Floor Statements

Mr. President, as I begin, I thank Senator Boxer for her wonderful leadership of the Environment Committee and for her strong activism regarding climate change. I thank Senator Whitehouse and Senator Schatz, as well, for organizing this important discussion tonight.

The scientific community has been extremely clear--no debate--climate change is real, climate change is manmade, and climate change is already causing severe damage in terms of drought, floods, forest fires, rising sea levels, and extreme weather disturbances. Given that reality, I find it extremely disturbing that virtually all--not all but virtually all--of my Republican colleagues continue to ignore the scientific evidence and refuse to support serious legislation which will address this planetary crisis. My hope is that my small State of Vermont will be a national leader, will be a model for the rest of the country in transforming our energy system, moving us away from fossil fuels and into energy efficiency and sustainable energy. And doing that, by the way, will not only help the United States become a leader in reversing climate change but can, over a period of years, create millions of good-paying jobs in this country. And that has to be the goal.

Some people ask--many people ask--they say: Well, why aren't you guys

doing anything on this issue? The scientific community is almost unanimous about the causation of climate change or about its severity. What are you doing?

Let me answer that by just very briefly reading an exchange that took place in the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee on April 11, 2013. Let me preface my remarks by saying Senator Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma is a friend of mine. I like Jim Inhofe. He is an honest person, a straightforward person. But on this issue, he is dead, dead wrong. This is the exchange that took place on April 11, 2013. I was in a committee hearing, and this is what I said:

What Senator Inhofe has written--

And he has published a book on this issue--

What Senator Inhofe has written and talked about is his

belief that global warming is one of the major hoaxes ever

perpetrated on the American people. That it's a hoax pushed

by people like Al Gore, the United Nations and the Hollywood

elite.

Senator Inhofe was also in this committee hearing, and I said:

I think that is a fair quote from Senator Inhofe. Is that

roughly right, Senator Inhofe?

He was right here, and Mr. Inhofe said:

Yes, I would add to that list: Moveon.org, George Soros,

Michael Moore and a few others.

So that is where we are. We have a gentleman--again, a very honest, decent man whom I like--a former chair of the Environment Committee, a former ranking member of the environment committee, who believes that global warming is a hoax pushed by people like Al Gore, the United Nations, and the Hollywood elite. So when people ask me why we are not doing anything, I would say that is pretty much the reason.

But let me respond to that, to Mr. Inhofe's views, by saying the following: Climate change is real, and there is no longer a scientific debate about that. In the words of the U.S. Global Change Research Program, which includes EPA, NASA, the National Science Foundation, and the Departments of Defense, Energy, State, Health, Interior, Transportation, and Commerce: ``global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced.''

It is not my view. It is not Senator Boxer's view, not Senator Schatz's view. That is the view of the U.S. Global Change Research Program, which includes some of the major agencies of the U.S. Government. By the way, clearly it is not just the U.S. Government or agencies that believe that. There are agencies representing virtually every country on Earth that have come to the same conclusion.

Now, when some people say: Well, there is a debate; the evidence is not yet clear; the scientific community is not quite sure, let me clear the air on that one. According to a study published in the journal Environmental Research Letters in May of last year, more than 97 percent of the peer-reviewed scientific literature on climate supports the view that human activity is a primary cause of global warming.

I believe I read yesterday that the minority leader,

Senator McConnell of Kentucky, was saying: Well, for every

person who believes that climate change is real, there is

another person who disagrees. Well, the polling indicates

that is not quite accurate. But what is really important is

not what this person feels or what that person feels, it is

what those people who have studied the issue extensively

believe. That is really what matters. And for those people--

the 97 percent of the peer-reviewed scientific literature on

this issue--they say very clearly that climate change is real

and that human activity is a primary cause of global warming.

I am reminded--I think Senator Boxer made this point a while ago-- that the debate we are having now is very reminiscent of the debate we had 30 or 40 years ago about the role tobacco plays in cancer, emphysema, heart conditions, and so forth. We had people, well-funded by the Tobacco Institute, coming before the American people, putting ads on television, saying: You know smoking is okay; there is no evidence linking smoking to cancer.

Well, they were lying, as a matter of fact. Many of these people were being funded by the Tobacco Institute. I think we are in the same position now. A lot of the information--misinformation--which is coming forward is funded by the fossil fuel industry. We should be clear about that.

Is there still a scientific debate about anything related to climate? What is the debate? Well, the only remaining scientific debates are about just how devastating climate change will be. Of that, the scientists are not exactly sure. There is a disagreement. Are we on track for a 2-degree change by the end of the century? Will the planet warm by 2 degrees? Will it warm by 4 degrees? Will it warm by 6 degrees? People are not exactly sure. But they are certainly sure that it will warm. Will sea levels rise by 1 foot? Will they rise by 3 feet? By 4 feet? Again, scientists are not clear. But they are absolutely clear that sea levels will rise.

As a result of industrial greenhouse gas emissions, Earth's climate warmed more between 1971 and 2000 than during any other 3-decade interval in the last 1,400 years, reports a paper in the journal Nature Geoscience, based on research conducted by 78 scientists from 24 nations, analyzing climate data from tree rings, pollen, cave formations, ice cores, lake and ocean sediment, and historical records from around the sea.

The globe has already warmed 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit from 1880 to 2012, and the vast majority of that warming, 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit, has happened since 1950. According to NOAA, November 2013 was the hottest November on record, and 2012 was the warmest year on record in the contiguous United States, and saw at least 69,000 local heat records set.

2013 was the fourth warmest year ever recorded since 1880. The World Bank, no bastion of left-leaning environmental thinking, is among those expressing grave concern about the trend. The World Bank concluded that limiting the global temperature increase to 2 degrees centigrade might allow us to keep sea level rise by 2100 to less than 2.3 feet.

Unfortunately, the World Bank also acknowledges we are on track for a 4-degree centigrade increase, which would result in extreme heat waves and life-threatening sea level rise. Since 1901, the global sea level has risen about 7.5 inches and it is getting worse; over the last 20 years seas have been rising nearly twice as fast.

All over the world glaciers and icepacks are melting. Glaciers in the Mount Everest region have shrunk by 13 percent in the last 50 years. Glaciers on Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania have already shrunk by 80 percent and are expected to be completely gone by 2020. Greenland's ice sheets lost ice at a rate of about 60 cubic miles per year between 2002 and 2011. This is six times faster than the ice was melting during the decades before that. All of these impacts and more can be traced directly to carbon emissions and their effect on the atmosphere.

In 2013, as the Presiding Officer knows, we witnessed an ominous milestone: The daily mean concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere surpassed 400 parts per million. The last time CO2 levels were this high was probably between 2.2 million and 3.6 million years ago, when it was so warm there were forests in Greenland.

What does climate change mean? What are the consequences of global warming? How is climate change already impacting our lives--not in 5 years, not in 50 years, but right now? For one thing, climate change is making droughts in the Western United States and in other parts of the world more severe, longer lasting, and more frequent. Scientists expect the precipitation pattern will continue shifting, expanding the geographic extent of the dry subtropics, leading to warmer and drier weather, which then causes air temperatures to increase even more.

This helps explain why drought-stricken Texas saw the hottest summer ever recorded for a U.S. State in 2011, leading to a combination of drought and wildfires, costing $10 billion in damage, and the drought continues. As of last month, Texas had only received 68 percent of its normal rainfall between 2011 and 2013, and reservoirs are at their lowest levels since 1990.

We should be very clear about this: When we talk about global warming, we are talking about the globe, the global community, not just the United States, not just Texas, not just California. Australia last year endured an ``angry summer,'' which is what it was called, which brought both the hottest month and the hottest day the country had ever witnessed, and a 4-month heat

wave, severe wildfires, and torrential rains and flooding, causing $2.4 billion in damage.

Last year's heat wave in China was the worst in at least 140 years. These droughts have very real consequences for water availability. Many regions in Southeast Asia, South Asia, and Sub-Saharan Africa, for example, are expected to experience a decline of 20 percent in water availability if the climate warms 2 degrees centigrade and a 50-percent decline if the climate warms by 4 degrees centigrade. What we are talking about here is the inability of people to get water to drink, the inability of people to get water to farm. This then leads to other problems, including mass migrations and struggles of limited natural resources.

With sustained drought and heat waves comes wildfire. As Thomas Tidwell, Chief of the US Forest Service, explained to Congress last year: America's wildfire season now lasts 2 months longer than it did 40 years ago--2 months longer than just 40 years ago--and burns up twice as much land as it did then because of the hotter, drier conditions from climate change.

We are seeing this very horrendous and expensive situation of wildfires in the southwest of this country. The wildfires, in fact, are expected to increase 50 percent across the United States under a changing climate, while some studies predict increases of more than 100 percent in parts of areas of the Western United States by 2050. When you think about climate change and you think about drier forests, we are looking at very serious problems regarding wildfires.

Rising sea levels, another great concern and impact of climate change, also lead to more destructive storm surges. According to NOAA, Hurricane Sandy's storm surge exceeded 14 feet in places, which was a record for New York City. The National Academy of Sciences estimated every 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit increase in global average surface temperature could be a twofold to sevenfold increase in the risk of extreme storm surge events similar to Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy.

When some people tell us: Well, gee, we cannot afford to address the problems of climate change, I would suggest we cannot afford not to address this crisis, if only for the kinds of money we are going to have to be spending repairing the damage of hurricanes like Sandy, and maybe hurricanes that are even worse.

We heard during a recent Senate environment committee hearing that the State of Florida has already seen 5 to 8 inches of sea level rise in the past 50 years, with no end in sight. In the Florida Keys we expect that nearly 90 percent of Monroe County would be completely inundated at high tide, with just 3 feet of sea level rise, and New Orleans can expect to see an ocean level increase of well over 4 feet by the end of the century.

In other words, what we are looking at here, in Florida, Miami, Louisiana, New Orleans, Massachusetts, Boston, New York City, what we are looking at is seas rising, which actually threatens the very existence of parts of those cities.

Experts are predicting that cities such as Miami, Fort Lauderdale, New York, and New Orleans will face a growing threat of partial submersion within just a few decades as sea levels and storm surge levels continue to climb. What will it mean if the seas continue to rise and extreme weather events--severe drought, wildfires, storms, flooding--become much more common? One of the most important consequences will be massive human dislocation all over the world.

More than 32 million people fled their homes in 2012 because of disasters such as floods and storms. An estimated 98 percent of this displacement was related to climate change. So when you look into the future--and one of the reasons that agencies such as the CIA and the Department of Defense and other security agencies worry very much about climate change is they see the national security implications of massive dislocations of people in different States or regions of the country fighting over limited resources, water, land, in order to survive.

The Department of Defense, in its 2010 Quadrennial Review, called climate change a potential ``accelerant of instability or conflict.'' The potential economic impact of climate change on agriculture, for example, is huge. Water scarcity will make it harder to irrigate fields, and higher temperatures will make some areas unsuitable for growing crops. A study from the International Food Policy Research Institute found that globally climate change will greatly increase prices for staple crops such as corn, wheat, rice, and soybeans, including an approximately 100-percent increase in the price of wheat.

What this means for Americans, for people all over the world who are already struggling economically, is that climate change will mean less areas being farmed and higher food prices, something we cannot afford right now.

I think the question some viewers may have is, if the science is so clear--and it really is quite clear here in the United States and around the world--why do we not fix it? Why do we not come up with the bold strategy we need so America is a leader in the world in cutting greenhouse gas emissions and transforming our energy system? The good news here is the transformation of our energy system is going to be less expensive, if you like, than doing nothing.

Doing nothing means that we will see higher food prices, we will see wildfires, we will see scarcities of food, and we will see weather disturbances wreaking havoc on communities all over America and around the world, requiring huge amounts of monies to address those problems. What is the alternative? What do we begin to do?

The answer and the good news is that we--right now, today--have the technology to begin the process of significantly transforming our energy system. We know how to do it with today's technology, and that technology will only be improved in months and years to come.

I will give a few examples of some of the good news that is happening in terms of the ability that we now have to move to sustainable energy.

The cost of solar--which certainly will be one of the major sustainable energy technologies that we look to in the future-- continues to plummet.

The Solar Energy Industries Association, in a report issued only last week, reported that the average weighted cost of a solar PV system was $2.59 per watt, a 15-percent drop from the year before.

According to the Solar Energy Industries Association, utility-scale solar--perhaps the best comparison to utility-scale conventional electricity generation--now costs on average 7.7 cents per kilowatt hour compared to about 10 cents per kilowatt hour on average for power plants now operating across the United States.

The cost of wind energy is also comparable to or even less than the cost of other more traditional energy sources. The average cost of wind power coming online between now and 2018 is estimated to be 8.6 cents per kilowatt hour, even without including the value of the production tax credit.

Moving to sustainable energies such as solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, and hydropower clearly is something that we should be doing very aggressively.

When we do that, we not only cut greenhouse gas emissions, we not only significantly cut air pollution but in the process we create many jobs as we transform our energy system. But sustainable energy is only one part of the equation. What we must also do is invest very significantly in energy efficiency and in sustainable energy. Every dollar invested in efficiency and low-income households through the Weatherization Assistance Program results in $2.53 in energy and nonenergy benefits for a community.

I suspect the story is the same in Maine as it is in Vermont, but I can remember meeting with two older women who were sisters. They lived in Barre, VT, and they were able to get their homes weatherized. Their home, as many of the homes in Vermont, was old, leaking energy, not well insulated, did not have good windows, did not have good roofing, and the heat was just going right through the walls. As a result of a weatherization project in their home, their fuel bill went down by 50 percent.

These were seniors and low-income citizens. When we move in this direction, we can save Americans substantial sums on their fuel bills. We create local jobs. We cut greenhouse gas emissions. If that is not a win-win-win situation, then I don't know what is.

It seems to me that we should be investing substantially in subsidies such as the Investment Tax Credit and the Production Tax Credit. Every dollar we invest in these efforts yields many more in savings.

It is also true that when some of my friends object to the government helping to assist sustainable energies or putting money into energy efficiency, they seem to forget that the very mature and very profitable fossil fuel industry benefits very substantially from the subsidies that we have provided them. In fact, American taxpayers are set to give away over $100 billion to the oil, gas, and coal industries over the next decade through a wide range of subsidies, tax breaks, and loopholes.

If we can subsidize the coal industry, if we can subsidize ExxonMobil and the oil industry, if we can subsidize the gas industry, we sure as heck can subsidize and provide support for wind, solar, and other sustainable energies.

I come to the end of my remarks and suggest the following: The time is now for us to take bold and decisive action. As my colleague Senator Franken mentioned, those of us who have kids--and I have four--and those of us who have grandchildren--I have seven beautiful grandchildren--they will look us in the eye 20 years from now and say: Why did you let this happen? Didn't you know what was happening? Didn't you understand what lack of action would do for our country and the planet?

That is the issue we face. We need to have the courage now to stand up to extremely wealthy and powerful forces in big energy--and that is the coal companies, the oil companies, the gas companies--and come up with an alternative vision for energy in America.

In that regard, I am proud to have joined with my colleague, the chair of the environmental committee, Senator Barbara Boxer, to introduce last year the Climate Protection Act.

Our bill does what, at the end of the day, every serious person understands must be done, and that is to establish a fee on carbon pollution emissions--an approach, by the way, endorsed not only by progressives but also by moderates and even prominent conservatives such as George Shultz, Nobel laureate economist Gary Becker, Mitt Romney's former economic adviser Gregory Mankiw, former Reagan adviser Art Laffer, and former Republican Congressman Bob Inglis.

In other words, there is an understanding that if we are to be serious about addressing the need to cut carbon emissions, there has to be a tax on those emissions.

Our legislation, which has been endorsed by, I believe, almost every major environmental organization, does several things. What we do in a very significant way is to invest in energy efficiency and weatherization because that is the low-hanging fruit. What we also do is invest, very significantly, in sustainable energy. Also, importantly, in the event that folks are paying increased costs for electricity or for other areas, much of the money is returned directly to taxpayers.

Let me conclude by saying we can have an honest debate about the best path forward to transform our energy system. This is complicated stuff, and I don't think anyone has the magic answer, but we can debate that. What we can no longer debate is whether climate change is real, whether it is caused by human activity or whether it is today causing serious harm to our country and serious damage all over this planet or whether that devastation will only get worse in years to come.

Right now we have to summon up the courage to acknowledge that we are in a crisis situation and that bold action is needed now. I happen to believe that with the United States playing a leadership role, China, India, Russia, and other major consumers of fossil fuels will follow our leadership. Our credibility is not much if we are not what we are talking about. If we want to lead the world, we have to act. This is something our children, and our grandchildren expect of us and something I hope we can, in fact, do.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two science policy fellows from my office, Anna Mebust and Melissa Holtmeyer, be granted floor privileges through the end of the session.

I also want to thank them, as well as my environmental policy adviser, Jacob Smith, for all of the hard work they have done on this important issue.

Reserving the right to object.

Mr. President, I thank very much my colleague from Louisiana for bringing forth this very important issue. Senator Mary Landrieu from Louisiana has also raised this issue, as have many colleagues.

My friend from Louisiana is absolutely right; this is an important issue and this is an issue that should be passed. But I would say to my friend from Louisiana that last week we brought forth the most comprehensive piece of veterans legislation in the modern history of the United States of America, and that legislation dealt with many issues raised by veterans organizations that represent millions of men and women who have put their lives on the line to defend our country.

Let me very briefly--very briefly--touch on some of those issues included in this comprehensive piece of legislation that lacked three votes. We had 56 votes. One Senator was absent and would have voted, so we need three votes to pass this. This would have addressed some of the serious problems in the claims backlog that my friend from Louisiana is more than familiar with. It would have addressed the crisis of advanced appropriations to make sure if there is ever again another government shutdown that no veteran--disabled veteran and no veteran who is on a pension--would fail to get their check.

