Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise today in strong opposition to Sharon Bowen's nomination to be a Commissioner of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Frankly, it amazes me that we are here today discussing basically a possible promotion for Ms. Bowen. Given my experience with her in her current job as Acting Chair of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation--SIPC--and before that as Vice Chair, I can say quite frankly that she does not deserve any promotion because she has not successfully safeguarded consumers, which is her job, her mission. Instead, she has fought to safeguard Wall Street money from just compensation to the legitimate victims of the Allen Stanford $7.2 billion Ponzi scheme.

I have been involved in this Stanford issue for quite a while because it affects a lot of folks in Louisiana, but it affects a lot of folks in every State of the country as well. These folks first and foremost were victims of Allen Stanford and his completely fraudulent activity, his Ponzi scheme that literally defrauded hard-working Americans of $7.2 billion. But they were victimized again, quite frankly, by Federal agencies that didn't do their job--first by the SEC, which knew about this activity for 4 years before saying anything publicly, before warning anyone out there, before taking any action, and then by SIPC-- including Sharon Bowen at SIPC--by refusing to take appropriate action for the victims and instead acting as if their job, their duty was to safeguard Wall Street money, not to properly compensate victims under the law.

If you read the letters and talk to the Stanford victims, as I have many times, it will just break your heart.

Charles Cook of Baton Rouge said:

My family, along with thousands of others who placed their

savings in licensed brokers' hands, now faces absolute

financial ruin simply because our government and government-

appointed regulators did not perform their jobs of protecting

us. These savings include retirement accounts, trusts for

chronically ill family members, college funds, and pension

plans.

Byron Ratliff, also of Baton Rouge:

Congress needs to be aware that the agency created by

Congress to protect investors is using their fund to defy the

federal government for the sake of denying protection to

investors they helped defraud . . . We need your help now

more than ever to block this ridiculous effort by SIPC. This

is criminal.

Gilbert Gossen, also of Louisiana:

Has it changed our lifestyle? Yes, tremendously. Not only

my wife and I have been deprived of our lifetime savings, my

five children who have worked alongside with us have been

unfairly deprived of their inheritance.

Carolyn Smith in Baton Rouge goes to the core of the matter:

I cannot believe this. This is killing me and my family.

Fraudulent schemes unfortunately go on all the time, but, again, what makes this so heartbreaking is the victimization upon victimization. First came the original fraud; then came the SEC, which saw this going on and did not act and did not give victims and potential victims any notice for 4 years; and then after the SEC acted, after the SEC ordered SIPC to compensate victims, SIPC--Sharon Bowen included--in an unprecedented move, refused to follow

that mandate by the SEC, requiring the SEC to sue SIPC, which is now tied up in court and continues to this day.

That gets us back to the issue at hand--Ms. Bowen. The name of her current employer is supposed to be about investor protection--the Securities Investor Protection Corporation, SIPC--but she and her colleagues have acted in the direction of Wall Street protection.

The fund is funded by companies that pay into it. They pay their dues to give potential investors peace of mind, and that confidence helps build a vibrant and positive marketplace. Make no mistake that those Wall Street member companies do not want SIPC to compensate these victims because they are worried that their dues will increase. Well, it is fine for them to have their concern; it is not fine for Sharon Bowen to make those concerns win out over the law and over the facts, to ignore a mandate from the SEC, and to not properly compensate the victims of the Stanford scandal.

If, after all of this, Congress gives Ms. Bowen a promotion, condones her actions here today, and votes to support her, that will be yet another slap in the face to these victims and an action that will certainly undermine investor confidence and encourage more to follow Ms. Bowen's career path and the way she ran the Security Investor Protection Commission by advancing themselves and member companies rather than the real mission of following the law and properly compensating victims.

This is not a partisan grudge match. This is not partisan at all. I am opposing Ms. Bowen's confirmation for one simple reason: I think she has proved that she is not qualified for the job based on her track record at SIPC as well as her performance at her confirmation hearing.

