantages against disadvantages, and disadvantages can be seen in terms of costs.'' That is the U.S. Supreme Court.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given 5 more minutes.

I have to get to the last part. Rather than to face these issues head-on, I am going to share something that happened last year and then again this year. There is a very wealthy person named Tom Steyer. Tom Steyer has a mansion that overlooks the Golden Gate Bridge. He had a fundraiser for Barack Obama last year, raising a lot of money, but the one I am more concerned about is the fundraiser he had when he announced--this is just within the last month--Tom Steyer, a very wealthy person, said he was going to personally donate $50 million and raise an additional $50 million to try to do two things. One is to resurrect this whole idea on global warming since the people do not care about it anymore. As a result of that, we had an all-night vigil. Remember that? That was right after Tom Steyer made his announcement.

The second thing he is mandating is to kill the Keystone Pipeline. There is a lot of money out there. The regulatory burdens already being placed on this country are enormous, and the cost of regulations are, perhaps arguably, the worst problem facing this country.

Last week the Competitive Enterprise Institute published a major report calculating the cost of the President's regulations at $1.86 trillion. To put that in perspective, Canada's entire GDP is $1.82 trillion. India's is the same amount. So that is what the cost would be, according to the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

People know what has happened to the military with this administration, they know what has happened to energy, but the cost of these regulations is something that is going to have to be addressed.

Lastly, I would say this. I know there are people out there who legitimately believe greenhouse gas is causing global warming and the world is going to come to an end, but I would suggest this: Lisa Jackson was the Administrator--chosen by Barack Obama--the first Administrator we had for the EPA. I asked her this question, on the record, live on TV. I said: Madam Administrator, if we were to pass bills like the Markey-Waxman bill or regulate by regulation the CO2 in the United States of America, would this have the effect of lowering the CO2 emissions worldwide? She said: No, because that is not where the problem is. It is in China. It is in India. It is in Mexico.

In other words, if you believe--as I do not believe--but if you believe CO2 is going to bring about the end of the world, then even if we do something in this country, it is not going to solve the problem. Arguably, it would make the problem worse because as we lose our manufacturing base, they are out seeking electricity and energy from countries where they do not have any of these regulations, and that would have the effect of increasing, not decreasing, emissions of CO2.

With that, I yield the floor and thank my friend for not objecting to my additional time.

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

Madam President, I come to the floor to speak about an issue we should all be concerned about, the State of veterans health care in our VA hospitals, our VA clinics, our VA system, and around the country.

I have been concerned about this for some time, working very hard on getting outpatient clinics built in Louisiana--new ones, expanded ones, in particular, in Lafayette and Lake Charles.

I am a member of a bipartisan working group on VA backlog issues, and we have made substantial progress through that bipartisan group. We have also introduced legislation to deal specifically with that VA backlog crisis.

As we work on those things, unfortunately, the news out of the VA gets worse and worse, and the need for real progress on these fronts-- including the community-based clinics I am going to talk about in Louisiana and elsewhere--that need gets more and more dire.

Think about the recent reports. CNN and others have reported that in Arizona at least 40 U.S. veterans died--died--waiting for appointments at the Phoenix VA health care system. Many of these were placed on a secret waiting list. The secret list was part of an elaborate scheme designed by the VA managers in Phoenix who were trying to hide the fact that 1,400 to 1,600 sick veterans were forced to wait months to see a doctor.

There is an official list that is shared with officials in Washington. That official list shows that the VA has been providing timely appointments. The problem is, you don't get on that official list, in some cases, until you have waited months and months and months on the secret list that is hidden from Washington, that was hidden from the world, and that was hidden from outsiders until the news media broke the story. So 40 of those veterans died waiting for appointments through this abuse.

In Colorado, USA Today and others reported that clerks at the Department of Veterans Affairs clinic in Fort Collins were instructed last year about how to falsify appointment records so it appeared the small staff of doctors was seeing patients within the agency's goal of 14 days--the exact same abuse, the exact same type of scheme, but different details. Many of the 6,300 veterans treated at the outpatient clinic waited months to be seen, but that was hidden through this scheme.

If the clerical staff had allowed records to reflect that veterans waited longer than 14 days, they were punished by being placed on the bad boy list, the report shows. So, again, it is exactly the same fraud and abuse, the same scheme, designed to hide the real waits that veterans in these places and in many other places around the country are subjected to.

We see these horrible abuses. We see these examples with increasing frequency. It has gotten so bad that the head of the American Legion and the head of the Concerned Veterans for America on Monday called for Secretary Shinseki to resign and called for members of his top leadership to resign with him.