This legislation also included an enormously important provision expanding the caregivers program, so wives and sisters and brothers taking care of disabled vets finally get the attention they deserve.

That legislation would have addressed a terrible problem facing some 2,300 families, where men and women who were injured in Iraq and Afghanistan and can no longer have babies receive help through in vitro fertilization or other processes or adoption, if they want the help, in order to have families.

The legislation also addressed the very serious problem that many of our young men and women are not getting the education they need because States are not allowing them to get instate tuition.

That legislation addressed many other crises, which is why that legislation had the support of the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Disabled American Veterans, the Vietnam Veterans of America, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, and in fact virtually every veterans organization in the country.

So let me say this to my friend from Louisiana, and I say this sincerely. What I will not do is dismember this piece of legislation. What I will do is work with my colleague and other Republicans who voted against this comprehensive piece of veterans legislation so we can bring to the floor a bill that reflects the needs of millions and millions of veterans who are hurting.

I look forward to working with my colleague from Louisiana on a comprehensive bill, but at this point I object to his proposal.

Mr. President, let me reiterate my hope that the Senator from Louisiana will in fact work with us. It is my intention to see this bill gets to the floor again before Memorial Day. I think we owe it to the men and women who have put their lives on the line to defend this country to address their serious needs.

The issue of these 27 medical facilities is one of those needs, but there are many more, and I look forward to working with the Senator from Louisiana and other Senators to do what the veterans communities want us to do and to go forward on what will be the most significant piece of legislation to take care of the needs of our veterans passed in several decades.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my friend from Alabama for accommodating my schedule. I will have more to say on this issue later this afternoon. But let me at this point simply say: Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the waiver provisions of applicable budget resolutions, I move to waive all applicable sections of that act and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of the pending bill, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, as chairman of the Senate Veterans Affairs' Committee, I want to thank many people for helping me bring forth the legislation we are going to be voting on this afternoon.

I thank those people who have come down to the floor to speak on behalf of our veterans. That includes Majority Leader Reid, who has been so helpful throughout, Senators Murray, Blumenthal, Heinrich, Pryor, Durbin, Merkley, Walsh, Shaheen, and Casey. I suspect I have left out some Members.

I thank my entire staff at the Veterans Affairs' Committee--Steve Robertson, Dahlia Melendrez, Travis Murphy, Kathryn Monet, Kathryn Van Haste, Elizabeth Austin, Carlos Fuentes, Ann Vallandingham, Rebecca

Thoman, Jason Dean, Shannon Jackson, Shanna Lawrie, and Rafael Anderson--for their help on this effort.

I thank the 28 cosponsors of this important legislation. I will not read their names. They know who they are, and I thank them very, very much.

As I indicated earlier, this legislation is not Bernie Sanders' legislation. This is legislation that, by and large, comes from the hearts and souls of the veterans of this country.

As chairman of the committee, I thought it was my obligation to listen to what the veterans of our country were saying about their problems and their needs and how we might go forward, and that is what I and others on the committee did. We listened. That is the reason why this legislation is being supported by virtually every veterans organization in the United States of America, representing millions and millions of veterans. I thank them for their support--and not only for their support but for their help in crafting this legislation: the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Disabled American Veterans, Jewish War Veterans, Vietnam Veterans of America, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, Wounded Warrior Project, Gold Star Wives, Student Veterans of America, Air Force Sergeants Association, American Ex-Prisoners of War, Association of the United States Navy, Commissioned Officers Association of the U.S. Public Health Service, National Guard Association of the United States, Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States, Fleet Reserve Association, Marine Corps League, Marine Corps Reserve Association, Military Officers of America Association, Military Order of the Purple Heart, National Association of Uniformed Services, Non Commissioned Officers Association, Retired Enlisted Association, American Military Retirees Association, National Coalition for Homeless Veterans, National Association of State Veterans Homes, and many other veterans organizations. Thank you very much for your support for this legislation.

It is no secret that Congress today is extremely partisan and to a significant degree dysfunctional. That is why the approval rating of Congress is somewhere around 15 percent. There are problems facing the American people, and we cannot address those problems. The American people are profoundly disgusted with what we do and, in fact, with what we do not do.

I had hoped from the bottom of my heart that at least on this issue-- the need to protect and defend the veterans of this country and their families, others who have given so much to us--we could rise above the day-to-day rancor and the party politics we see here on this floor almost every single day.

We will, in fact, see within a short while whether we will rise to the occasion, whether we will, in fact, stand with the veterans of this country, or whether once again we are going to succumb to the same-old, same-old politics that we see almost every day.

Let me very briefly touch upon some of the objections my Republican colleagues have made to this bill. Some of them--not a whole lot, by the way, but some have come to the floor and they have objected to this bill. So let me respond to some of their concerns.

Some of my Republican colleagues have said they cannot vote for this bill because they could not get the opportunity to offer an amendment on the Iran sanctions situation.

Mr. President, you know what. The issue of Iran sanctions is an important issue, but it has nothing to do with the needs of veterans. In case people do not understand it, this is a comprehensive veterans bill, and while Iran sanctions may be important, they have nothing to do with what we are discussing today. That is not just my opinion. Far more importantly, we have the opinion of the largest veterans organization in this country, which represents over 2 million veterans, and that is the American Legion. Here is what Daniel M. Dellinger, the national commander of the American Legion, said just yesterday on this issue:

Iran is a serious issue that Congress needs to address, but

it cannot be tied to S. 1982--

This veterans legislation--

which is extremely important as our nation prepares to

welcome millions of U.S. military servicemen and women home

from war. This comprehensive bill aims to help veterans find

good jobs, get the health care they need and make in-state

tuition rates applicable to all who are using their GI Bill

benefits. This legislation is about supporting veterans, pure

and simple. The Senate can debate various aspects of it, and

that's understandable, but it cannot lose focus on the matter

at hand: helping military personnel make the transition to

veteran life and ensuring that those who served their nation

in uniform receive the benefits they earned and deserve. We

can deal with Iran--or any other issue unrelated specifically

to veterans--with separate legislation.

That is Mr. Dellinger, the national commander of the largest veterans organization in this country. I thank him very much because he is exactly right, and he reflects what the overwhelming majority of the American people believe: Deal with the issue at hand.

But it is not just the American Legion I want to thank. The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America tweeted the other day:

The Senate should not get distracted while debating &

voting on the vets bill. Iran sanctions, Obamacare, etc.

aren't relevant to S. 1982.

They are absolutely right. Let's talk about veterans' needs.

Now, some other Republican colleagues, in objecting to this bill, have said they cannot vote for it because it is not bipartisan enough and it has not been fully marked up in committee.

Well, that is not quite true. Almost all of the provisions in this bill did come out of the committee. In fact, two of the major components of this bill--two separate omnibus bills--were passed by a unanimous vote. You cannot get much more bipartisan than when you have two major provisions in a bill passing with all Republicans and Democrats voting for it. That is pretty bipartisan where I come from.

Furthermore, this legislation contains a number of provisions authored and supported by Republican members of the Veterans Affairs' Committee. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, there are 26 separate provisions that Republican members have authored or cosponsored.

This legislation also includes two key provisions that were passed in a bipartisan way by the Republican House of Representatives. With almost unanimous votes, the House passed a provision that we have in this legislation that would authorize the VA to enter into 27 major medical facility leases in 18 States and Puerto Rico. In other words, this was a new provision that I did add to this bill, was not discussed in committee but, in fact, has overwhelming bipartisan support. The second provision we added to the bill not discussed in committee also passed the House with broad support, and that deals with the very important issue of ensuring that veterans can take full advantage of the post-9/11 GI bill and get instate tuition in the State in which they currently live.

So to as great a degree as possible I have tried to make this bill a bipartisan bill. That is where we are.

Now, other Republicans have come to the floor and they have objected to this bill because they argue that by expanding VA health care to veterans currently not eligible for it--veterans who in some cases are trying to get by on $28,000, $30,000 a year in this tough economy; and it is true, we do expand VA health care to those veterans who do not have a whole lot of money--the Republicans who object say, well, that would open the floodgates for millions or tens of millions--I think somebody said 22 million veterans--every veteran in America would be eligible for VA health care, that the health care system would be swamped and health care, especially for those most in need, would deteriorate because so many people came into the system.

As I mentioned yesterday, this is absolutely untrue. No new veteran would be added into VA health care until the VA had the infrastructure to accommodate those new veterans. So we are not opening the door for millions of new veterans--not true--and, as currently is the case, those with service-connected disabilities would continue to get the highest priority service, as they currently do and which, in my view, should always be the case. Those who were injured in war are the top priority, and those folks must always be the top priority, and that is certainly the case in this legislation.

Then last but not least there is the objection that we are going to be dealing with in about 45 minutes--the vote

we will be having--and that is that some of my colleagues basically say: Senator Sanders, this bill is just too expensive and we just cannot afford to pass it. This bill costs $21 billion--that is a lot of money, I do not deny it--and that is just too much money, and we cannot afford to pass this bill, which helps millions of veterans.

I want to respond to that point in two ways. First, I want to address it from an inside-the-beltway, more technical perspective, and then I want to talk to the American people about the cost of war and what we can afford and what we cannot afford.

In terms of the funding of this bill, the Congressional Budget Office--the nonpartisan scorekeeper--has estimated that mandatory spending in this bill will total $2.88 billion over the next 10 years-- $2.88 billion. All of this mandatory spending is completely offset. Let me repeat that. All of this mandatory spending is completely offset, not by OCO funds, but through more than $4.2 billion in actual savings from the programs within the jurisdiction of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee. As a result, CBO has determined that overall mandatory spending in this bill will be reduced--will be reduced--by more than $1.3 billion.

That is what the CBO said. In addition, this bill authorizes $18.3 billion in discretionary spending. We have 4.2 in mandatory, more than offset, and then we have 18.3 billion in discretionary spending over the next 5 years.

As the Presiding Officer knows, there is no rule in the Senate that an authorization of funding has to be offset. That is what the Committee on Veterans' Affairs is. We are an authorizing committee. We are not an appropriations committee. In essence, the discretionary spending provisions in this legislation are just recommendations on how much additional funding we believe is needed for our Nation's veterans. It will be up to future legislation in the Appropriations Committee, as is always the case, to approve or disapprove of these recommendations.

In other words, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, an authorizing committee, has made a recommendation. The final word, as is always the case when we spend money, rests with the Appropriations Committee. The discretionary spending authorized under this bill is, in fact, paid for by using savings from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, otherwise known as the OCO fund.

Again, these are recommendations. The Appropriations Committee has the final word. CBO estimates that spending for Overseas Contingency Operations will total a little over $1 trillion over the next decade. Spending as a result of this legislation to improve the lives of millions of our veterans will be less than 2 percent of that $1 trillion. So anybody who comes down to the floor and says this bill is going to take away from the needs of our men and women in Afghanistan or elsewhere is simply inaccurate.

One trillion dollars is what is in the fund for the next 10 years. We spend less than $20 billion of that fund. Some people say, well, yes, that is fine. But OCO funding has to go into ammunition, it has to go into planes, it has to go into tanks. That is where it goes.

That is not quite the case. Let me give you an example of how we have spent past overseas contingency operation funds.

Since 2005, the Defense Department has used OCO funding for childcare centers, for hospitals, for traumatic brain injury research, for equipment, and schools. In 2010, $50 million of OCO funds were used for the Guam Improvement Enterprise Fund. To my mind, if we can use money for the Guam Improvement Enterprise Fund--I do not know much about that--I do believe we should be able to use some of the OCO funds to protect the needs of men and women who made enormous sacrifices defending our country.

Last year OCO funds were allocated to a number of countries around the world: Egypt, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Lebanon, Somalia, South Sudan, and many other countries.

This year $28 million in OCO funding is being used for the TRICARE health care program. In other words, we are using a tiny percentage, less than 2 percent of the funds in the OCO fund, to protect veterans. We have seen over the years OCO funding used in a whole lot of other areas.

I happen to believe that what we are trying to do with OCO funds falls well within the definition of what that fund is supposed to be used for. If we are supposed to be using that fund for military purposes, then we take care of the military personnel who served our country--totally legitimate, totally consistent.

That is kind of the technical, inside-the-beltway explanation for why I think the funding mechanism we have chosen and the approach we have taken is legitimate. But let me get actually to the far more important reason as to why this bill should be passed and it should be paid for; that is, very simply, this bill in a small way attempts to pay back and help veterans and their families for the enormous sacrifices they have made for this country, sacrifices which in the deepest sense can never, ever be fully paid back.

This is what this bill does. This bill helps Members of Congress, on Memorial Day or Veterans Day, when they go out and they meet with veterans and their families, that if a Member of Congress, Member of the Senate bumps into a young veteran who is in a wheelchair, who because of a war-related injury is unable to have a baby and start a family that he or she wanted, some of those injuries, maybe the spinal cord, some of them may have taken place in the genital region, but for whatever reason--we have over 2,000 veterans in this country today who are unable to naturally have babies. Many of them want families. If a Member of the Senate wants to look that veteran in the eyes and say to him or her that they think we cannot afford to help that individual who sacrificed so much for this country have a family, well go do that. Tell that individual that you think we cannot afford to help him or her, but when you do that, I hope you will also tell him why you voted to give $1 trillion in tax breaks to the top 2 percent at a time when the wealthiest people in this country are doing phenomenally well. Virtually all of my Republican colleagues thought it was appropriate to provide huge tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires.

So when you speak to that young veteran who can no longer have a child and you are going to explain why we cannot afford to help that family, tell them it was OK to vote for tax breaks for the Koch brothers or the Walton family, but we do not have enough money to help them start a family.

If you as a Senator see a 70-year-old woman or 75-year-old woman pushing a wheelchair for a veteran who lost his legs in Vietnam, tell that woman, have the courage, have the honesty to tell that woman we cannot extend the caregiver benefits to her that we have, quite appropriately, for the post-9/11 veterans. Tell that woman who may be taking care of that disabled vet 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, who lives under enormous stress, that we do not have the resources to help her with a modest stipend; we do not have the resources as the U.S. Government to maybe have a nurse come in once a week to relieve her. We do not have the resources to give her some technical help for herself, for her husband. Explain to her that we cannot afford to do that.

But then in the same breath, if you please, explain how you can support a situation where one out of four corporations in this country does not pay a nickel in Federal income taxes. It is OK for General Electric, some of the largest corporations in the world in a given year, not to pay a penny in Federal income tax, but we somehow do not have the money to give a little bit of help to a 70-, 75-year-old wife who is working 24/7 to give support to their loved ones.

I say to my follow Senators: If you happen to meet a veteran who is trying to get by on $28,000, $30,000, $35,000 a year, and you notice that the teeth in his mouth are rotting, if you notice that person may not have health insurance, one of the million veterans in this country who have no health insurance, I want you to go up to that veteran and have the courage, the honesty, to tell them that you believe the United States of America does not have the money to take care of his needs, to get him VA health care, to help him fix his teeth.

But explain to him why you may have voted for more than $100 billion in tax breaks for the wealthiest three-tenths of 1 percent because you think we should repeal the estate tax that only applies to the wealthiest three-

tenths of 1 percent, the wealthiest of the wealthy. You are prepared to vote, and virtually all Republicans are, to give millionaire and billionaire families, the wealthiest of the wealthy, the top three- tenths of 1 percent, $100 billion in tax breaks, but we are not prepared, we supposedly do not have the money to get VA health care for someone making $28,000, $30,000 or dental care for someone whose teeth are rotting in his mouth.

You go explain that. Have the honesty, the courage, guys, to say: Yes, tax breaks for billionaires, but we do not have the resources to get you into VA health care. I want you to explain to a young woman who left the military, maybe broken in spirit because she was raped or sexually assaulted while in the military, tell her America does not have the resources to get her, through the VA, the proper care she needs to get her life back together after her sexual assault. Tell her that.

If you happen to meet a young man who was eligible for the post-9/11 GI bill, who today cannot afford to go to college where he lives because he is not eligible for in-state tuition and there is a gap between what the GI education bill pays and what is required in the State he is living in of $10,000, he cannot afford it, cannot go to college, explain to him that we do not have the money to help him.

If you bump into an old veteran--we have heard some discussion in the last couple of days that the VA lacks adequate health care facilities, we do not have enough around the country. This legislation that we are voting on right now, that in fact was already passed in the House, provides for the VA to enter into leases for 27 medical facilities all across this country in 18 different States.

Tell him, tell that 70-year-old veteran or the 80-year-old veteran who wants access to primary health care near where he lives that we do not have the resources to provide that primary care, but we can spend billions of dollars rebuilding the infrastructure in Afghanistan, where most of that money is stolen by a corrupt leadership.

Maybe, colleagues, one of you will see a young veteran, one of hundreds of thousands of veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan who are dealing with PTSD or traumatic brain injury or maybe it is a young man who has come back who just cannot find a job in this very tough economy. Go up to him and say: Yes, tax breaks for the rich are great; corporations not paying taxes, that is OK, but I do not believe we should be providing help to you.

The bottom line is what we believe in. It is not just speeches we give on Memorial Day and on Veterans Day. I know my colleagues give great speeches.

The question is, and the more important issue is, not your fine rhetoric, but are you prepared to vote for programs that help human beings in need. Speeches are great, but action is better and far more important.

This is about who we are as a people. It is about what our priorities are. In my view, at the very top of our priority list has to be to protect and defend those people who protect and defend us, those people who have given much more than we can ever repay.

There are gold star wives who want to go to college, and we allow that in this bill. They lost their husbands. They are trying to take care of their kids. They want a new shot at life. They need a college education. We say they should have that. I don't think that is asking too much.

Enough of the rhetoric, enough of the speeches, enough about how everybody loves the veterans. Now is the time for action. I implore all of my colleagues to overcome this vote, to give us the votes that we need to go forward to protect those who have protected us.