Let me underscore the way in which this is not partisan at all because there are many folks who have been following this Stanford case who are directly involved who have written to Senators on both sides of the aisle urging--urging in the strongest terms possible--opposition to this nomination.

Let's take a letter written by a self-proclaimed and lifelong Democrat from Ann Arbor, MI, a constituent of Senator Stabenow. Senator Stabenow is the chairman of the Senate agriculture committee. That certainly has a significant role in this nomination.

The letter says:

I've been writing to you over the past days regarding the

growing opposition to the nomination of Sharon Bowen to the

CFTC. I am writing once more to stress that this is not

merely an effort to block an Obama nominee. As a lifelong

Democrat I would not get behind such an initiative if I

thought that's what it was. Opposing Ms. Bowen's confirmation

is not a partisan issue. Simply put, it makes no sense to

appoint a regulator who is being sued by another regulator

(SEC vs. SIPC)! In this climate of growing cynicism toward

our financial regulators, can we really afford to put one

more fox outside the hen house?

In a similar way, a constituent of Senator Nelson of Florida wrote Senator Nelson and said:

We hope you will vote AGAINST confirming Ms. Bowen as a

CFTC Commissioner as she does not support protecting

investors. Sharon Bowen's loyalty to Wall Street instead of

hard-working people like us has devastated our lives because

her actions resulted in us not being able to recover our

savings.

A constituent of Senator Pryor's wrote him in a similar vein:

Based on the facts set forth below, I certainly hope you

will vote against confirming Ms. Bowen as a CFTC Commissioner

in order to protect the investors who rely on the CFTC's

regulatory supervision.

In a similar way, Madoff victims have also weighed strongly into this matter. They have written their Senators urging them to oppose the Bowen nomination.

One Madoff victim wrote:

SIPC Chairwoman Sharon Bowen is neither a qualified nor

appropriate nominee for the all-important Commodity Futures

Trading Commission. As a SIPC board member, SIPC Chairwoman

and an attorney representing members of the financial

industry, Ms. Bowen has demonstrated repeatedly that her

interest is in protecting Wall Street's interests.

Again, frauds happen all the time. It is always tragic, but it does happen. What makes this case so ``tripley'' tragic is that the victims of the original Allen Stanford fraud were victimized again by failed bureaucracies and regulators who failed to do their jobs and continued to fail to carry out their true mandate of protecting investors.

First, the SEC dragged its feet and took way too long to take any action in this matter or to give anyone in the real world notice of what was clearly happening in the Stanford case--4-plus years--and then the SEC finally acted and agreed that these victims required compensation under the law. They told SIPC to set about giving them this compensation, and in a completely unprecedented way, never before and never since, Sharon Bowen of SIPC said: No. We are not doing what the SEC has told us to do. We are refusing to do that.

They had to be sued by the SEC, and that legal matter is still tangled up in court with the victims of the Stanford mess, and they still have not gotten any compensation.

We can't prevent every bad thing from happening in the world, but surely we can ensure that agencies in Washington and regulatory bodies do their jobs, follow their mandates and their missions and work for investors and citizens and not be captured by narrow interests--in this case, Wall Street interests. Surely we can do that, and that, ultimately, is what this vote is all about. Are we going to do that or are we going to promote someone who has failed at her current job? Are we going to promote someone who has proved in her current job that she does not have the right mindset, the right understanding of a pro- investor, pro-consumer mission to handle that job or any other?

I urge all of my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats--and there is nothing partisan about this--to oppose this Sharon Bowen nomination. The victims of the Stanford scandal need some justice. They need to see that someone cares and that someone is fighting on their behalf. The victims of the Madoff scandal need exactly the same and feel exactly the same way.

Please oppose this nomination. Please vote for those consumers, those Americans, and those investors. Please vote to begin to right the ship and fix the regulatory system.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act. We are going to be considering the final conference report on that legislation and voting on it in a few hours. This WRRDA bill is a strong, bipartisan bill. It is a jobs bill. It is very much needed in our weak economy. That is why we need to move forward and finally pass this into law. It is also a pretty good example of how this place should work, how we can work in a bipartisan, constructive way, how we can move forward as an institution and find common ground on these sorts of important matters.