The calls for his resignation came after months of reporting that I have been talking about--U.S. veterans who have actually died waiting for care at VA facilities across the country. It came after these reports about Phoenix. It came after these reports about Colorado.

The heads of these organizations did not rush into a public call for his resignation. They did not take that lightly. That is virtually and perhaps completely unprecedented, but they did that on Monday. They called for the Secretary's resignation. They called for it publicly, and they called for several of his leadership team to resign with him. That is how bad it has gotten.

Yet in the midst of this, rather than responding to this crisis in any way we can, as quickly as we can, we have important matters hung up on pure politics on the Senate floor. Specifically, I am talking about my proposal to move forward with 27 community-based clinics around the country, including the two vital new and expanded community-based clinics that we need to move on, approve, and build in Louisiana, in Lafayette and Lake Charles.

These clinics around the country--and particularly the two in Louisiana, in Lafayette and Lake Charles--have been hung up through one bureaucratic screw up after another. These should have been built by now.

First, in terms of our two Louisiana clinics, the VA messed up how they let out the contract, and that caused them to pull back. It was their mistake, pure and simple. They have admitted that freely, and it cost us 1 year in terms of moving forward with those clinics.

After that mistake was corrected--after the loss of 1 year of waiting--then the CBO decided that they were going to score these clinics in a completely new way, something they had never done before, and that caused a ``scoring'' or ``fiscal issue'' with regard to all 27 of the community-based VA clinics around the country that I am talking about. That further delayed progress.

Finally, after these two major delays, leaders in the House got together on a bipartisan basis--and I want to commend my Louisiana colleagues in the House, in particular led by Congressman Boustany and others--to fix this scoring issue. They put together a reform bill and they got it approved by the House overwhelmingly, with one dissenting vote. In today's environment, resolutions to honor Mother Teresa don't pass the House of Representatives with only one dissenting vote, but they did that.

So it came over here, and I worked to address some small issues and objections that existed on the Senate side through a perfecting amendment which I have at the desk. I worked very hard for weeks to clear up those objections so we could move forward with this noncontroversial measure. Because of that, we have the unanimous support of the Senate--not one single objection to moving forward with these 27 community-based VA clinics around the

country. There is not one single objection related to the substance of that proposal--not one.

The only objection now has been from the distinguished Senator from Vermont who objects to moving forward with this focused proposal because the Senate does not agree unanimously or near unanimously with his much larger bill that encompasses dozens of VA issues. Again, I have pledged to and I will work with the Senator on those broader issues. I have been working hard on those issues, including these clinics, including being an active member of the bipartisan working group on the VA backlog issue. I will continue to work on that. But the fact remains his larger bill has substantial opposition. There are around 46 Senators--excuse me, around 44 Senators who oppose that larger bill.

In the meantime, I think we should agree on what we can agree on. We should make progress on what we can make progress on, starting with these 27 clinics. Veterans have been dying around the country because of these ridiculous waits and the fraud and abuse involved in hiding these waits. These 27 community-based clinics will directly help address veterans who are waiting for months and months in some cases, waiting for medical treatment. It will directly alleviate that issue in the communities in 18 States where these clinics will be located. There is a significant number of communities in a significant number of States. So let's agree on what we can agree on. Let's make that significant progress. Let's keep talking and working on the rest.

Last November Senator Sanders seemed to agree with that principle and that way of moving forward. In talking about another Veterans' Affairs piece of legislation, he said, on November 19 of last year, ``I'm happy to tell you that I think that was a concern of his.''--talking about another of our colleagues--``We got that UC'ed last night.''--unanimous consent--``So we moved that pretty quickly, and I want to try to do those things. Where we have agreement, let's move it.''

To repeat from that quote: `` . . . I want to try to do those things. Where we have agreement, let's move it.''

That is all I am asking for. We are not going to agree on everything immediately, but we can agree on important things right today, right this hour, right this minute. We do agree on 27 important community- based clinics in 18 States around the country, including 2 in Louisiana--Lafayette and Lake Charles, LA--that Senator Landrieu and I represent.

I want to try to do those things where we have agreement. Let's move it. And that can start right this minute in a productive, positive way with these 27 community-based clinics around the country. So let's agree on what we can agree on. Let's move on this important clinic issue.

Leaders of national groups--American Legion, American Vets, DAV, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and others--think the same. That is why they wrote a letter on June 10 of last year--June 10 of 2013--saying these community-based clinics are important. Let's come together, work together, and move specifically on these community-based clinics. They are important.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter of June 10 to which I just referred.