I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object, I do find it interesting that, in the midst of this important debate about the needs of our veterans, my Republican colleagues are on the floor of the Senate and have virtually nothing to say about veterans.

This bill is not about Benghazi. This veterans bill is not about Iran sanctions, it is not about Hillary Clinton. It is about protecting the needs of our veterans. So the amendment of Senator Burr does not go anywhere near as far as we need to go in terms of veterans issues. It brings the Iran sanctions issue into a debate where it should not be brought.

I object.

Mr. President, this budget point of order we are now going to vote on tells us in a very significant way who we are as a people. If you vote for this budget point of order, you are saying that in this great country we do not have the resources to help our veterans with their health care, education, and to be able to deal with sexual assault. We need to help older veterans get the nursing care and build new medical facilities that they desperately need.

I personally--and I have to say this honestly--have a hard time understanding how anyone can vote for tax breaks for billionaires, millionaires, and large corporations and then say we don't have the resources to protect our veterans. We should not be supporting this point of order.

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

Mr. President, let me thank Senators Murray, Durbin, and Blumenthal for their very thoughtful and important remarks regarding the needs of veterans and why it is absolutely imperative we pass this comprehensive veterans legislation. Let me also begin by thanking all of the members of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs for their very hard work in helping to craft what is not only an enormously important piece of legislation impacting the lives of millions of our veterans but is also, to a large degree, a bipartisan piece of legislation.

It is no secret that Congress today is extraordinarily partisan and, in fact, is largely dysfunctional. On major issue after major issue the American people are crying out to us and asking that we address the serious problems facing this country. Yet we are unable to do virtually anything. I hope--and I say this from the bottom of my heart, and as chairman of the Senate veterans committee--that at least on the issue of addressing their needs--the need to protect and defend those veterans who have protected and defended us, those men and women who have put their lives on the line to protect this country--we can rise above the partisan rancor that we see down here on the floor every single day.

That is what the American people want us to do. Not only has the veterans community been clear on the need to pass this bill, but that is what the American people want us to do. They understand the sacrifices made by veterans and their families, and they want us to rise above the partisan acrimony the American people see every single day.

Let me be very clear, and let there be no misunderstanding about this. I have tried, as chairman of the committee, to do everything I can to bring forth legislation which includes provisions from Republicans and provisions from Democrats. My view is, and has been, that if there is a good idea that improves the lives of veterans--I don't care if there is an ``R'' attached to a Senator's name, a ``D'' or an ``I,'' as in my case--let's bring forth that legislation.

The reality is, to the best of my knowledge, there are 26 separate provisions that Republican Members have authored or cosponsored--that is a lot--and some of them are very significant provisions. Further, perhaps most importantly, two of the most important parts of this comprehensive legislation are omnibus bills that were passed unanimously by the committee. So what we have done is brought ideas together in two of the most important provisions in this bill, with two separate omnibus bills passed unanimously by the committee. There are other provisions in the bill that were not passed unanimously but also passed with bipartisan support.

I also want to point out the two provisions that were not discussed at the committee level but have been passed almost unanimously by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, and I believe have strong bipartisan support in the Senate. With almost unanimous votes, the House passed a provision that would solve a long-standing problem and enable the VA to enter into 27 major medical facility leases in 18 States and Puerto Rico. We have virtually that same language in our bill, and that was passed almost unanimously in the House. So I think that is a nonpartisan, bipartisan provision.

A second provision passed by the House with very broad support deals with ensuring that veterans can take full advantage of the post 9/11 GI bill and get in-State tuition in the State in which they currently live. That language I believe is identical in our bill.

So we have major provisions passed in the Republican House with almost unanimous support that are in this bill, and there are two omnibus provisions passed with unanimous support out of our committee, and we have other provisions passed with bipartisan support.

So while I am not here to say this is 100-percent bipartisan, because it is not, we have gone a very long way to do what has not been done very often here in the Senate, and that is to bring everybody's ideas together to pass something that is terribly important for our veterans.

The point I am trying to make here is that I happen to believe that virtually every Member of the Senate, regardless of their political point of view, does care about veterans. I say this especially about the members of the committee--the Veterans' Affairs Committee--who would not be on the committee if they didn't care about veterans. I believe that virtually every Member of the Senate wants to do the best they can for veterans. That is why I have worked so hard to do my best to make sure this bill is as bipartisan as it can be.

In my view, this is, in fact, a very good bill. But like any other piece of legislation, it can be made better. We have 50 States, we have Native American tribes, and we have all kinds of issues out there. There are 100 Senators here in this body who know their States, who know their issues. So let me be very clear in echoing what the majority leader said this morning, and that is he and I want to encourage every Member of the Senate--Democrat, Republican, and Independent--who has germane amendments dealing with veterans issues to please offer those amendments. Bring them to the floor.

My understanding is a number of amendments have already been offered by Democratic Senators and we have some amendments now that have been offered by Republican Senators. I understand Senator Rubio and Senator Collins have offered amendments, as well as a number of Democrats. We look forward to more amendments coming to the floor so that we can have a serious discussion about those amendments.

I hope the one thing that will not happen is that, as we discuss this legislation, instead of having an honest debate about the needs of veterans, that this legislation becomes another forum for the same old partisan politics we have seen for years--the sort of partisan politics the American people are increasingly disgusted with. The American people understand that honest people have differences of opinion on the issues, but they do not want to see serious legislation being sabotaged because of political partisanship.

In my view, with regard to this veterans bill and the fact we have language in this bill which can improve the lives of millions of veterans and their families, I believe it would be extremely disrespectful to the men and women who have put their lives on the line to defend this country to use this piece of legislation dealing with veterans issues as nothing more than a political pawn for other issues that are totally extraneous to their needs.

I fully understand--no great secret here--that my Republican colleagues do not like the Affordable Care Act. They are entitled to their opinion. We have discussed this issue and this law over and over. I ask my Republican colleagues: Please, do not inject ObamaCare into the veterans debate. It has nothing to do with the needs of veterans.

I understand some of my Republican colleagues have strong feelings about sanctions in Iran. Clearly, this is an important issue. But it has nothing to do with the needs of veterans in this country. Please, do not inject the Iran sanctions issue into a debate on how we can improve the lives of veterans and their families.

I know there are strong feelings and disagreements about the wisdom or lack of wisdom of the Keystone Pipeline. I have my views on the issue. Other people have their views on the issue. But, frankly, the Keystone Pipeline has nothing to do with the needs of our veterans. And there are many other issues out there.

Let me at this point quote from a tweet that came out last night from the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America association, and this is what they say. This is the organization that represents the men and women who have fought in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is what they said last night:

The Senate should not get distracted while debating and

voting on the vets bill. Iran sanctions, ObamaCare, et

cetera, aren't relevant to S. 1982.

That is the issue we are debating today, and I absolutely agree with the IAVA on this issue. They also say in another tweet:

In 2013, veterans were not immune from gridlock in

Washington. This year has to be different. We urge the Senate

to pass this legislation.

As I mentioned yesterday, this legislation, in fact, has the support of virtually every veterans organization in the country, representing millions and millions of veterans, from the American Legion to the VFW, the DAV to the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, the Vietnam Veterans of America to the Disabled American Veterans and the Paralyzed Veterans of America. We have dozens of organizations that know how important this legislation is to their members.

So my plea to my colleagues is let's debate veterans' issues. If you have an idea to improve this bill, I welcome it. Let's have that debate. I do not believe this legislation is immune to improvement. We can improve it, but please do not inject extraneous issues in here for totally political reasons. I think that is unfair to the veterans of this country.

As the Presiding Officer well knows, on Veterans Day and Memorial Day, I--and I suspect every Member of the Senate--go out and speak to veterans. We express our deep respect for them and their families and the appreciation for all they have done for our country. Today I hope we can keep faith with those promises. Let us focus on veterans' issues. Let us get the best bill we can. Let's not kill this bill because of the same old same old partisan situation we face.

I will take a few minutes to discuss why we have brought forth this legislation, which has been described as the most comprehensive piece of veterans legislation to have come before Congress in decades.

While in recent years the President and Congress have made good progress--I think the President's budgets have been good; I think Congress, in a bipartisan way, has done a good job in addressing many of the problems facing the veterans community--the truth is, and I hope everybody knows, we still have a very long way to go. Now I will discuss some of the outstanding issues this bill addresses.

I think anybody who has nursed a child or a parent who is ill or injured knows how difficult and stressful this is; how sometimes you have to stay up all night, how sometimes you have to stay with your patient 24 hours a day. I would like people to be thinking about what it means day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, to be taking care of those veterans who are severely disabled in war.

Think about, for a moment, what the stress is and how much of your own life you have given up to your loved ones, and there are tens of thousands of spouses who are now doing nursing and caring for veterans from World War II, from Korea, from Vietnam, from Iraq, from Afghanistan. That is what they are doing right now, and they are doing it because they love their husbands or their wives or their sons or daughters.

The very good news is in 2010 Congress passed legislation to develop a caregivers program for post-9/11 disabled vets. This was a huge step forward. What it said is for those men and women who came back from Iraq and Afghanistan, perhaps without legs, perhaps blind, perhaps without arms, perhaps ill in one way or another through PTSD or TBI, we were going to make sure their wives, their mothers, their sisters, their brothers, their children had the support they need to provide the kind of inhome nursing care those veterans need. This legislation has been very successful for post-9/11 veterans. I will give one example and there are obviously many.

One family who benefited from the VA's caregiver program is Ed and Karen Matayka. They live in my home State of Vermont. In 2010, Ed and Karen were deployed together as medics to Afghanistan with the Vermont Army National Guard, a National Guard of which many of us in Vermont are very proud. Just 2 days before Independence Day, the vehicle Ed was riding in was hit by an IED. The driver, Vermont's Ryan Grady, was killed. We remember that loss very well. Ed and three others were severely injured. Ed lost one leg immediately, suffered a stroke and a severe spinal cord injury. Soon thereafter his other leg was amputated above the knee and he suffered yet another stroke.

After 3 years of rehabilitation, Ed was medically retired from the Army. Because of VA's caregiver program--a program we established in 2010 for post-9/11 veterans and their families--his wife Karen was able to separate from the Army as well as become her husband's full-time caregiver. Karen spends a significant amount of time every day caring for Ed. She helps Ed with personal care, fixing his meals, and all of his transportation, including to and from medical appointments. Karen has gone through the training program and receives a monthly stipend to help compensate for her loss of income.

I think that is the right thing to do. I am not sure there are too many Members in the Senate who don't think that is the right thing to do. Here is a guy who suffered terrible wounds. His wife is now giving up her career to care for him. Should we not help that family? I think we should. Thanks to this program Ed and Karen are able to continue their lives together in their home.

Another important point: What might the alternative be? Send Ed to a nursing home where he would be uncomfortable, not get the care of a loved one, and at great expense to the VA? So this saves us money and provides better care for our veterans. This is what we did in the post- 9/11 caregiver bill. The problem is the bill only applies to post-9/11 veterans.

What I think should happen, what the veterans community thinks should happen, and what I believe the American people think should happen is we should expand that program to all veterans of all wars and their families. There are tens of thousands of family members today who are caring 24/7 for veterans wounded in World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and other wars. They deserve the same benefits the post-9/11 veterans families are now receiving. That important provision is in this legislation, and I hope my colleagues support it.

There is another important provision in this legislation. This is a very important and sensitive issue. There are some 2,300 veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan who, because of a variety of injuries, are unable to start the families they have wanted to start. Some injuries are spinal cord, some may be genital injuries, some just affect the reproductive organs, and they are no longer able to have babies. Many of these young men and women want to have babies, to raise their children, and, as much as they can, to have a normal family.

Right now the VA does not offer reproductive treatments to veterans, meaning the most seriously injured among them cannot access the treatment or care needed to start a family.

Senator Murray, former chair of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, was on the floor yesterday speaking at great length about this important issue. I believe that if we send young people off to war and they become injured and if they want to start a family, we have to assist them in being able to do so. That provision is included in this legislation.

I will talk about another issue we deal with in this bill. Unfortunately, yesterday in discussion this provision was mischaracterized by some who spoke against it. This provision deals with expanding VA health care and making sure some, including some very vulnerable veterans who are today not eligible for VA health care, in fact become eligible.

Currently, VA uses an extremely complicated system to determine eligibility based on income for veterans without service-connected injuries, often what we call priority 8 veterans. The VA now determines income eligibility by looking at the income of an individual and his or her family county by county in each State. I don't know how many thousands of counties we have in the United States of America, but I will discuss what this means in the real world in terms of how the VA currently determines income eligibility.

My own State of Vermont is a small State--620,000 people. We are a rural State. There are just 14 counties. In Vermont, as throughout the country, each county has its own threshold for determining eligibility for priority group 8 veterans.

For a veteran living in Chittenden County, where I live, the threshold to enroll in the VA health care is less than $48,000, but for a veteran living in Windham County, in the southern part of the State, the threshold is less than $39,000. That is a difference of nearly $9,000.

In the State of Georgia, there are 159 counties and nearly as many income thresholds. Imagine that. For a veteran living in Walton County, GA, the threshold is less than $41,000. But if a veteran lives in Coffee County, the threshold is just over $28,000. It may make sense to some people. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

In the State of Texas, there are 254 counties. For a veteran living in Brazoria County near Houston, the threshold is less than $48,000. For a veteran living in Bee County, the threshold is less than $31,000. That is a difference of over $17,000. Frankly, this whole process does not make a lot of sense, and I know from personal experience it is totally confusing to veterans: Am I eligible for VA health care? It depends on which county you live in. It depends on which side of the road you live. This makes no sense at all.

This legislation simplifies the system. We establish a single income threshold for an entire State. So instead of having thousands of income thresholds, we have 50. It is true that the threshold we use would be the highest in each State, therefore, making more veterans eligible for VA health care. In my view, this is exactly what we should be doing.

There may be some in the Senate who believe a veteran in a given State who earns all of $28,000 a year should not be eligible for VA health care because he or she is ``too rich.'' I respectfully disagree. VA provides high-quality, cost-effective health care. There are many veterans in this country struggling economically who want and need VA health care.

I should also add that these newly eligible veterans will pay a copayment just like all other currently eligible priority 8 veterans. Frankly, I would prefer those veterans receive high-quality care at the VA, rather than going into an emergency room at 10 times the cost when they become ill.

Let me reiterate. Unlike what some of my colleagues said yesterday, this important provision does not open VA health care to every veteran in America--and there are 22 million of them--nor does it open the floodgates, bringing in millions and millions of veterans.

I cannot give an estimate, nor can anybody else, how many will take advantage of this provision, but it will be a manageable number, largely because we make very clear--and this is an important point some of my colleagues apparently did not understand. We make it very clear in this legislation that the VA has 5 full years to fully implement this provision in a way that will not negatively impact current patient needs. So anyone who says it is going to open the floodgates for every veteran is not accurate, and that because all of these veterans are coming in we are going to diminish the quality of care for current veterans is not accurate. Let me reiterate this point, which is also in the bill. We understand that the highest priority--and we have talked to disabled American veterans about this issue--for VA health care is to take care of those veterans with service-connected problems. That is the case today and that will remain the case after this bill is passed tomorrow. Those with disabilities and those with service-connected problems will remain the highest priority.

This is a long discussion, and we could go on and on for hours about this. I am also on the health committee and I have studied this issue a little bit. There were some very harsh criticisms made yesterday about VA health care. The truth is that the Veterans' Administration runs 151 medical centers. They run some 900 community-based outreach clinics. They have hundreds of vet centers.

The VA is the largest integrated health care system in the United States of America. It employs hundreds of thousands of workers, doctors, nurses, technicians, you name it. Obviously no one has ever suggested that VA health care is perfect or that there aren't problems within the system. I have talked to veterans in Vermont, and I have talked to veterans all over the country, and by and large there is very strong support for VA health care. These veterans understand that when they walk into a VA facility, the people who are there to treat them understand their problems, and many of the workers are veterans.

I think if you talk to the veterans community, they will tell you not that the VA does not have its share of problems, it certainly does, and not that we should not focus vigorously on improving the care at VA, but they will tell you by and large the care they are getting is good care.

The point I want to make is that before we eviscerate, as was the case yesterday, the Veterans Health Administration's health care system, let us remember today about what is going on in terms of health care in America. Let us understand that the VA is not the only health care system in this country which has problems.

Today, as a nation, we are the only major country on Earth that doesn't guarantee health care to all of its people as a right. Today there are tens of millions of people--even after the Affordable Care Act--who lack any health insurance.

Let's remember that 45,000 people--according to a Harvard study--die each year because they don't get to a doctor on time because they lack health insurance. Let us not forget that in the midst of high premiums, high copayments, and lack of insurance, the United States of America spends almost twice as much per person on health care as do the people of any other nation. Many of those other nations that spend a fraction of what we spend have better health care outcomes than we did in terms of life expectancy, infant mortality, and many other important outcomes.

I will also add that before we go about attacking, in a rather vicious way, the Veterans Health Administration's health care system, we should understand that according to a recent study that appeared in the Journal of Patient Study that between 210,000 and 400,040 people each year who go to the hospital for care suffer some type of preventable harm that contributes to their death. According to that study, that number would make medical errors the third leading cause of death in America behind heart disease and cancer.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 5 additional minutes.

My point in saying that is not to say that the VA health care system doesn't have its problems.

It is to say that we have problems in every health institution in America. That is what we have.

When you look at the VA--and I can go on and on--they are doing some cutting-edge work. If you look at health care technology and health care records, the VA has led the country in that direction.