Earlier this week the House passed the WRRDA bill 412 to 4. That is pretty much unheard of. I am not sure resolutions expressing admiration for Mother Teresa passed by that vote in the House, so that is a strong testament to the broad, bipartisan, pro-jobs nature of the bill. Again, it is because WRRDA has a sharp focus on what our country desperately needs right now: job creation, as well as improved storm and flood protection, and enhanced national commerce, particularly in our maritime sector.

This bill invests in our Nation's waterborne assets and landside infrastructure to grow jobs and to keep us competitive in global markets. Ensuring our ports and waterways are operated and maintained, thereby improving the flow of commerce in that way, will create jobs. Being prepared for the Panama Canal expansion will increase imports and exports, and that will create jobs. Providing flood and storm damage protection for communities large and small and businesses all along our Nation's coasts and waterways is necessary, it is important, and will also create jobs. So let me underscore: The WRRDA bill will not only grow our economy, it will directly put Americans back to work.

Let me mention some of the specifics of the bill. Before I talk about what the bill does, let me start with what it doesn't do. It absolutely does not increase the deficit. It absolutely does not contain any earmarks as defined under our rules or the House rules. In fact, the Wall Street Journal recently editorialized in strong support of the bill as a fiscally responsible way to address infrastructure needs. In fact, the bill even has a deauthorization provision--a mechanism to provide authorization offsets for the important and necessary positive authorizations the bill contains.

Now what does the bill do? Well, Corps of Engineers reform and accountability, No. 1. That is very important. It includes commonsense solutions to streamline project delivery and environmental decisionmaking.

The bill went to great lengths in making the Corps transparent and accountable to Congress and their non-Federal partners. For instance, this WRRDA requires the Corps to open their financial ledgers to show how taxpayer dollars are being spent and mandates timeframes and costs for feasibility studies which have taken several years and millions of dollars to complete. So it narrows those issues and constrains them.

To strengthen the project delivery timeline, the bill includes language to speed up the environmental review process to ensure there are not unreasonable delays in getting projects built.

The bill will also implement, for the first time ever, monetary penalties on the Corps for missed deadlines and reports. Failure to provide a specific report means funds from the general expenses account of the Civil Works Program are subtracted from that part of the Corps, and they go to the division of the Corps with responsibility for getting the work done. So there is appropriate penalty and incentive to make sure the work is done.

WRRDA also authorizes 34 Corps projects for navigation, flood protection, and ecosystem restoration. But, as I said, it also includes a real deauthorization process to decrease the nearly $60 billion construction backlog and offset these new authorizations with equal or greater deauthorizations. I thank Senator Barrasso for this key provision. He authored it. It was refined and expanded by our colleagues in the House. I think it is a very important initiative.

We also include a provision that began as a stand-alone bill by myself and Senator Nelson last year. It puts significant project management control in the hands of State, local, and private entities to try that on a pilot basis and to see if it leads to reduced delays and reduced costs. That is what we do with most highway projects. The Federal Highway Administration is not the project manager of those projects. It doesn't take the lead. That is what we should do with water projects as well and not demand that an already overburdened Corps of Engineers has to be the lead project manager on all of those projects.

The second important category in this bill is the harbor maintenance trust fund. In order to advance our Nation's waterborne commerce and help drive our Nation's economy, this bill makes sweeping reforms to that trust fund. It is no secret that the harbor maintenance trust fund is grossly mismanaged and that in a good year half of the revenue going into that so-called trust fund is stolen--taken out--for completely unrelated purposes, even though that revenue is supposed to be dedicated for the purposes of the trust fund. We have to stop that. So WRRDA changes that status quo and requires a ramp-up in annual funding, incremental increases over 10 years to get to a full spend-out of trust fund revenue in 2025. Additional yearly harbor maintenance trust fund monies will be prioritized with ports which move 99 percent of our Nation's commerce--those high- and medium-use ports getting the highest prioritization. But there is also a limited but important low-use and underserved port set-aside to ensure adequate maintenance there and economic growth.