These groups agree with what Senator Sanders said last year and they agree with what I am saying today: Let us come together and move on those things we can agree on, and they specifically wrote the Senate leadership about these community-based clinics.

That leads to my unanimous consent request, which is to adopt this spirit of agreeing where we agree, getting things accomplished whenever and wherever we can, and continuing to work on the rest.

I ask unanimous consent the Veterans' Affairs Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3521 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that my amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Madam President, parliamentary inquiry.

I have a pending unanimous consent request and I would like to inquire how I proceed to have a ruling on that and, hopefully, have it passed through the Senate.

Reclaiming my time, or reclaiming the floor, since my unanimous consent request----

Madam President, a point of parliamentary inquiry.

Madam President, I had a unanimous consent request. It has been objected to. May I reclaim the floor and reclaim my time? In doing so, I will be happy to respond to the Senator.

I would again ask unanimous consent that the Veterans' Affairs Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3521 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that my amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

If I may reclaim the floor and reclaim my time, I would like to respond.

I think it is really unfortunate. As we all agreed to today and in previous appearances on the floor, there is absolutely no objection on the merits of this proposal. The only objection from the distinguished Senator from Vermont is that a far larger bill, which does have significant opposition--around 44 Members, almost half of the Senate-- people have concerns about that. So if he can't play the game exactly his way, he is going to take his ball and go home, and he is going to block 27 community-based clinics on which there is no substantive objection, on which the leaders of national veterans organizations have pleaded with leaders of the Senate and House to act in a bipartisan way.

I am particularly concerned that today what I hear is an even higher bar that we are going to have to meet to act on these clinics that are not objected to on their merits.

Previously the Senator from Vermont talked about his far broader bill. Today he talked about all of health care. Apparently I am going to have to agree with Senator Sanders about all of health care reform before we can move forward on these 27 community-based clinics on which there is no substantive objection.

The Senator from Vermont said he will do everything he can to deal with these issues. Well, we can do something right here, right now, to deal with these issues. It is not solving every problem in the world. It is not solving every problem in health care. It is not solving every problem in the VA. But it is doing something real and meaningful and substantial in 27 communities and 18 States. We can move forward with these community-based clinics. We can try to do those things on which we have agreement. Let's move it. We can do that. That is all I am asking. And I think it is really counterproductive to

take the view that until we agree about all of the VA or about all of health care or whatever, we are not going to do any of that. I think that is really sad and counterproductive.

I will keep coming to the floor. I will keep working on this vital issue. I will keep working on other vital issues. I will keep talking to the Senator from Vermont about his broader bill. But I have to say that these scandals in Phoenix and elsewhere don't alleviate my concerns; they only heighten my concerns about a broader bill that is going to push many more patients, overnight, into a system that is obviously broken.

So I will continue working and talking about it all. I will continue working in the bipartisan working group on the VA backlog. But let's do what we can do now. Let's start with one step and then two and then five, and then maybe we can start to jog and then we can start to run. I think that is the productive path forward.

I urge my colleague to reconsider and let us move forward with these important clinics.

Madam President, I object on behalf of myself and 43 other Senators.

If not for any other reason but because of the substantive concerns with the bill.

Madam President, just to briefly repeat, I did object on behalf of myself and 43 other Senators about major provisions in this bill. I am happy to talk about it. I am happy to work on it. I am happy to work with Senator Burr, who is the ranking member on the committee, who has been communicating all these concerns to Senator Sanders and his staff. But I think that is very different from objecting to a focused community-based clinic bill that has no objection on the merits.

I just think it is a shame not to try to do those things where we have agreement--let's move forward--not to move forward. That would be moving forward in a substantial way. That would quickly improve the lives of veterans in 27 communities and in 18 States, including Lafayette and Lake Charles--communities that certainly Senator Landrieu and I very much care about and very much want to have their VA issues addressed in this way.

I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object.

Madam President, let me touch on a few of the points of my distinguished colleague from Louisiana.

First of all, regarding the allegations against the VA in Phoenix, as we know, these are very serious allegations, and it is absolutely appropriate the inspector general do a thorough and independent investigation of those allegations. As I am sure my colleague from Louisiana knows, the leadership at Phoenix has rejected those allegations, saying those are not true. The Secretary of VA has done what I believe,

and I would hope my friend from Louisiana believes, is the right thing to do, which is to do an independent investigation.