There was a discussion yesterday--an absolutely correct discussion-- about our concerns within the VA and outside of the VA and about overmedication of people who are dealing with pain problems. To the best of my knowledge, the VA is leading the country and doing cutting- edge work in complementary and alternative medicine with good results. They are saying that maybe we don't have to use all of this medication. Maybe we can use acupuncture, maybe we can use yoga, and maybe we can use meditation. They are doing that aggressively. By the way, this legislation expands those programs.

One of the crises in American health care today is our failure in terms of developing a strong primary health care system. Guess what. The VA has 900 primary health care facilities all over this country. The VA has women's health centers which deal with the specific needs of children.

I could go on and on about it. It is not fair to pick on the VA. They are vulnerable. Every problem they have is on the front pages of the newspapers.

I will never forget that a good friend of mine went into a hospital and died of an infection. It didn't make the front pages of the paper. That is happening all over America.

Yes, of course, we want to improve the VA health care system, but let us thank the hundreds of thousands of highly qualified and dedicated workers who are providing quality care to their patients.

Lastly, I want to say a word on something I feel very strongly about. I have always believed that dental care should be an integral part of health care as a nation and within the VA, and what this bill does for a first time, through a pilot project, is begin the process of opening dental care for nonservice-connected veterans.

There are a number of other provisions I will talk about later. Here is the bottom line: We owe more than we can ever pay back to people who sacrifice so much for this country. I think it is important that we pass this comprehensive legislation. I think it is terribly important that we have a serious debate about the serious issues facing the veterans community.

I look forward to my colleagues--Republican, Democrat, and Independent--bringing forth their ideas and amendments, but please do not disrespect those people who have sacrificed so much by killing this bill because of the same old politics we have struggled with for years. This is a veterans bill. Let's discuss veterans issues.

I yield the floor and thank my colleague for allowing me the extra 5 minutes.

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

Madam President, earlier this afternoon I spoke about the many important provisions in this veterans bill that came out of the Veterans' Affairs Committee: the fact that we worked as hard as we could to make it bipartisan, the fact that there are many provisions in this bill that came from Republican Members, and the fact that some other provisions in this bill were passed unanimously by the House of Representatives, indicating very strong bipartisan support.

But what I also said is that while I believe the American people understand the full cost of war and understand the sacrifices made by veterans and their families, what they also believe is that when we have a piece of legislation--an important piece of legislation--on the floor dealing with the needs of millions and millions of veterans and their families--whether it is health care; whether it is dental care; whether it is sexual assault and how we address that issue; whether it is the fact that over 2,000 veterans have lost their ability to have kids and what we can do to make it possible for them to have children; whether it is the fact that we have tens of thousands of families in this country where loved ones are taking care of disabled vets, need some support, and we have a need to expand the caregivers act; whether it is the fact that we have some young people who are eligible to use the post-9/11 GI bill but are unable to do it because they cannot get in-State tuition; whether it is the issue of advanced appropriations and making sure we never again find ourselves in the position that we did a few months ago, where the government was shut down and where disabled veterans were 1 week or 10 days away from losing the checks they are dependent upon, I think there is widespread support in America for that bill, for the understanding that we do owe the men and women who put their lives on the line to defend us a debt of gratitude that can never be fully paid.

But we have to do our best. We have to make life as good as we can for those who were injured in war. We have to protect the hundreds of thousands who came back from Iraq and Afghanistan with PTSD or traumatic brain injury. But whatever one may think of the bill--whether you like the bill, don't like the bill, think it is too expensive or think we should have done more--the one thing most Americans understand is that it is totally absurd to be bringing forth extraneous issues into a debate on veterans needs in order to kill the bill.

I say to my colleagues exactly what the majority leader said this morning. If you have amendments dealing with veterans issues, we welcome them. We have a number of Democrats who have come forward with amendments. We have some Republicans who have come forward with amendments. We welcome amendments that are relevant and germane to the needs of veterans. What we do not welcome are extraneous amendments that are designed only--only--for partisan, political reasons, exactly the process that the American people are disgusted with today.

Interestingly enough, that is my view. I mentioned earlier today that the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America sent out a tweet yesterday, and the folks who served us in Iraq and Afghanistan said: The Senate should not get distracted while debating and voting on the veterans bill. Iran sanctions, ObamaCare, et cetera, aren't relevant to S. 1982--which is the veterans bill we are dealing with today.

The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America said: Focus on veterans' issues, which is a very simple request and the one that should be heeded.

But today, a little while ago, we heard from the largest veterans' association in America; that is, the American Legion, which represents 2.4 million members. The American Legion is the largest veterans' organization in this country. I suspect they have chapters. I know they are strong in Vermont. I suspect they are strong in Hawaii and strong all over this country.

American Legion National Commander Daniel M. Dellinger said today:

Iran is a serious issue that Congress needs to address, but

it cannot be tied to S. 1982, which is extremely important as

our Nation prepares to welcome millions of U.S. military

service men and women home from war. This comprehensive bill

aims to help veterans find good jobs, get the health care

they need, and make in-State tuition rates applicable to all

who use their GI bill benefits. This legislation is about

supporting veterans, pure and simple. The Senate can debate

various aspects of it, and that is understandable, but it

cannot lose focus on the matter at hand: helping military

personnel make their transition to veteran life and ensuring

that those who served their Nation in uniform receive the

benefits they earned and deserve. We can deal with Iran--or

any other issue unrelated specifically to veterans--with

separate legislation.

I think Commander Dellinger hit the nail right on the head. What he is saying is, fine, we can debate Iran at some point; we can debate ObamaCare, which has been going on day after day after day. We can do anything we want to do, but this is a bill that deals with veterans' issues.

I thank the American Legion not only for their support--they along with virtually every other veterans organization in this country supports this legislation: the VFW, DAV, Vietnam Vets, Iraq-Afghanistan Veterans of America, and dozens of organizations--but I thank the American Legion in particular for their statement in making it clear that our job is to debate a veterans bill, not kill this bill because of an extraneous issue such as Iran sanctions.

I wish to say one other word before I proceed to my main remarks. My colleague from North Carolina quoted from a group called the Concerned Veterans of America. In support of our legislation, we have the largest veterans organization in America, the second largest, third largest, fourth largest, the fifth largest, the sixth largest, and all the way down the line--many millions of Americans. Apparently supporting his position is a group called the Concerned Veterans for America. I don't mean to be personal, but this is just a simple fact that people should understand. This organization, according to the Washington Post, is significantly supported by Charles and David Koch--the Koch brothers. We are going to be running into the Koch brothers on every piece of legislation where there is some group out there that they fund, and in this case it is the Concerned Veterans of America.

I talked earlier about the many important provisions in the bill dealing with reproductive issues, the belief the Federal Government and the VA should assist those men and women who have lost their ability to have kids. We have talked about caregivers and all that, and I want to just touch on a couple more issues at this moment.

I have believed for a very long time that dental care should be regarded as a part of health care. I think we make a mistake as a nation saying this is

health care and this is dental care. Our legislation, for the first time, begins the process of providing dental care to nonservice- connected members through a significant pilot project. I have the feeling once we do this we will see veterans from all over the country who are dealing with long-term dental problems availing themselves of this service. It is the right thing to do and something I think we should be doing.

Another provision in this bill deals with the COLA issue for military retirees. I think everybody here is familiar with the fact that in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 it reduced by 1 percent annually the cost-of-living adjustments for military retirees until age 62.

The good news is the House and Senate recently passed legislation completely rescinding those cuts and the President has signed that bill. That is the good news. The bad news is those cuts continue to exist for those who join the military after January 2014, and I know the veterans organizations are concerned about that. I am concerned about that. I think that is wrong, and our legislation corrects that. So if one is talking about cuts to military retiree COLAs, we end it, pure and simple. Those COLA cuts will no longer exist if this bill is passed.

As I mentioned earlier, this legislation addresses the issue of the benefits backlog. There is great concern among all Members of the Senate that veterans are forced to wait much too long to get their claims processed. What this legislation does is support VA's ongoing efforts to end the backlog and would make needed improvements to the claims system. Again, this is the result of some bipartisan efforts.

Secretary Eric Shinseki of the VA, as he moves the claims system from paper into an electronic system, has advanced the very ambitious goal of making sure that every claim filed by a veteran will be processed in 125 days at 98 percent accuracy. That is a very ambitious goal, and the language we have is going to hold the VA accountable and make sure we reach this very ambitious goal.

I gather there may be differences of opinion on this view, but another provision in our bill deals with the educational needs of servicemembers and making sure they get a fair shot at attaining their educational goals without incurring an additional financial burden, which is what the post-9/11 GI bill was all about. That bill has been enormously successful. There are certain problems remaining in it and we address these problems.

Given the nature of our Armed Forces, servicemembers have little to no say as to where they serve and where they reside during military service. Thus, when transitioning servicemembers consider what educational institution they want to attend, many of them choose a school in a State other than their home State or the State where they previously served. I have heard from too many veterans that many of these public educational institutions consider them out-of-State students. Given that the post-9/11 GI bill only covers in-State tuition and fees for public educational institutions, these veterans are left to cover the differences in cost between the in-State tuition rate and the out-of-State tuition rate. In some States that difference can be more than $20,000 a year.

That is certainly not what the purpose of the 9/11 GI bill was about. As a result, many of our Nation's veterans must use loans to cover this difference and, in the process, become indebted with large school loans that will take them years to pay off.

My office has heard from a number of veterans and veterans organizations about this problem. We heard from Skye Barclay, who lived in Florida prior to joining the U.S. Marine Corps in 2006. After serving her country, Skye decided to remain with her family in North Carolina so her husband could finish serving his military obligations. Less than 1 year later, they moved to Skye's hometown in Florida to transition back to civilian life and finish their college education.

Skye and her husband changed their residency, immediately started renting a home, and ensured her car registration was up-to-date. However, the school she chose to attend could not consider either of these veterans as in-State students. As a result, they were forced to pay an additional $2,000 out-of-pocket each semester. Due to the additional financial burden, Skye and her husband were unable to afford daycare for their daughter and instead have to juggle two demanding schedules, with one of them attending school in the morning and the other late afternoon.

The bottom line is that we passed a post-9/11 GI bill which is working incredibly well. Over 1 million veterans and their family members have used this program. It is very important for higher education in America, and I think we should support our veterans who move to another State and make sure they get in-State tuition.

Let me conclude my remarks at this point, though I will be back later to reiterate the major point I wish to make. We can play the same old politics. My Republican colleagues can defeat this bill because of some extraneous matters in it. I think that is incredibly disrespectful to the veterans community that has sacrificed so much. That is not just my view; that is what the American Legion believes and what the American Legion says: Discuss veterans issues in a veterans bill. The Iraq- Afghanistan Veterans of America say the same.

So we may have disagreements on this bill. People may choose to vote against it for whatever reason. People may offer amendments that we would love to see--some of them may be good, some not so good--but let us respect those folks who have given so much to this country. Let us not demean the veterans community by killing this bill because of something to do with Iran sanctions. That has nothing to do with veterans' needs.

I hope we continue to have a vigorous debate on this piece of legislation. I see my friend from Florida is on the floor. People may want to vote for it. That is good. They may want to vote against it. Fine. But let us not play the same old politics which so disgusts the American people.

With that, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I have talked to a number of my Republican colleagues, some of whom have expressed support for many of the provisions in this comprehensive veterans bill. Many of my Republican colleagues say they would like to support the bill, but they have concerns about how it is paid for and the issue of deficit-- increasing the deficit. So let me say a word about this.

Unlike many expenditures, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the truth is this bill will not add one penny to the deficit. Let me repeat: This bill will not add one penny to the deficit. The Congressional Budget Office--the nonpartisan scorekeeper--has estimated that mandatory spending in this legislation will total $2.88 billion over the next decade. All of this mandatory spending is completely offset not by the overseas contingency operations--or OCO--but through more than $4.2 billion in actual savings from programs within the jurisdiction of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs. As a result, CBO has determined that overall mandatory spending--mandatory spending in this bill--will be reduced by more than $1.3 billion.

In addition to the mandatory spending, this bill authorizes $18.3 billion in discretionary spending over the next 5 years to improve the lives of our Nation's veterans and their families.

As we know, there is no rule in the Senate that an authorization of funding has to be offset. In essence, the discretionary spending provisions in the legislation we are debating today are just recommendations on how much additional funding we believe is needed for our Nation's veterans. It will be up to future legislation originating in the Appropriations Committee to approve or disapprove these recommendations. In other words, the Veterans' Affairs Committee is an authorizing committee; the final decisions in terms of expenditures are made by the Appropriations Committee.

Many of my Republican colleagues have insisted even recommendations of new spending--spending which may never actually happen because it has to go through the Appropriations Committee--be offset. I have done my best to listen to their concerns and have come up with an offset which will not add to the deficit over the next decade.

Specifically, the discretionary spending authorized under this bill is paid for by using savings from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan--otherwise known as the OCO fund. CBO estimates spending for overseas contingency operations will total $1.025 trillion over the next decade, so a little more than $1 trillion. Spending as a result of this legislation will be a tiny fraction of that amount--less than 2 percent.

OCO funds are designed, very broadly, to be used to fund war-related activities. In my view, it is totally consistent with the goals of this funding source to provide support for the men and women who have defended us in those wars.

In recent years OCO funds have provided assistance to Syrian refugees, and have helped the people of Haiti recover from a massive earthquake. Further, since 2005, the Defense Department has used OCO funding for childcare centers, hospitals, schools, traumatic brain injury research, and orthopedic equipment.

In 2010, $50 million in OCO funds was used for the Guam Improvement Enterprise Fund. Last year, OCO funds were allocated to the following countries: Egypt, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Lebanon, Somalia, South Sudan, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Yemen. Last year, OCO funds were used to combat trafficking in persons related to labor migration in the Kyrgyz Republic, and to establish a Tunisian- American Enterprise Fund.

In 2011, $89.36 million was used by the National Guard to support the southwest border of the United States.

This year, $218 million in OCO funding is being used for the TRICARE health care program.

These are some of the ways in the past OCO funding has been used. I am not here to argue about the wisdom of any of those expenditures. Many of them may well be valid. What I will say is the needs of our veterans are also valid. If we can spend OCO funds for the Guam Improvement Enterprise Fund, I think we can use OCO funds to protect the interests of our veterans. Again, this expenditure is less than 2 percent of the savings from ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I have heard my friends on the other side of the aisle call this a budget gimmick. I disagree. Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate have voted several times to count war-related savings as a reduction in the deficit.

For example, virtually every Republican in the House of Representatives and Senate voted for the fiscal year 2012 budget resolution, introduced by Representative Paul Ryan, which counted $1 trillion in deficit reduction from ``phasing down overseas contingency operations''--not what I am saying, but what the Heritage Foundation points out.

If the savings from winding down wars can be counted as deficit reduction, clearly we owe it to our Nation's veterans to use a very small percentage of this fund to make their lives a little bit better at home.

To me, placing modest caps on OCO--overseas contingency operations-- funding to pay for the most comprehensive veterans legislation in a decade is a no-brainer. This money was always intended to assure the well-being and success of those brave men and women who have served our great country.

Finally, I think we should be very clear: The cost of war does not end once the last shots are fired and the last battles are fought. When members of the military lose arms, legs, eyesight, come back with PTSD or TBI from fighting in wars which Congress authorized, we have a moral obligation to make sure those veterans receive all of the benefits they have earned and deserve. When American soldiers die in combat, we have a moral obligation to make sure the spouses and children they leave behind are taken care of as best as we possibly can.

This speaks to the funding of this legislation, and I hope we will have strong support from all of our colleagues.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jason Dean, a military fellow in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of this Congress.

Madam President, every Veterans Day and every Memorial Day many of us, regardless of our political views, go out into our communities and we speak about our respect and admiration for the veterans of this country. As chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs for the last year, I have learned that regardless of political ideology, virtually all Members of the Congress in fact mean what they say and do understand and do appreciate the enormous sacrifices veterans and their families--and their families--have made for our Nation.

Sadly, everybody in this country knows we are living at a time when the Congress is virtually dysfunctional and partisanship runs rampant. But I have found on my committee and in the Congress as a whole that Members do understand the sacrifices made by the men and women who put their lives on the line and do, although we have differences of opinion, want to do the right thing to defend those who have defended us.

The good news is that President Obama and the Congress, in a bipartisan way, have made significant

progress in addressing a number of the problems facing veterans in this country. The President's budgets have been generous and I think Congress has acted in a responsible way.

That is the good news. But the bad news is that we still have a very long way to go if we are to keep faith with those who have put their lives on the line to defend us. We have made progress, but we still have a long way to go. I hope very much that we will go down that road together and we will tell the American people that in the midst of all of the partisanship, all of the politics, at least on this one issue we can stand together and protect the interests of those people who have sacrificed so much for our country.

Congress cannot bring back to their families those who died in battle. As the Presiding Officer knows, just in the recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have lost over 6,700 troops. Congress cannot restore the legs and the arms and the eyesight that roadside explosions have taken away from brave men and women. Congress cannot simply snap its fingers and magically cure the hundreds of thousands who returned from Iraq and Afghanistan with post-traumatic stress disorder or traumatic brain injury or those who suffer from the pain and humiliation of sexual assault. As a nation, however, while we cannot magically solve those problems, we can in fact--and it is our responsibility, in fact--do everything we can to help ease and ameliorate the problems facing our veterans and their families. We can't solve it all--we know that--but we can go further in ameliorating some of the problems facing veterans and their families.

I will give my colleagues a few examples. Congress can help the 2,300 men and women who were looking forward to having families but who suffered reproductive injuries in Iraq and Afghanistan. I believe Senator Murray will come to the floor. She has long been a champion of this issue, as have been others. Let me give my colleagues one case out of 2,300: Army veteran Matt Keil of Colorado was wounded by sniper fire in Iraq in 2007. The sniper's round struck Matt's neck, causing severe damage to a vital artery and his spinal cord. Through sheer determination and with the love and resolve of his wife Tracy, Matt's condition improved. He and Tracy began to consider having children. Doctors assured them that having children could be possible with the help of in vitro fertilization. The Keil family paid more than $30,000 for reproductive treatments. Congress can help the Keil family and others to ease that financial burden. That is a cost of war. We should be there for that family and for the other families who want the opportunity to have children.