WRRDA also adds additional metrics to the harbor maintenance trust fund, in addition to commercial tonnage. We now include oil and gas activity, commercial fishing, and transportation of persons--important metrics that were ignored previously in an unfair way.

Without the full utilization of the harbor maintenance trust fund, negative impacts will be felt by manufacturers, producers, shippers, and carriers throughout America. They ultimately contribute to this trust fund to get dredging and other work done. We need to live up to our end of the deal and make sure that money is used for its intended purpose. That has never been more important than now with the expansion of the Panama Canal. We need to do the dredging. We need to be prepared for that economic opportunity.

A third important category in the bill is the inland waterways trust fund--another trust fund also with significant but different problems. WRRDA looks beyond our harbors to address serious concerns related to the delivery of projects on that inland waterway system and helps accelerate the construction of aging locks and dams, many of which have far exceeded their project design life. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, the average age of our locks is over 60 years old and that continues to cause unwanted delays in the shipment of goods. By the year 2020, more than 80 percent of these locks will be functionally obsolete. This is extremely concerning, considering that more than 70 percent of our imports and exports travel this inland waterway system.

Again, the American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that underinvestment in this inland waterway system cost our businesses $33 billion in 2010, and that could rise to $49 billion in 2020 unless we act. This WRRDA bill takes action in the inland waterway trust fund, clears out some of the backlog

and clears out some of the things preventing important projects under that trust fund from getting done.

Another very important category which I certainly deeply care about, considering the State I represent, is flood protection and levee safety. Not only does WRRDA authorize critical flood protection projects, but it also strengthens levee safety initiatives to provide critical funds to State and local agencies to make sure levees and flood protection systems stay up to par. There are over 15,000 miles of Federal levees and almost 100,000 miles of non-Federal levees protecting communities all around the country. However, many are graded as in unsatisfactory condition. These levees protect nearly 43 percent of the Nation's population, so we need to make sure they are strong and adequate. This levee safety initiative will provide national and local leadership the resources they need to promote sound technical practices and to keep up with aging levee and protection systems.

Most important for this program is levee rehabilitation funding. It is imperative that our non-Federal sponsors have the ability, both technical and financial, to repair and rehabilitate levees. Storm surge and floodwaters are damaging to our economy. We must address this. In the experience of Hurricane Katrina, for instance, about 80 percent of the catastrophic flooding of the city of New Orleans was due directly to breaches in the levee system due to inadequate design or maintenance--flawed design at the beginning and inadequate maintenance continuing. Literally 80 percent of that catastrophic flooding was completely avoidable, completely manmade--that part of the disaster. We need to make sure that never happens again.

Certainly, in all of these categories I am talking about, there are major benefits to Louisiana. I thank all of my Louisiana partners who have done so much to give me the information and the expertise we needed to address these important areas, including Morganza to the gulf, which is very important to Lafourche and Terrebonne Parishes, as well as our ecosystem restoration projects under the Louisiana Coastal Area Program, and many other important Louisiana priorities. Again, we could only address those properly with the full help and partnership of those Louisiana partners.

In closing, I wish to thank many folks, and I will start with those Louisiana partners. As I said, they were instrumental in helping us get the Louisiana piece right, and I thank them, and that work will continue and that partnership will continue.

I thank Chairman Barbara Boxer, a Washington, DC, partner on this bill. As she has said many times, the two of us don't agree on a whole lot of things, but we do agree on infrastructure needs and we do agree on this WRRDA bill, and we came together, as a result, very constructively, very productively on this infrastructure work, as we are doing right now on the next highway bill. Certainly that has been an important tradition at the EPW Committee, which we are continuing. The crucial element there is the will and determination to do it, and she always provided that will and determination, as did I. I thank her for being such a great partner.