I am not a lawyer, but I did learn enough in school to know you don't find somebody guilty without assessing the evidence. And frankly, just because CNN says something doesn't always make it the case. So what we need is a serious independent investigation into the very serious allegations about Phoenix and any other facility within the VA. I have said I will hold hearings immediately--more than one hearing, if necessary--to get to the truth of the matter regarding the VA situation in Phoenix.

I would also tell my friend that when we talk about the VA, when we talk about health care in general--and I am sure he would agree with me--as a nation we have a whole lot of serious problems, don't we? We have about 30 million people today who have no health insurance at all. Harvard University estimates about 45,000 people die each year because they do not get to a doctor when they should, because we are the only country in the industrialized world that doesn't guarantee health care to all people.

There was a study that came out recently that indicates that some 200,000 to 400,000 patients a year die in hospitals in America because of medical errors, in ways that could have been prevented--200,000 to 400,000 people a year. So, yes, as chairman of the Senate Veterans Committee, I am going to do everything we can do, along with my colleagues, in a bipartisan way to make sure the veterans of this country get all of the health care they need, and get the best quality they can.

This is a very serious issue, and with an independent investigation taking place in Phoenix now, we are going to get to the truth of that.

When we talk about the VA, as I am sure my colleague from Louisiana knows, in fiscal year 2013, the VA provided 89.7 million outpatient visits, and the VA has 236,000 health care appointments every single day. Today, over 200,000 veterans in 151 medical centers in 900 community-based outreach clinics all over this country are walking into the VA to get health care. I assure my colleague from Louisiana that every single day there are problems within the VA. When there are over 200,000 people walking in, there are going to be problems. But I also assure my friend there are problems in every other medical facility in America today as well.

I just mentioned the very frightening situation that, according to a very significant study, we are experiencing between 200,000 and 400,000 patients dying from what are preventable deaths because of hospital errors all over America. My point about saying that is to say, let's put the VA within a broader context. If you want to criticize the VA, fine, I am there with you. You got problems, I will work with you. But let's not paint a broad brush.

The VA has 151 medical centers, they have 300,000-plus employees-- many of them veterans themselves--and in my view, and in the view of the veterans community--the veterans associations--the Veterans' Administration is providing high quality care to the veterans across this country.

It is not just me. My colleague from Louisiana may have recently read that an independent customer service survey, done by the American Customer Satisfaction Index--these are people who assess how people feel about medical facilities around the country--found that in 2013 an overall satisfaction rating for the VA was 84 percent for inpatient care and 82 percent for outpatient care, which in some respects was higher than for the hospital industry in general.

For the past 10 years, the American Consumer Satisfaction Index has found a high degree of loyalty to VA among veterans of over 90 percent. I would suspect my colleague from Louisiana finds--as I have found when I talk to veterans in Vermont--and he asks them, as I am sure he does, what do you think about VA health care, veterans will say: You know what. It is pretty good health care. Is it perfect? No. Are there problems? Yes. In general, they think it is pretty good health care.

What I am going to do, Madam President, is I am going to object, and I am going to ask for a unanimous consent request on legislation that I have offered, and I want to say a word about that.

I want to ask a question of my friend from Louisiana. My colleague from Louisiana has indicated he wants to work with us. I think I heard that in his statement today, and I applaud that. I am not quite sure he has done that yet, but I look forward to working with him and his staff. I would invite my colleague from Louisiana to come to my office at a mutually convenient time to see how in fact we can work together.

Will my colleague from Louisiana take me up on that offer, I ask through the Chair?

Madam President, I just asked a brief question of my friend from Louisiana.

I do object. And I am going to----

Madam President, unfortunately, I didn't quite hear that the Senator from Louisiana wanted to work with us. So I will have my office call his office and see if we can sit down with our staffs and find out what the Senator's concerns are about the legislation.

It is not Bernie Sanders' legislation. It is not the Veterans' Committee's legislation. This is legislation supported by the American Legion, the Disabled American Veterans, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Vietnam Veterans of America, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, and virtually every other veterans organization in America.

In preparation for the discussion I look forward to having with my colleague from Louisiana, this is not changing the world. This is not legislation that is going to solve every problem in the world. But it does do a whole lot to improve the lives of millions of veterans and their families who are hurting, and I think it is appropriate that we do that. I want my colleague from Louisiana to be thinking about these issues and to come into the office and tell me: No, Senator Sanders. I disagree.

Does he disagree with restoration of full COLA for military retirees? As he knows, for current people in the military and new people who are coming in, they are going to get less of a COLA than longstanding members of the military. Maybe he disagrees; maybe he doesn't. Let's talk about it.