Congress can help the tens of thousands of family members who every single day provide loving care for those who were severely injured in World War II, in Korea, in Vietnam, and in other wars. Let me give my colleagues another example.

In March of 1969, Miles Epling was on patrol in Vietnam when a booby trap detonated, killing some of his fellow marines and leaving him without legs. He returned home to West Virginia in a wheelchair. From that point on, he has required around-the-clock help from those around him. His family provided that help without receiving any training, any assistance or any financial support.

Here is the very good news--and we should be very proud of this, in a bipartisan way, as a Congress: In 2010, 4 years ago, Congress passed a very strong and excellent caregivers program for post-9/11 veterans. It is a program that is working well in providing significant help to caregivers of those post-9/11 veterans. I want everybody to put themselves in the place of a wife or sister or mother or brother who around the clock--around the clock, 24/7, 365 days a year--is providing care to folks who have suffered serious injuries in one war or another. We provided support for those caregivers post-9/11, for Iraq and Afghanistan, but we did not do that for the other wars. Now is the time for us to expand the caregivers program for the families of all disabled veterans who are in the same position that Miles is in. That is the fair thing to do, that is the right thing to do, and that is included in this comprehensive piece of legislation.

Because we have the moral obligation to do the very best we can for veterans, the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee has brought forth comprehensive legislation that is strongly supported by virtually every veteran and military organization in the country. Today I thank the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Disabled American Veterans, the Vietnam Veterans of America, the Military Officers Association of America, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the Gold Star Wives of America, and the dozens of other veterans organizations that are strongly supporting this comprehensive piece of legislation.

In their statement of support, the DAV writes:

This massive omnibus bill--

That is the bill that is going to be on the floor in a short period of time. The DAV writes:

This massive omnibus bill, unprecedented in our modern

experience, would create, expand, advance, and extend a

number of VA benefits, services and programs that are

important to DAV and to our members. For example, responding

to a call from DAV as a leading veterans organization, it

would create a comprehensive family caregiver support

program for all generations of severely wounded, injured

and ill veterans. Also, the bill would authorize advance

appropriations for VA's mandatory funding accounts to

ensure that in any government shutdown environment in the

future, veterans benefits payments would not be delayed or

put in jeopardy. This measure also would provide

additional financial support to survivors of

servicemembers who die in the line of duty, as well as

expanded access for them to GI Bill educational benefits.

A two-plus year stalemate in VA's authority to lease

facilities for health care treatment and other purposes

would be solved by this bill. These are but a few--

``A few''--

of the myriad provisions of this bill that would improve the

lives, health, and prospects of veterans--especially the

wounded, injured and ill--and their loved ones.

That is from the Disabled American Veterans. I thank them very much for their support. The truth is that we have letters of support that are similar in nature from dozens of other veterans organizations, and we thank them again for their support.

Madam President, may I ask the time situation--how much time each side has and how much time is remaining?

Very good.

What I would like to do now is yield to the former chairperson of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, somebody who has done an outstanding job for veterans. She has focused on one issue that I feel very strongly about; that is, the need to help those veterans who would like to have children but as a result of war wounds are unable to do so.

I thank my colleague from North Carolina, the ranking member of the Veterans' Committee, for his remarks. I look forward to debating some of the issues the Senator raised because I think it is important for not just the veterans of this country but the tens of millions of people who support our veterans to understand what we are trying to do to improve lives for those people who have put their lives on the line to defend this country.

I did find it interesting that the ranking member from North Carolina suggested in so many words, yes, this bill does have the support of the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Disabled American Veterans, the Vietnam Veterans of America, the Military Officers Association of America, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Gold Star Wives of America, and dozens of other veterans organizations, but the implication was they may be supporting this bill but veterans back home do not. I doubt that very much. In fact, I happen to believe these organizations do a very good job in representing the interests of their veterans and that they listen to the veterans.

As the ranking member understands, this bill was put together not from my head, not from his head or any Member of the Senate's head. We listened to the veterans community which came forward before the Congress. In fact, today there was a joint session--which I had to miss because I was here--with the DAV, and then we are going to hear from the American Legion, from the VFW--we are going to hear from all the veterans organizations.

This bill represents what those veterans organizations said the veterans community needs. I strongly disagree with the Senator from North Carolina in suggesting the veterans organizations do not do an effective job in representing their membership.

The other point I will make is that I look forward to this debate. Every now and then it is a good idea to have a debate on real issues on the floor of the Senate, so I look forward to this debate. But in terms of the suggestion that this is not a bipartisan bill--I do understand absolutely not every word in here nor every source of funding is supported by our Republican colleagues, but as chairman of the Veterans' Committee, I have worked as hard as I could--and I believe the ranking member knows this--to develop as best I could a bipartisan piece of legislation. I remind all the Members of the Senate and the American people this legislation contains a significant number of provisions authored and supported by Republican members of the Veterans' Committee, including my friend from North Carolina. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, there are some 26 separate provisions which Republican Members have authored or cosponsored. That is not an insignificant number.

Further, perhaps two of the most prominent provisions are the omnibus bills. That is when we collect the number of different bills and we put them into one pot. We did that on two occasions. As the ranking member knows, the vote on each of those omnibus bills was unanimous. Every Democrat, every Republican, and the Independent chairman of the committee voted for them. In truth, other important provisions were passed--not unanimously, of course, but they did pass in many cases with bipartisan support.

Furthermore, this bill contains two key bipartisan provisions passed overwhelmingly by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.

So let me acknowledge that not every provision in this bill was brought before the committee. That is true. But the two major provisions which were not brought before this committee are bipartisan and in fact have been passed overwhelmingly by the Republican- controlled House.

With almost unanimous votes, the House passed the same provision included in the Senate bill which would solve a longstanding problem to authorize the VA to enter into 27 major medical facility leases in 18 States and Puerto Rico.

My friend talks about the fact that we need more infrastructure for our veterans. He is right. This bill provides 27 major medical facility leases in 18 States and Puerto Rico, and in an absolutely overwhelmingly bipartisan vote that language was passed in the House.

The second bill--not included in our discussions in the Senate committee--also passed with very broad support in the House--deals with ensuring that veterans can take full advantage of the post-9/11 GI bill and get instate tuition in the State in which they currently live. If I am not mistaken, I believe my friend supports that provision.

It is fair to say not every provision was debated in the committee. He is right. But the two major provisions that were not, were passed with overwhelming support in the House and I believe will pass with overwhelming support in this body and are included in this legislation.

I believe virtually every Member of the Senate, regardless of his or her ideology, cares about veterans--and I know the Senator from North Carolina does--and all of us want to do the very best we can. That is why I have worked so hard with Members of my committee, with Republicans and Democrats, to make this bill as bipartisan as it possibly could be. I am not here to say it is 100 percent bipartisan. It is not. But we worked hard, and there are significant and major provisions in this bill which come from my Republican colleagues because they were good ideas. As chairman of the committee, my view is we don't reject an idea because somebody has an ``R'' next to their name. If they have a good idea, it is in the bill.

May I ask the President how much time remains.

I will very briefly touch on some of the other provisions in the bill.

We restore full COLA for military retirees. As we all know, the House and the Senate passed and the President signed the bill to undo the provision in the Budget Act, but they did not include those members of the military

who signed up after January 2014. They are still suffering from a cut in the COLA. We address that.

This bill does expand VA health care and among other ways it provides dental care. I don't know about other States, but in my State--and I suspect all over this country--in talking to veterans, they think dental care is part of health care. Right now, except for service- connected situations, dental care is not provided. We have a major pilot project to say to veterans: Yes, dental care is part of VA health care and you can get that.

As to advanced appropriations for the VA, not everybody knows this, but we were 7 to 10 days away from disabled veterans not getting their checks when the government was shut down. This legislation ensures veterans receive consistent access to the benefits they have earned by establishing advanced appropriations for the mandatory accounts at VA.

We move forward in a bipartisan way to end the benefits backlog. My colleague from North Carolina pointed out it is a serious issue. Everybody agrees it is a serious issue. I think the VA is making some progress. This legislation has significant language to help the VA move forward in that area.

This legislation would extend from 5 years to 10 years unfettered access to VA health care for recently separated veterans to address their health care needs early.

This legislation renews our vow to hire veterans, making sure veterans get the employment opportunities many are now lacking when they come back from Iraq and Afghanistan.

This legislation deals in a significant way with the horrendous issue of sexual assault, making sure victims of sexual assault--women and men--get the care they need at the VA.

I will conclude by saying this is a serious bill which deals with a very serious issue. My hope is every Member treats the needs of veterans with the respect they deserve. I look forward to the debate which I am confident we will have.

Clearly, this is not a perfect bill, and I know there are Members who have ideas as to how they can improve it. This is what the legislative process is about. My sincere hope, however, is amendments which are brought forth deal with veterans issues and not amendments which are not relevant and not germane to this discussion.

I ask unanimous consent for an additional 30 seconds.

The ranking member and I have disagreements, and that is what the legislative process is about. Let's debate the issues on the floor.

I hope we show our respect to the veterans by not getting into issues that have nothing to do with veterans' needs. I hope we are not off debating Iran or ObamaCare or gay marriage or whatever it may be. I guess those are good political issues for some people. I hope people understand how significant and important the issue itself is--the needs of our veterans--and we stay focused on that issue as we bring forth amendments.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I look forward to discussing in the next several days the issues Senator Coburn raised, but I did want to make one clarification, and I hope the Senator is listening. He repeatedly indicated this legislation opens the door to every one of the 22 million veterans in America, and then proceeded to say that once you open the door, you are going to have inadequate care because we don't have the resources to take care of 22 million veterans. That simply is inaccurate and that is not in the legislation.

There is nothing in the legislation that says we open the door to every veteran in America regardless of income. So when people talk about the VA suddenly being flooded by veterans and care being diminished because of the huge increase into the system, that is just not true.

What is true? What is true right now is we have an absurd and complicated income eligibility system throughout this country. What happens in the State of Vermont or the State of California--one's eligibility for the VA, if you are a priority 8--is different and dependent upon the county in which you live. So in Vermont, you can be living in a county where if your income level is $45,000 a year you are eligible for VA health care, but in a county where the line is drawn just across the street, you may not be eligible. In States such as California or Georgia, which have many, many, many counties, you have the absurd situation where a person living on one side of the street is eligible for VA health care, but the person living on the other side of the street is not eligible for VA health care.

This is totally absurd, and we end up having hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of different income eligibility standards. So what this legislation does is not open the door--and I hope my Republican colleagues will not continue to say it because it is not true--but it does say that in a State where you have different income eligibility standards based on counties, what we will do is have one income eligibility standard per State, that being the highest level. So we will have 50 different standards--50 different standards for 50 different States--not have hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of different standards. In every State there will be an income eligibility level, but it will not open the door for health care to 22 million veterans.

Second of all, we were very careful in this legislation to say, if a veteran who, under this bill, would be eligible for VA health care, a veteran who can newly access VA health care, we absolutely have to have the medical infrastructure available so that all veterans will get the quality care they need; so that new veterans coming in will not diminish service for other veterans. In this bill we make clear--and we made this clear in our long discussion with the Disabled American Veterans--the priority for the VA remains those veterans who are injured in action, those veterans who need that care. That is the highest priority that we establish.

So when people say we are opening the door to all veterans, care is going to be diminished, that simply is not true. That is not what the bill says.

Thirdly, let me reiterate some of the provisions in this bill, because before we vote on final passage--and, by the way, I want to take this opportunity to thank every Member of the Senate for voting to proceed. I think it is time we had some very serious debate about VA health care, and now is the time to do it. But let me reiterate a point I made earlier. Senator Coburn raised important issues, Senator Burr before him raised important issues, and we should debate those issues. But in all due respect for the veterans of this country, who have sacrificed so much, let us not politicize this debate on veterans issues by bringing in sanctions against Iran or let us not bring in ObamaCare, let us not bring in the dozens of other issues that are out there. Let us debate this issue on its merits. Let us bring forth amendments which deal with veterans issues.

Senator Coburn and Senator Burr have amendments which deal with veterans issues. I welcome those amendments. Let us have those debates. Nobody ever suggested this bill is perfect. There are a lot of Senators out there, Democrats and Republicans, who have ideas about how we can improve the services and the programs we provide to veterans. I welcome those ideas. But do not destroy this legislation by politicizing it, by doing what we have done month after month, year after year, which is why the American people have so much contempt for what goes on in Congress. Let us focus on veterans issues.

We have differences of opinion. Let us debate those issues. Let us not bring in extraneous matters, poison pills, which will give people a reason to vote against this bill. Let us debate veterans issues.

Let me talk about some of the issues in this bill that my Republican colleagues did not talk about. No. 1, I am proud--I hope we are all proud--that recently we made sure the promises made to military retirees were kept, that we rescinded the 1-percent COLA decrease that was in the bipartisan budget agreement. But we did not go far enough. Men and women who are joining the military after January 2014 are still subject to that decrease in COLA.

Are we in favor of keeping promises to all veterans, including the new members of the Armed Forces or are we not? Let us debate that issue. I believe that we keep our promises to all veterans. That is in the bill. If people want to oppose that, they have the right to oppose that.

We have heard in several instances that the VA does not have the medical infrastructure to take care of the needs of veterans, and that is true. That is why in this bill we authorize the VA to enter into 27 major medical facility leases in 18 States and in Puerto Rico--18 States and Puerto Rico.

So don't come forward and say ``gee, VA does not have the infrastructure to

take care of veterans needs'' but then vote against a provision that significantly expands VA health care capabilities. I talked a moment ago about what we mean by expanding VA health care. We do away with the absurdly complicated bureaucratic situation that now exists in which there are hundreds of different income eligibility standards in the 50 States of the country. We reduce it to 50. In California or Vermont, you will know whether you are eligible for health care as a Priority 8 veteran.

Does it open the opportunity for more veterans to come into VA health care? It does. The reason is because VA provides good-quality health care to our veterans, which is why the veterans throughout this country whom I have talked to and in patient satisfaction surveys approve and are supportive of VA health care. More want to come into the system.

We heard just how terrible and awful VA health care is, and then we heard: We don't want to open the doors because it is going to be flooded with new people coming into VA health care. You can't have it both ways. If VA health care is so terrible, why are you afraid of new people coming into VA health care? The answer is that if you go out to the veterans community, they will tell you: Yeah, there are problems in VA. But there are problems in every health care institution in this country. Over 30,000 Americans die every single year because they don't get to the doctor when they should because they don't have health care. I don't want any veterans to be part of that number.

Hospitals all over this country are struggling with an epidemic of infections. The VA has done better than many other medical institutions in addressing that.

In terms of telehealth--which is so important to veterans in my rural State and in rural States all over the country--guess which medical institution is leading the country in terms of telehealth. It is the Veterans' Administration. That means a veteran can walk into a VA community-based outreach clinic in rural West Virginia and have a teleconference with a specialist in any other part of the country. VA has been cutting-edge in terms of telehealth.

We talk about medical technology and medical health care records. Guess which health care institution in America has led the effort in terms of medical and health care technology. It has been the VA.

So I find it interesting that on one hand some of my colleagues tell us how terrible VA health care is, and on the other hand they are nervous that hundreds of thousands of veterans may want to access VA health care because, in fact, it is one of the best health care institutions in the country.

Does VA have problems? Of course it has problems. I am not aware of any health care institution in America that does not have its share of problems. The difference between the VA and many private or nonprofit hospitals is--and it should be this way--by law, every problem at the VA makes it to the front pages. My guess is that if a hospital in West Virginia or Vermont screws up, they don't necessarily make it to the front pages. Because VA is public and by law they have to be transparent, they are on the front pages.

In terms of advanced appropriations for VA, my friends on the other side have a bit of a problem with that. I don't. I find it interesting that when our Republican colleagues in the House shut down the U.S. Government because they don't like and wanted to defund ObamaCare, we were 7 days to 10 days away from preventing disabled veterans from getting the checks they need in order to survive. So I believe advanced funding for the VA to make sure that they are never put in that position again, that there is money in the bank to pay the benefits we owe to our veterans in the event of another government shutdown, is good public policy.

As I mentioned earlier, when we talk about health care, in my view, we have to talk about dental care as well. If people do not have adequate dental care, it impacts their employability, say if they are missing front teeth. People get sick from infections if they don't have adequate dental care. I think we owe it to our veterans to make sure they do.

This legislation provides a pilot project for 30,000 veterans to begin to access dental care within the VA. We will see how that pilot goes. I suspect we are going to see a huge need out there. And if some of my colleagues think veterans are not entitled to dental care, then we have a difference of opinion. That is fine. Let's debate it. But I think dental care is an intrinsic part of health care in general. I think we have a dental care crisis in the United States of America and within the dental community. Right now dental care is available to those veterans who have suffered service-connected dental problems but not available to veterans in general. I want to change that.

I have heard the discussion about the backlog. Every Member of the Senate is concerned about the backlog. We have had hearings in the Senate about the backlog. I am really glad that today people are concerned about the backlog. I just wonder where they were 5 years ago when--before Obama became President--the VA was probably the largest institution in this Nation, if not the world, that still did all of its benefits processing work on paper, not digitally.

When Secretary Shinseki became Secretary of the VA, he said: We are going to bring the VA into the 21st century. We are going to go from paper to digital, to an electronic system.