We also had great House partners: Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member Rahall. They exhibited real leadership in getting a House bill done to begin with and then working with us on a productive conference committee. I thank them and their staffs for all of their work.

Speaking of staffs, I am deeply indebted to all of the staff work that went into this bill. It was very significant. The chair and I personally dealt with probably a couple dozen issues and semicrises that would crop up over time. Our staffs, in contrast, did that multiple times over--hundreds and hundreds of problems and issues before they developed to the Member level, literally hundreds and hundreds.

I thank both staffs, but I am particularly indebted to my staff for all of their hard work, particularly Charles Brittingham, Zak Baig, Chris Tomassi, Sarah Veatch, Rebecca Louviere, Jill Landry, Luke Bolar, and Cheyenne Steel. They put enormous hours into this bill and I truly appreciate their work.

I certainly want to also recognize and thank Chairman Boxer's staff, particularly Bettina Poirier, Jason Albritton, Ted Illston, Mary Kerr, and Kate Gilman.

In closing, I strongly commend this WRRDA bill to the Senate. It is a strong bipartisan jobs and infrastructure bill. It is what we need to do more of, and it is the model we need to adopt more in the Senate: working together on important projects across party lines. One key reason we were able to do it successfully is we had a strong bipartisan process and an open process that invited participation from all sides, including significant floor amendments to the Senate bill. That was absolutely crucial to moving the bill in a productive way through the process.

We will try to implement the same approach with the highway bill. We reported a strong bipartisan highway bill out of our committee unanimously last week, but we need to bring it to the Senate floor. We need to act well in advance of the highway trust fund running out of money around August. I hope we expand on this work. I hope we use this model, including an open-floor process, in many other areas on many other bills.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this WRRDA bill.

I yield the floor.

I share Chairman Boxer's and Senator Whitehouse's understanding of section 4014, and will address subsection (d) of that provision, ``Request for Projects.'' Subsection (d) is an important provision because it requires approval by the governor or chief executive officer of a State before the Corps can carry out any project identified under this section.

Madam President, I would like to thank my friend from Texas, Senator Cornyn. As the top Senate Republican member of the conference committee for WRRDA, I agree with his understanding and interpretation of the language in section 1046(a) of the WRRDA conference report. Multipurpose dams and reservoirs in Texas are crucial to the well-being and economic viability of Texas, particularly in areas that have experienced severe droughts over the past several years. This provision is explicit in that the Secretary shall coordinate with appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, as well as public and private entities that may be affected by those reviews and activities. This provision also prohibits any changes to the authorized purposes of any Corps dam or reservoir and only allows the Secretary to carry out recommendations or activities pursuant to existing law. As the Corps implements this provision, I will work with my colleague from Texas to monitor the Corps' activities and ensure there are no adverse effects to dams and reservoirs in his State.

I thank my friend from Alabama, Senator Sessions, for his work on the WRRDA conference report and on this long-running dispute in the Southeastern United States. As the top Republican on the Committee on Environment and Public Works and the lead Republican Senate conferee on the conference committee for WRRDA, I agree with his understanding and interpretation of the language in section 1051 of

the WRRDA conference report. Senator Sessions' work through the development of the Senate version of this bill to investigate and document this conflict provided useful clarity throughout the conference committee's deliberations. As we await the development of a water compact that is satisfactory to Georgia, Alabama, and Florida, I will work with my friend from Alabama to continue oversight of the Corps' implementation of the Water Supply Act.

Madam President, I urge a ``yes'' vote also. This is a strong bipartisan bill. There were only four ``no'' votes in the House and a strong positive editorial in the Wall Street Journal. Vote for infrastructure and jobs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam President, parliamentary inquiry.