Does he believe the veterans community--people who go into the VA-- should be entitled to dental care? I don't know about Louisiana, but in Vermont that is a very serious issue. All over this country veterans are dealing with rotting teeth, and they can't get that care in VA facilities right now.

There is widespread support for advanced appropriations for the VA. I think virtually all the veterans organizations understand that the VA could do a better job if they had advanced appropriations. I support it. Many people support it. I don't know if my colleague from Louisiana supports it. Let's work together, and I will find out.

The next time we come down to the floor and go through this exercise, we can tell the people what we agree with and what we don't agree with.

On ending the benefits backlog, the truth is that the current VA Administration--General Shinseki and others--inherited a paper system. Can you believe that? In the year 2009 the VA benefits system was on paper--maybe the last remaining system of its size in the world to still be on paper and not digital. What people at the VA have done-- General Shinseki and others--is they transformed that system from paper to electronic records. Guess what. The backlog is going down. But that is not good enough for me. We have language in this bill which will make sure the backlog continues to go down.

There is an issue I am sure my colleague from Louisiana is very familiar with: instate tuition. There are veterans from Louisiana who may want to go to school in Vermont or veterans from Vermont who may want to go to school in Louisiana, but they can't get instate tuition. It is a serious problem, and we address it. What does my colleague from Louisiana feel about that issue?

Then there is extending health care access for recently separated veterans. As he knows, we have legislation now that extends free health care to all those who served in Iraq and Afghanistan for 5 years. I think it should be extended for 10 years. Does he agree or does he not agree? The veterans community feels very strongly about that issue.

We have high unemployment rates for returning veterans. We want to do something to expand employment opportunities.

We have the issue of sexual assault--a very serious issue, as we all know--and we want to make sure the VA is providing excellent-quality care to those victims of sexual assault.

We have, in my mind, a really tragic problem. The good news is that a few years ago Congress did the right thing and said to the post-9/11 veterans, those men and women who came home seriously injured: We are going to pass a caregivers act to give support to your wives or your sisters or your brothers who are providing often 24/7 care for you-- every single day, long hours--at great stress. We are going to help you.

But what we didn't do is reach back to the Vietnam-era veterans, the Korean war veterans, even World War II veterans. There are families today in which a 70-year-old woman is taking care of her husband who lost his legs in Vietnam, and day after day, year after year she is getting virtually no support from the government.

This legislation has the strong support of the Paralyzed Veterans of America and many other organizations that say we can't ignore those people. I don't know what my friend from Louisiana feels about this. Let's talk about it.

Here is the bottom line. The bottom line is, as I have said many times, I do support the provision the Senator from Louisiana speaks about. We do need these facilities. But we need a lot more. We need cooperation and people coming together.

I believe the Senator from Louisiana said there were 44 people who voted in opposition. He is right. He forgot to mention that there were 56 who voted for this bill, with the support of every veterans organization in America. One person was absent who would have voted for it, so 57 voted for it and 44 voted against it. Unfortunately, in the rules of the Senate, when we have a Republican filibuster, we do need 60 votes. I am looking for three more Republican votes. One of those votes I would very much appreciate receiving is from the Senator from Louisiana. That would make me two votes shy. And we think we are making some progress with some other Republicans who understand that we must address the serious needs facing the veterans community.

I again extend my request to the Senator from Louisiana to work with me. But pending that, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Calendar No. 297, S. 1950, with the Sanders amendment, which is at the desk and is the text of S. 1982, the Comprehensive Veterans Health and Benefits and Military Retirement Pay Restoration Act.

Madam President, I hear what my colleague from Louisiana says. I hear that he objects to passing legislation which has the support of virtually every veterans organization in the country that represents many millions of veterans. I hear him objecting to legislation which has the support of 57 Members of the U.S. Senate. I hear him objecting to what I believe is legislation which has the support of the vast majority of the American people, who do believe we should do right by our veterans. It is very easy to send people off to war; it is a lot harder to take care of them when they come home.

I would simply say that I look forward to sitting down with my colleague from Louisiana and other Republican colleagues--and we are doing that right now but specifically with my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Vitter--and seeing where we can agree and how we can create some significant legislation to address the very serious problems facing the veterans community.

Madam President, I simply reiterate my hope that Senator Vitter would sit down with me, his staff would sit down with my staff, and we can work out our differences. I have always been willing to compromise and make changes in the legislation.

But for the veterans of this country who have suffered so much and who have been hurt so much, we owe them so much, and we have to do right by them.

Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.