That is what they have been doing, and what we have seen is real progress. Is it fast enough for me? No, it is not. But Secretary Shinseki has told me personally and our committee that they are on track, so by the end of 2014 all VA claims will be processed within 120 days with 98 percent accuracy. That is pretty good. Just think for a moment what a huge task that is. Individual veteran files wider than this, with years and years of records, have to be put into a digital system. That is what they are doing, and they are making progress. In this legislation, we have brought forth Republican and Democrat ideas to make sure that they are, in fact, on target and that they reach the very ambitious goals Secretary Shinseki brought forth.

So if you are interested in the claims backlog, vote for this legislation because we have bipartisan language in it to make sure veterans do not have to wait years to get their claims processed.

My friend from Oklahoma said he is not sympathetic to the idea that veterans should pay instate tuition, which is essentially what we meant when we passed the post-9/11 GI educational bill. Every time we bring forth legislation, we hear all of the reasons why we should not go forward in providing services and benefits to our veterans.

I would argue--and many economists would agree with me--that one of the most significant pieces of legislation passed in the modern history of the United States of America was the GI bill of World War II. That bill said to the millions of people who fought in World War II, in that terrible war: When you come home, no matter what your income is, you will be eligible to get a higher education. As a result of that legislation, millions of soldiers who returned were able to go to college. They became businessmen, they became doctors, they became lawyers. And one of the reasons the economy of the United States of America expanded significantly for the middle class was a direct result of that very important GI bill.

What we said several years ago was that we should take that premise and apply it to the men and women who served post-9/11 in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was quite a political debate here. Some of my Republican friends had their doubts. We passed it, and today over 1 million veterans and their family members are now getting a college education. In my view, that was exactly the right thing to do.

One of the problems is that veterans move about. So if they go from the State where they have lived their whole life--for example, they lived in Vermont and go to California--and the GI bill promises them instate tuition, it turns out the tuition in the State they are in now may be a lot higher than in their home State and sometimes makes it impossible for them to go to college.

We agree with virtually all the veterans organizations that the intent of the post-9/11 GI education bill was to

make sure they get instate tuition. So if somebody from California comes to Vermont, they get our instate tuition. If somebody from Vermont goes to California, they get their instate tuition. Not doing so denies many people a higher education.

Previously, this Congress passed language which says that if you served in Iraq and Afghanistan, you are going to get 5 years of free health care, which was the right thing to do. It turns out not everybody learned about the benefit. Four or five years have come and gone. What we say to those veterans is, we are going to give you another 5 years to take advantage of that provision.

Senator Murray from Washington--the former chair of the Veterans' Affairs Committee who preceded me--and Senator Reid earlier today talked about the employment situation for veterans. I think we all know we are in a tough economy. Real unemployment is close to 13 percent. Youth unemployment is higher. So when somebody who gets out of the service and comes home to look for a job--it is hard to do.

I believe we have to do what we can to make sure that when people leave the service they can find a job. That is what this legislation does. We also want to make sure the skills acquired by the men and women of our Armed Forces while on Active Duty or in the National Guard become applicable to civilian life as well, and we have language in this bill that does that.

There is another issue which I didn't hear my Republican colleagues talking about but which is a very important part of the bill. We have a situation where some 2,300 veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan have come back with a variety of wounds that make it impossible for them to have children. I will give one example.

Army veteran Matt Keil of Colorado was wounded by sniper fire in Iraq in 2007. The sniper's round struck Matt's neck, causing severe damage to a vital artery and his spinal cord. Through sheer determination and with the love and resolve of his wife Tracy, Matt's condition improved. He and Tracy began to consider having children. Doctors assured them that having children could be possible with the help of in vitro fertilization. The Keil family paid more than $30,000 for reproductive treatments.

In the legislation on the floor now, we say that is wrong. If a servicemember who was injured in war wants to have a family and is unable to have a family, we should make it possible for them to do so. If some of my colleagues on the other side disagree, that is fine. Let's have that debate. I think we owe it to the 2,300 men and women who were wounded in battle. They should have the opportunity to raise a family.

We all know that one of the uglier aspects of military service in recent years has been the epidemic of sexual assault. When we send people into the military, we do not want to see men and women being sexually assaulted. I know the Department of Defense is working hard to address this issue, but the fact is that many veterans who came home from war were sexually assaulted. This legislation contains important provisions that would improve the delivery of care and benefits to veterans who experienced sexual trauma while serving in the military.

This provision was inspired by Ruth Moore. She struggled for 23 years to receive VA disability compensation. This is a woman who was sexually assaulted and had a very difficult time proving that and getting the care she needed. We address that issue in this legislation.

In 2010, the Congress took a very significant step forward in saying to family members who were caring for disabled vets that we understood how terribly difficult it is for them. There are wives, sisters, brothers, and other family members who, 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, are on call for veterans who have suffered serious injuries, and that is tough. That is very tough and stressful. There are wives and sisters and brothers out there who don't get any time off. They are on call 7 days a week.

We passed a caregivers act that provides a modest stipend. It provides training and time off for people who are caring for veterans 7 days a week. It says, you can have a day off. We will send in a nurse. We did that for post-9/11 veterans. The truth is there are tens of thousands of families who are experiencing and going through the same issues and have been doing so for decades. I believe it is appropriate that we expand the caregivers act to every generation of veterans and make sure that those families get the help they need.

I have heard some of my Republican colleagues say this legislation simply opens the door to every veteran in America to come in, and that when they come in, the quality of care is going to be diminished. That is simply an inaccurate statement, and I hope my colleagues read the legislation before they repeat that. It is not true. What we do is end the absurd and complicated situation of having hundreds and hundreds of different income eligibility standards. Instead of many hundreds of standards, there will be one in each State, and it will be the highest standard, which will mean that more veterans are able to come into VA health care. It does not open the door. We have been clear in saying we will not bring more veterans in until we make sure we have the infrastructure to deal with those veterans.

Some people have said: Well, why do you want to bring more veterans into the VA? The answer is pretty simple. I talked to many veterans in Vermont who would like to get into VA health care because of the respect and the knowledge about the needs of veterans and the high quality of care they get, and the fact that there is a strong network of primary health care facilities all over the country which they can access.

I will conclude for the moment by saying I very much appreciate the fact that every single Member of the Senate--I believe there were 99 votes--voted to proceed on this debate. I look forward to this debate. It is an important debate. I look forward to serious amendments which address the needs of veterans. I think it would be very disrespectful to the veterans community if we started injecting into this debate totally extraneous and highly political and partisan issues.

The issue of sanctions in Iran is a very important issue. People have honest differences of opinion. That is not an issue regarding VA health care. It is not an issue regarding the caregivers program. It is not an issue regarding dental care for our veterans.

Let's respect veterans and have this debate on veterans issues and not on extraneous political issues which will divide us. Let's try to come together and not be divided.

With that, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise in full support of the legislation on the floor.

I think most Members understand, as part of the 2013 bipartisan budget agreement, language was included which cut COLAs for military retirees. I think most Members here in the Senate and the House understand that was a mistake, an oversight, and is something that should be rectified and it should be rectified now. Promises made to people in the military should be kept, and our job is to do that.

This morning, as the chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, I wish to say a word on broader issues impacting the veterans community.

Shortly after this legislation is disposed of, we are going to move on to a comprehensive piece of legislation which addresses many of the very serious problems facing our veterans community. I will give a brief overview of what the legislation does. The legislation is the Comprehensive Veterans Health and Benefits and Military Retirement Pay Restoration Act of 2014--S. 1982.

The first point I will make is I honestly believe, in terms of the veterans issues, there is widespread bipartisan support. On the Veterans Committee, every Member of our committee--Democrat, Republican, or in my case Independent--believes very much that we owe our veterans more than we can provide them. Their sacrifices are too deep, the pains are great. But all Members of the committee in a bipartisan way are doing their best to protect the interests of our veterans, and I thank all of them for their hard work.

To as great a degree as possible, the bill which will be on the floor--the comprehensive veterans bill--is a bipartisan bill. It contains many provisions brought forth by my Republican colleagues. This bill consists of two omnibus bills unanimously passed by the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, supported by Democrats and Republicans. It also includes other provisions which had strong bipartisan support.

This legislation also contains two new provisions, both of which have bipartisan support. The first new addition addresses the restoration of cuts made to military retiree COLAs as a result of the 2013 bipartisan agreement, the exact same issue being debated on the floor right now. We also have that language in our bill. Promises made to veterans have got to be kept. We have to restore those cuts to COLAs for military retirees.

The second new provision not discussed, frankly, by the committee also has widespread bipartisan support, and

authorizes the VA to enter into 27 major medical facility leases in 18 States and Puerto Rico.

Interestingly, the legislation which will soon be on the floor contains two major provisions already passed by House Republicans. So to as great a degree as possible, in terms of language in the bill, in terms of working with our Republican colleagues in the House, this is a bipartisan bill and should have the support of every Member of the Senate who believes in protecting the interests of veterans. And I hope that is the vast majority of the people here.

As Senator Begich mentioned a moment ago, our veterans have paid a very heavy price. What I have learned in the little bit more than the year in which I have been chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee is I think most Americans, including myself, were not fully aware of what that sacrifice was. And what that sacrifice was in recent years was not just the loss of over 6,700 Americans who lost their lives in Afghanistan and Iraq but the impact of those wars on hundreds and hundreds of thousands of veterans who came home either wounded in body--loss of arms, loss of legs, loss of hearing, or loss of sight--or the more invisible wounds of war.

What most Americans don't know is a rather shocking number, but we are now dealing with hundreds of thousands of men and women who came home from Iraq and Afghanistan who are doing their best to cope with post-traumatic stress disorder, which has a terrible impact on their lives, on their families' lives, and on their ability to get a job and keep a job; and traumatic brain injury, the result of being in the presence of IEDs and the explosions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We are also dealing in this rough economy, this struggling economy, this high unemployment economy, with many young veterans coming home unable to find jobs. Some in the National Guard left decent jobs and came home to find those jobs are not there.

I think virtually every Member in the Senate understands that at a time when the VA went from paper to digital and made the transformation which was necessary to deal with the claims process, the claims process today remains too long. The backlog is too great. We have to deal with that issue.

We are dealing with a situation where young men and women were wounded in war who had hopes and dreams of starting their own families, but as a result of injuries sustained in those wars, for whatever reason, lost their reproductive capabilities and they still want to have families.

We are dealing with issues of sexual assault--a scandal, an outrage I know every Member of the Senate feels strongly about. Women and men who were sexually assaulted are coming home in need of treatment and are unable to get that treatment.

We are dealing with a situation today above and beyond the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, where there are people--often women, wives and sisters--who are under great stress taking care of disabled veterans who have no arms and no legs. They have devoted their lives to those people and they are hurting as well. As chairman of the veterans' committee, what I have done is listened as carefully as I could to what the veterans community--representing some 22 million veterans--had to say about the problems veterans are facing.

My very fine staff and I--along with my Republican colleagues and their very fine staffs--worked together. We said: These are the problems facing our veterans. We all know that on Veterans Day and Memorial Day every Member of the Senate goes out and gives a great speech about how much they love and respect veterans and how much they appreciate the sacrifices made by veterans.

Now is the time to stand and go beyond words and rhetoric. Now is the time to, in fact, address the real and serious problems facing those men and women whose families experienced the ultimate sacrifice and those men and women who came home wounded in body and spirit.

We cannot solve all of the problems facing veterans. We cannot bring back loved ones lost in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, and the other wars. We cannot bring them back to their wives, their mothers, their dads, and their kids. We cannot do that. We cannot magically replace the arms and the legs or eyesight lost in war, but we do have the moral obligation to do everything humanly possible to protect and defend those men and women who protected and defended us. We can do that and that we must.

I am very proud the legislation that will soon be on the floor has the strong support of virtually every veteran and military organization in this country, and that includes all of the major organizations representing millions and millions of veterans.

I thank the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the VFW, the Disabled American Veterans, also known as DAV, Vietnam Veterans of America, the Military Officers Association of America, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the Gold Star Wives, and dozens and dozens of other veterans and military organizations that are supporting this legislation.

The Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs has received letters of support from virtually all of these organizations, and if Members want to check out why these organizations that are representing millions of veterans are supporting this bill, they will find those letters on our Web site.

I will quote from one of the letters. This letter is from the Disabled American Veterans, DAV.

This . . . bill, unprecedented in our modern experience,

would create, expand, advance, and extend a number of VA

benefits, services and programs that are important to DAV and

to our members.

They see it--as do many of the other veterans organizations--as one of the most comprehensive pieces of veterans legislation brought forth in the modern history of Congress. I am proud of it. I thank the veterans organizations not just for their support of this legislation but for the help they gave us in drafting this legislation.

This legislation did not come from Bernie Sanders or from anybody else on the committee. It came from the veterans community itself. It came from representatives of veterans organizations who came before us in hearings, who came before us in private meetings, and said: Senator, here are the problems facing our veterans. If you are serious about going beyond rhetoric and speeches and truly want to help veterans and their families, this is what needs to be done.

We listened. We could not do everything, but we did put many of the major concerns facing the veterans community in this bill. Again, I thank the veterans organizations for being our partner in drafting this legislation.

I also wish to take this opportunity to thank those people who have currently cosponsored this legislation, and that includes Senator Landrieu, Senator Begich, the Presiding Officer Senator Schatz, Senator Brown, Senator Blumenthal, Senator Hirono, Senator Boxer, Senator Casey, Senator Gillibrand, Senator Heinrich, Senator Heitkamp, Senator Merkley, Senator Murray, Senator Reed, Senator Shaheen, Senator Whitehouse, Senator Rockefeller, Senator Tester, and Senator Cantwell. I thank all of them for their strong support.

I will take a few minutes to touch on some of the areas this comprehensive bill covers. As I return to the floor in the coming days, I will go into greater length about each of these provisions. Each of these provisions, unto themselves, is enormously important in terms of the needs of our veterans.

As I mentioned earlier, our comprehensive veterans bill--consistent with the Pryor bill--will restore the cuts made in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 to military retirees. We address that issue in our bill.

This comprehensive veterans legislation deals with another issue--not necessarily a sexy issue--that in fact impacts a large number of veterans in communities all over America, and that is that it will allow the VA to enter into 27 major medical facility leases in 18 States and Puerto Rico. That means--for a variety of reasons too complicated to get into right now--we have CBOC, community-based outpatient clinics, and other veterans facilities that are ready to go. They are on the drawing board.

Actually, it is beyond the drawing board, but we have not been able to pull the plug on it. This is very important to veterans all over this country.

It is important to Republicans, it is important to Democrats, and it is time to get this done. By the way, this has been passed in the House of Representatives. We need to do it and that is part of this legislation.

This legislation includes groundbreaking provisions that would expand access to VA health care. In my view and in the view of veterans all over this country, the VA provides high-quality, cost-effective care to millions and millions of our veterans. There are approximately 6.2 million veterans accessing VA health care today. About 8 million are signed up for VA care.

This legislation expands access to VA health care, allows more veterans to come in, and ends a very complicated priority 8 eligibility. Priority 8 is a situation where there are hundreds and hundreds of different eligibility levels all over the country, and it makes it very confusing for priority 8 veterans to determine whether they are eligible. We ended that and simplified it. The result is that more veterans will be able to access VA health care. We have also expanded complementary and alternative medicine within the VA. The truth is the VA is now doing a good job in providing complementary and alternative medicine, and that means meditation, acupuncture, yoga, and other treatments to veterans who are concerned about not being dependent on medication. One of the great problems we have nationally and in the VA is overmedication of people who have problems associated with pain and other ailments. The VA has done a good job. We are going to expand that opportunity.

My experience--having gone around the country--is that both within the Department of Defense hospitals and the VA, more and more veterans are looking at these alternative-type treatments and want to break their dependence on overmedication.

What we also do in this legislation is something that is terribly important. It is my strong belief that dental care must be considered a part of health care. The fact is that in this country there are millions of people--above and beyond the veterans community--who cannot find affordable dental care. Right now within the VA, dental care--with the exception of service-connected problems and homeless veterans--is not open to veterans, and we begin the process to do a significant pilot program to bring dental care into the VA. That is extremely important for the veterans community.

I think all of us remember not so many months ago the Government of the United States was shut down and caused all kinds of problems for all kinds of people. What is not widely known is that disabled veterans and veterans receiving their pension were 7 to 10 days away from not getting their checks. We have disabled veterans all over this country who live from month to month through those checks, and they were 7 to 10 days away from not getting those checks. This legislation provides for advanced appropriations for mandatory VA benefits. By passing that provision, we will never again put disabled vets or veterans who are dependent on their pensions in the position of not getting their checks when they need it.

One of the issues that has been discussed a great deal is the issue of benefits backlog. There is no disagreement in this Senate--whether one is a Republican, Democrat, Independent--that it is not acceptable for veterans who applied for benefits to have to wait for years to get those benefits. In my view, what the VA is now doing is undergoing a massive transformation of their benefit system, going from paper--which was incomprehensible to me. In 2008 their system was paper. They are going from paper to digital. They are making progress, but I want to see them make more progress. This legislation includes some important provisions to make sure we end this unacceptable backlog of VA benefits.

One of the issues that has also received some attention is the issue of instate tuition assistance for post-9/11 veterans. A number of years ago we passed very significant legislation which enabled some 900,000 post-9/11 veterans and family members to get higher education throughout this country. This legislation would give our transitioning servicemembers a fair shot at attaining their educational goals without incurring an additional financial burden.

We deal with the issue of somebody from out of State moving into another State and making sure that veteran is paying no more than what the instate tuition is for that State. This is a very important provision and, by the way, a provision that was passed in the House of Representatives. The language is pretty much the same in this bill.

We promised veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan that they would have 5 years of free VA health care when they came home. For a variety of reasons, people have not taken advantage of that. We think it is important to extend--from 5 to 10 years--unfettered access to VA health care for recently separated veterans, and that is what this legislation does.