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

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

Madam President, a point of parliamentary inquiry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to honor Lt. Col. Christopher Robert Eden on his retirement from the United States Air Force. Lieutenant Colonel Eden is retiring after nearly 21 years of service to our country. He was born at Williams AFB, Arizona, in 1970 and grew up in the shadows of one of our Nation's finest service academies, the United States Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs. Inspired by his grandfather who flew B-29s in World War II and his father and uncle who both graduated from the Academy and were Air Force pilots, Chris dreamed of someday following in their footsteps. In 1989, he was recruited to play baseball at the Air Force Academy Preparatory School and later accepted an appointment to the Academy. He graduated in the class of 1994, having been selected as a Rugby All-American during his senior year. Upon graduation, Chris received one of several coveted pilot training slots available at Reece AFB, Texas, and graduated in 1995 as the top T-1 Graduate.

During his first assignment flying C-21As at Yokota Air Base, Japan, Chris transported high-level dignitaries traveling throughout Asia and the Pacific, including diplomatic missions to North Korea. While fulfilling this assignment, he was upgraded to Instructor Pilot and was assigned to fly the C-17A at Charleston AFB, South Carolina. Here, Chris commanded emergency nuclear airlift, aeromedical evacuation, humanitarian relief, Presidential support,

and combat missions to support Operations Allied Force, Southern Watch, Northern Watch, Iraqi Freedom, and Enduring Freedom.

In his next assignment as Chief of Flight Operations and Acceptance/ Test Pilot at the Boeing C-17A Plant in Long Beach, CA, Chris tested and accepted new C-17A aircraft, developed and flew the first commercial C-17 FAA noise certification tests, developed crew training and aircraft delivery procedures, and authored and implemented new fuel tank leak check procedures. While serving in Long Beach, he upgraded to Evaluator Pilot, and his unit was honored with the Department of Defense Flight Operations of the Year Award.

As Chief of C-17A Requirements at Headquarters Air Mobility Command at Scott AFB, Illinois, Chris helped continue to grow the C-17A fleet while receiving a Masters in Management and Leadership from Webster University. In his final year at Scott AFB, he was selected to fly in the 89th Airlift Wing at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland.

As chief of training and chief pilot at Andrews, Chris transported our Nation's leaders in two administrations, including the Vice President, the First Lady, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. During this assignment, he was upgraded to Evaluator Pilot and trained the squadron's newest pilots to adhere to the highest SAMFOX standards of the 1st Airlift Squadron's no-fail missions.

During his Air Force career, Chris flew more than 5,100 hours and received many awards, including the Joint Service Achievement Medal, the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, the Air Medal, and the Aerial Achievement Medal. Throughout his accomplishments, Chris proved to be an effective and humble leader, displaying dedication, loyalty, and respect to the mission and the Air Force. His exceptional character should make us all proud that we have men and women like Chris serving in our Armed Forces.

I congratulate Lt. Col. Christopher Robert Eden for his many achievements and honors, but most of all, I thank him for his for exemplary service to our country. Fly Safe and Go Zoomies!

Thank you, Madam President.

I come to the floor again to urge consideration and a vote, and a positive vote, on my no-Washington exemption from ObamaCare proposal.

I think the first rule of American democracy should be that whatever Congress chooses to impose on America it lives by itself; whatever laws Washington passes, it lives by itself. That should be the rule across the board, and that should certainly include health care and ObamaCare. But that is not the case.

That is not the case at all, because there is a Washington exemption from ObamaCare. There are special-interest Washington subsidies under ObamaCare that the average American doesn't get in any way, shape, or form. As it relates to health care and ObamaCare, I think the rule should be simple: The baseline plan, the fallback position for all Americans is what we live by. Under ObamaCare that was first during the debate called the public option, but then it came to be known as the exchanges. That should be the plan we all live by and our staff live by and the White House and top members of the administration live by--no special exemption, no special deal, no special subsidy, no special treatment.

That was the intent of an amendment, and that is actually the clear language of an amendment that actually passed this body and passed the process and became part of ObamaCare, thanks to the leadership of Senator Chuck Grassley and others, and I certainly strongly supported the amendment. There was a clear amendment added to ObamaCare in the Senate that said every Member of Congress, all of our staff, have to go to the so-called exchanges for our health care. The problem is on the way to implementing that, after passage of the bill, folks around here understood what that meant and so they watered down and amended that language through the back door by administrative fiat in an illegal way.