I don't have to mention to anybody that our economy--while slowly improving--still has many challenges. Unemployment is much too high. What this legislation would do is reauthorize provisions from the VOW to Hire Heroes Act of 2011, including a 2-year extension for the Veterans Retraining Assistance Program, otherwise known as the VRAP program. In other words, what we are saying to our veterans is when they come home, we want a job to be there for them. We want them to get integrated back into civilian life, so we have some very important provisions in here for employment opportunities for our veterans.

As I mentioned earlier, sexual assault is a scandal. The numbers are appallingly high. What this legislation does is enable those women and men who were sexually assaulted to come into the VA to get the quality of care their situations require and deserve.

This provision was inspired by Ruth Moore, who struggled for 23 years to receive VA disability compensation. So we have language making sure those who suffered sexual assault will get the care within the VA they absolutely are entitled to.

I mentioned earlier, also, that several thousand men and women who served in Iraq and Afghanistan were wounded in ways that make it impossible for them to have babies. These are people who really want families, and some of them are now spending a very significant amount of money in the private sector through a number of approaches in order to be able to have babies. We have language, a provision in this bill, which would help female and male veterans who have suffered significant spinal cord, reproductive, and urinary tract injuries to start a family. I think that is absolutely the right thing to do.

Several years ago this Congress did the right thing by establishing a Caregivers Act, which said to those people who were caring for disabled vets that we understand how difficult--how difficult--that work is, that you are taking care of people who need constant attention, loved ones who need constant attention, and we are going to help you do what you have been doing.

The good news is we passed that legislation. The bad news is it only applied to post-9/11 veterans. I think there was a general understanding, an assumption, that we were going to expand that program to all veterans--Vietnam, World War II, Korea--so those people, mostly women who are staying home, taking care of veterans, get the support they need. So the extension of the Caregivers Act is also included in this legislation.

Those are some of the provisions. This is a 400-page bill, and I just touched on some of them. But let me end in the way I began. There is no way we can ever fully repay the debt we owe to the men and women who put their lives on the line defending this country. That is just the simple nature of things. We are not going to bring back the husbands who were lost in war, the wives who came back without any legs. We are not going to bring fathers and mothers back to children who lost their dad or their mom. We are not going to restore eyesight to people who are blind. We cannot do that.

But if this country means anything, it means that we have to keep the promises we made to veterans and their families; that while we cannot do everything, we have to do as much as we can to make the lives of our veterans and their families, their loved ones, as happy and productive as we possibly can.

So this legislation is from Senators who listened to our veterans, heard

their concerns, worked with them, and developed this comprehensive bill.

Let me conclude once again by thanking all of the veterans organizations. We have virtually every veterans organization in America--not all but almost all--supporting this legislation. We thank them for the work they do every day on behalf of our veterans. I thank them very much for all the help they have provided me and the committee in writing this legislation.

Speeches on Veterans Day or Memorial Day are great. That is good. It is important we all do it. But now is the time to go beyond speeches. Now is the time to address the problems facing the veterans community. This legislation does this in a very comprehensive way, and I ask for the support of all my colleagues in the Senate.

I yield the floor.

I thank the Senator.

Madam President, today I wish to speak in strong support of the nomination of Sloan Gibson to serve as Deputy Secretary at the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Before I speak about Mr. Gibson's qualifications, I believe it is important that my colleagues understand the realities that Mr. Gibson will face if confirmed. He would be responsible for the day-to-day management of the Department charged with operating the Nation's largest integrated health care system and providing a variety of benefits and services to America's veterans, as well as their dependents and survivors.

It is also no secret the Department of Veterans Affairs faces a number of challenges. We know it takes VA too long to issue claims decisions. We know it takes the Board of Veterans' Appeals too long to decide appeals. We know VA and the Department of Defense have spent years on an integrated electronic health record with very little to show for their efforts. We know VA has difficulty managing major construction projects; and we know far too many veterans still do not know about the benefits and health care for which they are entitled. These are the just some of the challenges awaiting Mr. Gibson and highlight the need for this body to move quickly to confirm Mr. Gibson for this important vacancy.

All too often, VA's challenges can cast a large shadow over the things

that VA does well. I think it is also important to acknowledge the amazing things VA is accomplishing each and every day. For instance, patient satisfaction at VA medical centers remains high throughout the country as does the quality of care veterans receive. VA has taken an aggressive stance on homelessness by pursuing the ambitious goal of eliminating veteran homelessness by 2015 and continues to make significant progress in reducing the number of veterans living on the street. Finally, the VA continues to make significant advances in health care through its world-class research programs.

These are the realities and the challenges facing any nominee for a leadership position at the Department. I firmly believe Sloan Gibson is uniquely qualified to address these challenges. Mr. Gibson has a history of service to this Nation that has provided unique insights into the challenges confronting the servicemember and veteran communities. Mr. Gibson began his service as a cadet at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. He graduated in 1975 and went on to serve as an infantry officer, earning airborne and ranger qualifications during his military service. His service to this country, however, did not end when Mr. Gibson left military service. He continues this tradition of service today by leading the United Service Organizations, commonly known as the USO, which has the important mission of lifting the spirits of America's troops and their families.

I feel the relationships Mr. Gibson has developed with the Congress and senior leaders within the Department of Defense during his tenure at the USO will serve him well as Deputy Secretary. Collaborative efforts between VA and DOD such as the Integrated Electronic Health Record and Integrated Disability Evaluation System have the potential to make the delivery of benefits and services much more efficient and to provide servicemembers with a smooth transition to civilian life. Yet, these efforts continue to face significant challenges. VA needs a Deputy Secretary like Sloan Gibson who will be able to provide the leadership attention necessary to ensure continued and meaningful collaboration between the Departments.

Sloan Gibson also has the business experience, gained from service in both the for-profit and not-for-profit sectors, necessary to serve as Deputy Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Following military service, Mr. Gibson spent 20 years serving in a number of positions within the banking industry. This service included 11 years as an executive at AmSouth Bancorporation. He retired from AmSouth in 2004 as vice chairman and chief financial officer.

Sloan Gibson's tradition of service, business experience, and educational qualifications make him well suited to manage the day-to- day operations of one of this Nation's largest Cabinet Departments. I am confident that if confirmed Mr. Gibson's service as Deputy Secretary would improve the lives of America's veterans and their families and as chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee I look forward to working with Mr. Gibson to do just that.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting today to confirm the nomination of Sloan Gibson to serve as Deputy Secretary at the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Mr. President, I rise today to commend the Vermonters who will be representing the United States in the Olympic Winter Games in Sochi, Russia. Vermont has a long tradition of excellence in winter sports that we owe partly to our State's cold climate and mountainous terrain, but also to an outdoor spirit that dates back generations. I would like to acknowledge these athletes individually and wish them the best of luck in pursuing the gold.

Sophie Caldwell, from Peru, VT, will be competing for the United States in cross-country skiing. Sophie was a five-time All-American at Dartmouth College, and received a degree in psychology and plans to go back to school to pursue a career in either psychology or education.

Hannah Dreissigacker, from Morrisville, VT, is a member of the Craftsbury Green Racing Project, a group of elite athletes who are committed to pursuing an environmentally conscious lifestyle. Hannah will be competing in the biathlon in Sochi.

Kelly Clark, from West Dover, VT, is one of the most successful snowboarders to ever compete. She won a gold medal in the halfpipe event at the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, and a bronze medal at the 2010 games in Vancouver. In addition to her success on the slopes, Kelly has given back to her community by starting a foundation that provides scholarships to athletes from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Susan Dunklee, from Craftsbury, VT, will be competing for the United States in the biathlon. Susan placed fifth in the World Championship's Individual race in Ruhpolding, Germany, and tied for the best score of those U.S. female biathletes competing. Susan, like Ms. Dreissigacker, is also a member of the Craftsbury Green Racing Project, which promotes sustainability and endurance sports.

Lindsey Jacobellis, from Stratton, VT, started competing in snowboard cross competitions when she was 11 and has risen to become a dominant force in the sport. Lindsay won a silver medal at the 2006 Winter Olympics in Turin, and is an eight-time champion in snowboardcross at the Winter X Games.

Hannah Kearney, from Norwich, VT, is one of the top freestyle mogul competitors in the world, having won a gold medal at the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver. I wish her the best of luck in defending her Olympic title.

Devin Logan, from West Dover, VT, is a freeskier who will be competing in the slopestyle and halfpipe events. During her rookie season, she finished second in the halfpipe event at the U.S. Championships and earned her first U.S. halfpipe skiing title at the age of 15.

Andy Newell, from Shaftsbury, VT, is a cross-country skier who has been racing since the age of five. He placed 16th in freestyle sprint during the 2006 Winter Olympics and finished off the 2012-2013 season ranked as the fifth fastest sprinter in the world. Outside of training for this year's Winter Olympics, Andy works with kids at the New England Nordic Ski Association to introduce the sport to a new audience.

Hannah Teter, from Belmont, VT, won a gold medal in the halfpipe event at the 2006 Winter Olympics and a silver medal in 2010 in Vancouver. In true Vermont fashion, Hannah is very active in her community and charitable causes, combining her prize money with proceeds from maple syrup sales to start a charity called ``Hannah's Gold'' which builds schools and fresh water infrastructure in a village in rural Kenya.

Ida Sargent, from Barton, VT, is a cross-country skier who is also a member of the Craftsbury Green Racing Project. After finishing her cross-country skiing career, Ida hopes to become a physical therapist.

Liz Stephen, from East Montpelier, VT, switched from alpine to cross- country skiing midway through her tenure at Burke Mountain Academy. Liz took first place in two events at the 2008 U.S. National Championships. Since her last trip to the Winter Olympics in 2010, she finished atop the podium at the Swiss National Championship in 2012 and finished fifth in the 10k freestyle at the 2013 World Ski Championships. Liz enjoys mountain biking and takes classes at Westminster College.

Mikaela Shiffrin, from East Burke, VT, will compete for the United States in alpine skiing. Mikaela is an eight-time World Cup slalom medalist. Mikaela is the first non-European to win four World Cup slalom races in one season. When she isn't competing, she also enjoys playing tennis and soccer.

Ty Walker, from Stowe, VT, has made a significant impact on women's slopestyle snowboarding. Ty has won the Burton European Open Junior Jam three times in a row from 2009-2011. In 2013, when she was just 16, she finished fifth at the FIS World Snowboarding Championship. Off the snow, Ty is a straight-A student and loves to jump on trampolines.

Alex Deibold, from Manchester, VT, will compete in his first Olympics as a snowboardcross competitor. Alex finished second in the 2013 World Cup championship in Sochi, Russia. Alex also made finals at four out of five World Cup starts in 2013. When he is off the slopes, Alex enjoys rock climbing, surfing, and mountain biking.

Jacqueline Hernandez, from Londonderry, VT will compete for the United States in snowboardcross. Jacqueline is a seven-time World Cup top-10 finisher. In her spare time, she enjoys riding motorcycles, swimming, and boating.

Nolan Kasper, from Warren, VT, will compete for the United States in alpine skiing. Nolan competed in the 2010 Winter Olympic Games and placed 24th in men's slalom. In addition, Nolan enjoys ice skating and playing soccer.

Mr. President, Vermont is very proud of the athletes who will be competing in Sochi, and I would like to join the citizens of my state to wish them the best of luck at the 2014 Olympic Winter Games. Bring home the gold!

Madam President, I rise today to recognize a remarkable Vermonter, David Melincoff, who is carrying on the tradition of providing a good meal and fostering a sense of community each Thanksgiving.

As many Vermonters continue to struggle to make ends meet in the wake of the most severe recession to hit the United States in generations, Mr. Melincoff marked the 24th year his Burlington, VT restaurant has offered a traditional Thanksgiving dinner at no cost. Nearly 1,000 dinners were given away this past Thanksgiving. Since the Thanksgiving Community Dinner started 24 years ago at Sweetwaters American Bistro, Mr. Melincoff estimates that more than 20,000 meals have been served free of charge.

The dinner, a traditional Thanksgiving meal of turkey, stuffing, and mashed potatoes, offers the same experience a diner would have eating at the restaurant on any other night, including wait service provided by volunteers. The fundamental difference is that the meal is free of charge--and the sense of community this generosity inspires is undeniable.

It is not only those who are having financial difficulties who attend the Thanksgiving Community Dinner. As Mr. Melincoff noted, ``Sometimes it's an emotional need.'' Often, people who have lost a loved one attend in order to share in the company and fellowship of others. The dinner provides an opportunity where people, regardless of their economic status, can sit and break bread together. ``Here, they just feel equal. That's the part that always gets me,'' Mr. Melincoff said. ``It's about self-respect.''

The meal itself is just one part of the day-long event. A coat donation drive was added as another effort to serve 4 years ago. Hundreds of coats are collected in advance by the Windjammer Restaurant in South Burlington, and this year roughly 700 coats were provided to individuals in need.

Local residents and members of the business community also pitch in to make the Thanksgiving Community Dinner a success. Everyone benefits from this event, whether it is from the food provided or the satisfaction of giving back to the community. For the volunteers, Mr. Melincoff noted, ``it puts things into perspective about what you should be grateful for.''

Mr. President, I wanted to take this opportunity to commend Mr. Melincoff for his commitment and service to others and applaud his efforts to reach to out those in need.

Mr. President, I ask to have printed in the Record finalist essays written by Vermont High School students as part of the Fourth Annual State of the Union Essay contest conducted by my office. These 7 finalists were selected from over 380 entries.

The essays follow:

Raihan Kabir, South Burlington High School, Grade 12 (Finalist)

How a country collects and allocates its resources takes

precedence in outlining the foundation of equality and

general welfare. We as individuals rely on a revenue of both

incomes and loans, which makes for a crude economic model of

spending. This holds true for our government. As the nation

dives deeper into debt and countries around the world

experience protests and riots over austerity measures, it is

clear that additional tax dollars are necessary to reduce

debt, support society, and give rise to the economy.

Tax increases will put the definition of taxation back into

its actuality. The United States tax rates are theoretically

graduated by income level, meaning that lower income ranges

pay a lower rate than higher income ranges. However, those in

a higher tax bracket often have more deductions to further

equalize their effective rate with that of the middle or

lower brackets. A decline in tax rates for the most wealthy

is a disproportionate advantage for the already financially

capable members of our society, which further instigates the

income disparities that threaten our democratic ideals. The

top percent of Americans possesses more wealth than the

entire bottom 90 percent; the 400 wealthiest Americans have a

greater combined net worth than the entire bottom 150

million; and yet, everyone is paying a similar effective

rate. Not everyone is currently contributing their fair share

to society, and living in a nation with the largest amount of

debt in the world, this matter of fact is unacceptable. Tax

increases will make the theory of taxes a reality and restore

economic equality.

Though our current fiscal path is unstable, increasing

taxes will reduce national debt and put us on the right track

back to recovery. With a 16 trillion dollar debt that is

rising at the rate of 6 billion dollars a day (4 million

dollars every minute), every family in America would owe

about $50,000 to various countries around the world if the

burden trickled down to the general public. When the

government needs money, it sells treasury bills (similar to

savings bonds) to investors, who cash them in after an

average of ten years for the original amount plus interest.

Though a certain amount of debt is arguably helpful for the

economy, consistently high deficits force the government to

offer higher, more appealing interest rates; investors

eventually realize that the country is unlikely to pay back

the money it borrows and they stop lending, which crushes the

economy, as most recently witnessed in Greece. Our current

national debt is greater than the economies of the United

Kingdom, Australia, and China, combined. Stopping this

vicious economic cycle requires less foreign-reliance and

more self-sustenance, which is feasible if and only if we

increase taxes.

Tax increases will ensure the funding and availability of

certain social programs and necessary expenditures on

infrastructure without the need to excessively issue bonds.

Taxes currently fund public services of insurance, such as

Social Security and Medicare, of welfare, such as the Pell

Grant and Food Stamp programs, and of infrastructure, such as

the scholastic and interstate highway systems. Nobel laureate

of economics Paul Krugman affirms a current necessity for

increased taxes in his following statement:

[Regarding] proposals to raise the age of Medicare

eligibility to 67 . . . outlays would fall only by $125

billion over the next decade . . . and even when fully phased

in, this partial dismantling of Medicare would reduce the

deficit only about a third as much as could be achieved with

higher taxes on the very rich . . . don't believe anyone who

claims otherwise.

Taxes pay for important programs that go unpaid by spending

cuts. The Bureau of Economic Statistics reports that the

average standard of living, determined by comparing adjusted

incomes and poverty rates, has increased in years with a

higher annual budget and decreased in years on the contrary.

According to the New York Times and the Board of Economic

Advisors, there is a direct correlation between the amount of

money provided to the government in the national budget and

the quality of life in the United States, as determined by

the rate of poverty. This makes logical sense; our standard

of life escalates as we make fiscal contributions to society.

Yet we continue to have the lowest tax rate in the world.

Taxes are imposed so that roads get fixed, so we get an

education, and so people don't invade our country. Taxes are

imposed to protect our rights. The government imposes taxes

on us for our own benefit, and by raising them, we will

improve the living conditions and quality of life in America.

Tax increases will lead to economic growth and prosperity.

In 1990 and again in 1993, President Clinton enacted deficit-

reduction legislation that raised taxes for high income

taxpayers; as a result, economic growth and job creation were

strong. Within this period of a sensational economy, capital

gain rates were cut, and there was a 20% increase in job

availability for a total of 21 million new jobs. However,

after the Bush Tax Cuts of 2001 and the Bush Recession, job

growth lagged behind GDP growth, there was 0% net job growth,

and with continuous population growth, there were record high

unemployment rates. Tax increases have helped society and the

economy in the past, and they will help again.

In any case of regulatory action, the value to be upheld is

the quality of life. By reducing debt, supporting society,

and giving rise to the economy, the nation will better ensure

a standard of well-being for its citizens. The government of

these United States is to assure life, liberty, health, and

happiness, in our pursuit of the American dream. Lincoln said

it best in his Gettysburg Address: ``that government of the

people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from

the earth.'' The prioritization of tax increases over

spending cuts is essential to future policy in the United

States of America to sustain the American public.

Fiona Higgins, Champlain Valley Union High School, Grade 12 (Finalist)

There are many issues facing the United States. Personally,

I believe one of the most critical domestic issues is

reproductive rights.

Every step back to pre-Roe v. Wade is sensationalized in

the media, and rightfully so. The issue is much more far

reaching than pro-life versus pro-choice; it is both a human

rights issue and an economic issue.

Firstly, it is a human rights issue. It is a matter of

women having control over their own decisions, their bodies,

and their lives. Western women strive to liberate women who

they view as oppressed, but these same western women don't

realize that their freedoms are also disappearing. Women and

men alike have the right to decide what happens to their

bodies. Restricting access to contraception and health

services violates this human right for both genders.

Secondly, it is an economic issue. Children cost money.

When parents cannot support their family, they are prone to

apply for welfare and other government programs that were put

in place to help low-income families. These programs are

needed, but the federal government could decrease the need

and the cost of these programs if it focused on education and

access to contraception. In low-income neighborhoods, people

are often not able to access contraception. This takes

away lower-income women's autonomy as well as perpetuating

the cycle of poverty. If there were more accessible systems

in place, these systems (rather than chance) would help

families plan for the future, and allow them to decide to

have children (rather than chance). In addition, a decreased

level of government spending would curb the growth of the

debt, which would aid the struggling economy.

A woman rarely thinks to herself, ``I'd like to have an

abortion instead of using contraceptives this time.'' That is

lunatic. Abortions happen out of necessity. If they were

illegal or severely restricted, women would still get them,

but the procedures would be unsafe and deadly. If members of

Congress truly want to protect the unborn and create a

diminished welfare-dependent state, they must focus on

education and accessibility; this strategy will also lower

government spending in the long run.

Instead of going backwards, the United States should be

moving forwards. Members of Congress must recognize that

women have an inalienable right to privacy with regard to

their bodies, a right that we should not have to fight for.

Education and access to contraceptives needs to be more

widespread, thereby improving our dire economic situation and

our quality of life.

Owen Deffner, Thetford Academy, Grade 7 (Finalist)

2013, America has had quite a year, with many ups and

downs. Everything from the government shut down, to what I'd

call: an official economic recovery. We have witnessed a

terrible civil war in Syria where tremendous bloodshed has

occured. America has hosted many natural disasters too,

everything from intensely cold temperatures to violent

tornadoes. In these tragic times America has stepped up its

game and delivered, helping our neighbors when they are

struggling. This is the America that our allies look up to;

the friendly, hospitable, welcoming America that we all

contribute to every single day. Let's keep that good,

positive America in our hearts this year.

11 million people are in America illegally. These people

have come to this great nation in search of a better life.

These people are trying to achieve the American dream.

Immigrants are trying to send money home to their family in

another country, some are trying to provide for their family

here in the US. All the while they are constantly worried

that our government will deport them back to their home

country. This is not right, it's not okay that we don't

welcome them into our nation. I want the path to citizenship

easier for them so that they can get what they wanted to get

by coming here. Let's be a bit more hospitable to people who

are just trying to help their family.

Our status on the issue of the environment is not looking

up. America has the great opportunity to help lead the fight

against climate change. America must set high standards

concerning the environment so that other countries will

follow to help reduce the risk of the world's surface covered

in water. Inside America to confront this issue head on we

need to educate Americans on what is okay and not okay to

recycle and how to compost or break down food into soil for

our farms and gardens. This is a plan that will work and that

we must initiate this year.

Our country is very behind on a major issue. America's

education system is well behind many other well developed

global powers. We need to fix that issue from the bottom up

starting in our pre and elementary schools, with more

emphasis on math and science. At higher levels, more

affordable college and university opportunities for the lower

and middle-class. We need to invest more time and education

in our education and we need to now!

All of these ideas I am proposing are simple and should be

easy to carry out with a bit of willingness from both

parties. I am not asking to overhaul anything just some easy

doable requests that all of us can help to accomplish.

America should look to the future, to the next generation

growing into adulthood. Let's get back on track for these

young men and women who have high hopes for themselves and

their country.

Emily Martin, Vergennes Union High School, Grade 10 (Finalist)

The United States of America is an amazing country to call

home. However, in the modern day we as a nation face problems

that challenge our ingenuity and integrity. The world today

is one of war, whether that is physical, or political. We

struggle to find resources to continue on living the way we

have for as long as we can remember, yet forget that the

earth which we walk on is a fragile one. The United States is

no exception. We often find ourselves between a rock and a

hard place; dealing with complex issues such as health care

for all, or additional billions of dollars in debt; the

Continuation of fighting a war which is not ours, or

withdrawing our troops and allowing innocent people to face

an uncertain future. Spend billions in foreign oil to keep

companies in business, or convert to clean energy and watch

the economy crumble. The list of hard choices goes on and on.

The reality is, we no longer live in a time when decisions

are cut and dry and each decision resonates into our future

with force.

As a nation, we face an increasingly unpredictable future,

and without reassurance of our outcome, fear can cause

bitterness and ignorance. Education, the economy, politics,

and the fate of an ever-changing climate put an enormous

amount of stress on us a people. There is no certain cure for

the issues we deal with a nation, but the first step towards

solution and unification. As a country, it's time that we put

aside our grudges, opinions, and preferences and work as a

whole to support America's path towards growth, safety,

security and stability. The United States of America has been

a country that others look to as a role model and to some as

a beacon of freedom and safety. We have more than ourselves

to work for; there are millions of people around the world

who rely on our help and support. We need to shed the selfish

shells, and work as a people, not as a political party or

organization. Whether you are a Republican, Democrat, and

Libertarian it doesn't matter, because America is your home,

and at the end of the day we all have to learn to coexist and

benefit from each other's support. This is how we will help

to secure America's future, America's education, industry and

healthcare. Unification is the first step towards solution.

If we need reminding of the impact of dissention and

fracturing of our political system, the Civil War looms in

the hearts and from the pages of our history, when compromise

not only failed, but conversation stopped. The State of the

Nation in America is painful obvious even to the young people

and the children. If we don't remember how to talk to each

other, work together and accomplish the majority rule

established as a framework in the US Constitution, we stand

to lose more than a budget. We stand to lose our democracy.

Nick Majeski, Woodstock Union High School, Grade 11 (Finalist)

Bribes from Fast Food: A State of Corruption

In the year 2014, the union is majorly corrupt; the country

is run by a capitalist nightmare of over-powerful healthcare,

tobacco, and food industries. From their very beginnings at

the turn of twentieth century, the fast food industry has

steadily become more and more powerful and influential.

Spawning from this growth in influence, the union has

steadily declined into a state of corruption at the hands of

the fast industry, with these major food chains bribing

government workers in high positions.

Government agencies controlling food, such as the FDA,

USDA, and EPA may have been created with good intentions, but

when a higher up does not believe they are being paid enough

money for their job, they are known to be tempted to accept

bribes and submit to being the puppets of fast food

corporations, looking to exploit their power to lower the

standards of their products. An article on Naturalnews.com

explained how, in a survey given to workers at the FDA and

USDA, one fourth of the survey takers admitted to have

changed policies for corporate gain. On one hand this is not

morally right both in the way that our government officials--

who were elected by the people--are accepting bribes, and

also that they are changing policies allowing even less

healthy food that causes diseases--more money to health care;

another corrupt industry in the United States.

Corrupt FDA, USDA, and EPA fat-cats obviously do not want

to break their ties with fast food puppeteers; this brings

more corruption directly into the government organizations

themselves. In the Naturalnews.com article the writer

explains that many innocent workers at organizations like the

FDA and USDA are demoted or even fired for trying to do their

job and not keeping their mouths shut about corruption they

have witnessed. The higher-ups in charge of these huge

organizations influence immoral decisions that bring dirty

money to their own pockets; they change state standards to

very low standards and do not require food companies to tell

customers when the food was made, processed or cooked.

Despite all this--mostly widely known information--this

corruption is still going on and growing. According to

Fastfoodnationhonorsproject.weebly.com ties between congress

and fast food are too strong to vote against certain

policies. This means that the way to lower corruption in the

food industry would have to be to take direct action.

Despite knowledge of corruption being well known in

America- Supersize Me is a mainstream movie- there is not

very much motivation to stop bribes from the food industry.

This is a problem that should not only be addressed, but

worked towards solving as well.

Holly Thayer, Milton High School, Grade 12 (Finalist)

My fellow Americans, I stand here before you to evaluate

the state of our great nation. Over the past year our economy

has risen as the Gross National Product increased 4.1% in the

third quarter, and the National Deficit went down $1.8

Billion. As of November, the national unemployment rate has

dropped to 7% and personal income has risen, proving that our

nation is moving out of the recession, and America is once

again becoming a nation of economic growth and wealth.

2013 saw an increase in revolutions around the world, from

Syria to Egypt, many countries around the world are

experiencing the same revolution the United States and our

ancestors endured in order to gain our individual freedoms.

Through the government and all of our national forces, we

must work together to give aid in the form of resources and

money, to assist the new governments that are the result of

these revolutions, and ensure that there is smooth turn over

of

power. The United States must also create a coalition of our

allies, along with the United Nations, to create an agreement

that delegates the responsibilities and costs of helping

these nations form new governments, and ensures that the re-

created states are not intruding on an individual's human

rights.

The production of Genetically Modified Organisms, GMOs,

that are then placed in processed foods or on crops and used

as an insecticide, have created a serious health risk for

myself, and all my fellow Americans. It has been proven that

GMOs can lead to serious health issues and impose high health

risks. We must work together with the agricultural farmers

and corporations that use GMO's to research the other options

that these businesses have in order to ensure plant safety,

without endangering the public health at the same time. Then

we must create a grant program that would give states and

localities money to allocate to farmers and organizations

that agree to not use GMOs. For companies that still use

GMOs, we must toughen the regulations on the use of them,

through only allowing a regulated amount to be present in

foods, and make it mandatory that this presence is labeled on

every package of a product.

Educated masses lead to innovations and improvements in

every aspect of life. Currently, around 30% of Americans have

obtained a college degree. In order to have an educated

citizenry, we need to make federal aid for students planning

on going to college more available. To do this, we need to

restructure the system that is used to disperse federal

financial aid. If we create a formula, based on family

income, and reduce the importance and use of merit based

scholarships, while increasing the use of incentive programs,

then allocate the money based on this system, we could

effectively make financial aid more available and abundant,

and therefore increase the percentage of Americans who have a

college degree, creating an educated citizenry.

Thank you, God Bless America.

Delaney Spink, South Burlington High School, Grade 12 (Finalist)

I can't claim to know a lot about politics. In fact, I make

a point to stay as uninvolved in it as possible. In a

nutshell, all I know is that Obama is our president, and that

I should never bring up politics with my grandfather, unless

I'm willing to spend the next three or four hours listening

to him denounce every decision our government has made since

the 1920's. When our class was told we had to write this

essay, my first thought was, ``I have no idea what the state

of our union is. How am I supposed to write about how to fix

it?''

I'd bet that every single other student in my classroom was

having the same thought, save the one or two kids that are

really into politics, and, as we all know, are going to win

this competition. This got me thinking, and I've come to a

conclusion. The problem with our country is that not enough

young people know what the problem is. Ironic, isn't it?

When I think of our government, I think of old white men.

Now, I know this is a very stereotypical generalization that

I'm making. Women are getting involved, and, hey, our

president is black. We seem to be doing better, based on the

limited information that I have. But, whether they're diverse

or not, the people making decisions for our country are old.

This isn't entirely a bad thing; older people have more

experience, confidence, and knowledge. All I'm saying is that

that wisdom needs to be balanced with the fresh perspectives

of our country's younger generations. Younger people need to

start getting more excited about politics, myself included.

We need to start looking at it as an exciting opportunity to

change what we think should be changed, instead of as a

boring subject that our uncles argue about over Thanksgiving

dinner.

Now, I know there are probably many kids out there that are

interested in politics. That's great, but I also know that

the vast majority of kids, like myself, are simply

uninterested. The solution lies with us, and we need to

motivate ourselves. It can't come from the adults. If this

essay somehow makes it to anyone important, please don't take

this as a sign that you need to launch a national ``Politics

are Cool, Yo!'' campaign. It won't work. It needs to be

started by the kids. We need to start clubs, be in our school

governments, or even just watch the news.

I don't have a perfect solution, seeing as I am, for now,

one of the aforementioned uninterested students. But, I know

this: If politics can become more accessible to young people

in any way, shape, or form, we will take notice, and,

eventually, get involved. It's our country too. We want to be

just as involved as Grandpa Bill and Senator Sanders. One of

us just needs to lead the way.

Mr. President, I ask to have printed in the Record finalist essays written by Vermont High School students as part of the Fourth Annual State of the Union Essay contest conducted by my office. These 9 finalists were selected from over 380 entries.

The essays follow:

Carly Neeld, Champlain Valley Union High School, Grade 11 (Finalist)

It is a great privilege to be a citizen of the United

States. As citizens, we have a responsibility to ensure that

our government is used to improve lives. Although this

country has achieved much, there are many aspects that can be

improved. In particular, we need to work towards reducing the

unemployment rate and take meaningful steps to stop climate

change. Addressing these two issues now will go a long way

towards helping current and future generations.

The unemployment rate is at seven percent. It is our

obligation, as a nation, to lower this rate. By lowering the

unemployment rate, we could see a drop in crime and a

reduction in poverty as more people are earning a steady

income. Because of this steady income, there will be more tax

revenue which could then support safety net programs that

help the impoverished. An increased employment rate will also

cause an increased access to health care and other

necessities to living, strengthening families and

communities.

In order to decrease the unemployment rate, there are

things in our country that will need improvement and our

support. Affordable childcare can benefit the employment

rate, as it allows parents to be free to go to work. Access

to higher education is also essential in increasing the

employment rate, as more people will be able to obtain higher

paying jobs or start businesses that create jobs. Quality

public education, especially early childhood education, will

build a strong workforce as jobs are created. It is important

to acknowledge the small businesses that provide countless

jobs and to ensure that the government is giving these

businesses the support they need to sustain their existence.

Climate change is a pressing issue the world is now facing

and, as the United States, we need to lead the world in a

greener direction. Carbon dioxide emissions are growing

exponentially and are hurting our environment and our

people's health. We need to take meaningful steps to reduce

our carbon dioxide emissions and put our energy and resources

into renewable energy technologies. Not only will the

environment benefit, but we will benefit economically as the

prices of energy will be stable and affordable.

These goals may be difficult to achieve; however, the

result will benefit the country immensely and place us as a

world leader in many aspects. These issues must be addressed,

as they will improve the lives of every citizen and will

allow us to strengthen our union.

Mr. President, I ask to have printed in the Record winning essays written by Vermont High School students as part of the Fourth Annual State of the Union Essay contest conducted by my office.

The essays follow:

Alexina Federhen, Mount Anthony Union High School, Grade 11

(Winner)

A House Divided

2013 was a difficult year for America. Nature brought death

and disaster by fire, wind, and water; four prominent banks

used unethical methods to deprive Americans of their homes;

numerous individuals, businesses, and the city of Detroit hit

financial rock bottom; and shootings in our schools

every other week killed 19 and wounded 24 students and staff.

A spy revealed that our government is spying on our private

conversations; universal healthcare became a universal

headache when the application process required major surgery;

and an exciting finish exploded into terror at the Boston

Marathon. But Americans are resilient and resolute. Oklahoma

is rebuilding and Detroit is reorganizing. Many Americans

have healthcare for the first time and dozens of Boston's

runners finished their race in the Shires of Vermont

Marathon. Americans weathered the tragedies of 2013 with the

same determination, innovation, and cooperation that has

enabled us to overcome depressions, recessions, wars, and

disasters in the past; we pull up our boot straps, plant our

feet firmly in the direction of progress, and extend a

helping hand to those in need.

Tragically, there was one disaster that the American people

could not overcome in 2013--a Congress so dysfunctional that

it could not even manage to operate the government for the

entire year. And our expectations were not high to begin

with. A Gallup poll conducted in January 2013 found that

Americans rank Congress lower in popularity than root canals

and cockroaches and rate Congressmen lower in ethics and

honesty than used car salesmen. Instead of employing

collaboration and compromise, our leaders indulged in

backstabbing and finger pointing. Rather than seeking common

ground to find solutions to the problems facing our country,

our elected representatives nitpicked and cherry picked and

attacked each other's intentions and integrity to boost their

personal prospects for fundraising and reelection. The

spectacle of Tea Party Republicans posturing for the press

while the government crashed and burned lacked only a violin

accompaniment to rival Nero's folly.

The 113th Congress was the least productive legislature in

our history, passing only fifty-five bills into law. Public

approval of Congress sank from a ``high'' of 18% on January

1, 2013 to a current low of 8%. In fact, ``69% think no

matter how bad things are, Congress can always find a way to

make them worse.'' (Rasmussen Reports) We deserve better from

our political leaders. We need Congressmen and Senators who

will set aside personal gain and divisive ideology in order

to build compromise and find consensus on the issues that

challenge us: economic opportunity, income parity, gun

control, immigration, stagnant academic achievement, climate

change, and long-term deficit reduction.

Abraham Lincoln once observed that ``a house divided cannot

stand.'' Our House and Senate have splintered into partisan

factions of squabbling inactivity. Americans will continue to

soldier on, overcoming whatever obstacles impede our

advancement. We can only hope that our Congressional leaders

will acquire the maturity and wisdom to help rather than

hinder our progress. But for now, we are a union without

unity.