They got the President and his administration to issue a special rule that took all of the sting out of that amendment. That rule did two things: First of all, it came up with a mechanism whereby a lot of congressional staff don't even have to go to the exchanges at all; and secondly, this illegal rule gave Members of Congress a special subsidy to go to the exchanges that no other American gets at comparable income levels, no one else gets, completely unique.

In addition, the administration, top members of the administration, such as Cabinet officials and top White House aides, have never been subjected to anything like the same rule.

Again, I think we should come back to what almost all Americans feel should be the first rule of American democracy: What is good for America has to be good for Washington. What is imposed on America needs to be imposed first and foremost on Washington, with no special exemptions, no special subsidies, no special carve-outs, no special deals, and that is what my no-Washington exemption from ObamaCare proposal is about. Every Member of Congress, our staff, and the White House and top administration officials should go to the exchanges for our health care, with no special deal, no special exemption, no special subsidies.

I have been fighting for simply a full debate and vote on this for 6 months now, and unfortunately have been completely shut out of any vote. This started as soon as the administration announced its special illegal rule to get around this provision of ObamaCare late last year, and as soon as that was announced, I said: This is wrong. We need to address this. We need to stop this. I proposed my clarifying language, and I brought up that language as an amendment on the floor as soon as I could. It was in September of last year on the Portman-Shaheen bill which is back on the floor now, and after a lot of back and forth, the majority leader finally agreed: Fine, we will have a vote on the Vitter amendment on this subject. In fact, Senator Reid was quoted in The Hill on September 17 of last year: ``What I said I will do is we'll vote on Vitter,'' meaning my no-Washington-exemption language, `` . . . as senseless as that is.''

I appreciate that endorsement of the proposal.

``I mean, we'll go ahead and do that.''

So he agreed to that vote on Portman-Shaheen. That was reported the same day by Bloomberg on September 17:

Reid said on the Senate floor that a vote would be allowed

on the Vitter proposal as long as Republicans agreed to

consider a yet-to-be unveiled Democratic counterproposal that

would be offered as a side-by-side or second-degree

amendment.

And also that same day in CQ:

Reid said Tuesday he was willing to give Senator David

Vitter, R-LA, a vote on his proposal to force more government

workers onto health care exchanges and to pay the premiums

themselves . . .

In addition, at the same time the next day, September 18, and the day following, September 19, Senators Shaheen and Portman said the same thing. Senator Shaheen was on the Senate floor September 18 saying: Great, we will give Senator Vitter his vote. I have no problem with that. Senator Portman, September 19, the same thing.

My understanding is that there has been a general agreement

to have a vote on the Vitter amendment. That is something I

have heard on the floor from leadership.

Well, as we all know, that agreement never materialized, was never honored. I have never gotten that vote. It is now 6 months later, and I am simply asking for a full debate and a fair up-or-down vote on this important issue.

Look, it is a free country. People don't have to agree with me, but let's have a vote. We voted yesterday on something that we have voted and revoted multiple times at the majority leader's insistence.

I am asking for one vote on this important issue that the American people care about. We voted and revoted on things multiple times. I am asking for one clear vote on this issue. After the majority leader agreed to a vote on this amendment that I never got in September, a couple months later when I was revisiting the issue, he said: Okay. Well, you can have a vote, but it has to be the only vote in this Congress.

Well, I resisted that at the time, but I will take that one vote. Can we have one vote on this important issue this Congress? Can we have a modicum of free expression and open debate and an open amendment process on the Senate floor? Can we have one vote on this issue that the American people certainly care about? That is what I am asking. I am asking for the majority leader to honor his commitment. That is what I am pushing for. That is what I will continue to push for, which is why I am filing the amendment to the Portman-Shaheen bill. And again, I am filing it to this bill for one clear reason: That is the context in our previous consideration of Portman-Shaheen where I was told we agreed to having a vote on this issue. We will have the vote. I am simply asking for that commitment to be honored.

I also care deeply about other important issues, including energy issues, moving forward with a very important jobs project for America, the Keystone XL Pipeline; and because of that, when I saw the majority leader's recent proposal that we move ahead on Portman-Shaheen with five energy-related votes, one of which would clearly be the Keystone XL Pipeline, I certainly took that very seriously. That is also an important issue and it deserves a vote. It has had votes in the past, but that needs to be addressed. So as soon as I saw that--and again, this is an offer by the majority leader--a hotline request that we now consider the Portman-Shaheen bill and limit considerations to five energy-related amendments, that would be chosen by the Republican leaders--as soon as I saw that hotline and that offer, I called the Republican leader to make sure of two points--two points that I care about quite a bit--No. 1, that one of those amendments would be a very substantive amendment on the Keystone Pipeline, not general, vague, sense-of-the-Senate language, but binding language that would approve, without the President's involvement, this very important jobs project; and No. 2, that at least one of the other amendments was an important matter within the jurisdiction of the EPW Committee on which I serve as ranking member.

The Republican leader absolutely agreed that was the case. Yes, absolutely, once we lock in this unanimous consent request by Leader Reid, one of those votes would absolutely be a binding proposal about the Keystone Pipeline. Another would clearly be an important matter from the jurisdiction of the committee on which I serve as ranking member on EPW. So those are important matters and those are significant votes.

So I will set aside temporarily my pursuit of this no-Washington- exemption vote. I promise I will be back to it. I promise I will use every reasonable opportunity to get that vote which was promised to me last September, 6 months ago and counting; but I believe we should move forward with Majority Leader Reid's proposal that he made as a hotline request this morning.

I offer that as a unanimous consent agreement, so we can lock it down and move forward, and move forward with this Keystone vote, move forward with these other energy votes, and then move forward beyond that, hopefully to a vote on the no-Washington-exemption language very soon. So I make as a unanimous consent request Majority Leader Reid's own proposal, that there be a unanimous consent agreement on S. 2262, the energy efficiency bill; that we move to its immediate consideration; that the only amendments in order be five amendments to be offered by the Republican leader or his designee related to energy policy, with a 60-vote threshold on adoption of each amendment; and that following the disposition of these amendments, the Senate will proceed to a vote on passage of the bill as amended, if amended.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, I would only ask for the opportunity to respond to the response to the unanimous consent request before the assistant majority leader proceeds, but I have no objection otherwise to his speaking after that for 5 minutes.

Madam President, reclaiming the floor.

Madam President, let me read the exact text of the hotline. A hotline is a message that goes out to all Senators.

The Majority Leader in consultation with the Republican

Leader would like to enter into a unanimous consent agreement

on S. 2262, the Energy Efficiency bill. The only amendments

in order would be 5 amendments to be offered by the

Republican Leader or his designee, related to energy policy,

with a 60 vote threshold on adoption of each amendment.

Following the disposition of these amendments, the Senate

will proceed to a vote on passage of the bill, as amended, if

amended.

That is clearly an expression of the majority leader's proposal in consultation with the Republican leader. That is what was sent to all Members of the Senate--at least on our side--after a personal discussion between the majority leader and the Republican leader.

Just to be crystal clear, my unanimous consent right now is that hotline request that has been clearly characterized as the request of the majority leader in consultation with the Republican leader.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, I would like 2 minutes to respond. I don't mean to delay the Senator from Arizona, but I would like 2 minutes to respond.

There is an objection, and I propose an alternative unanimous consent that the Senator from Illinois speak for up to 5 minutes followed by me for up to 2 minutes.

Madam President, I had the feeling I would need to respond to whatever was said, and I was certainly right.

I have a couple of points to make in order to set the facts right. First of all, my proposal does mean Washington is treated like all other Americans with regard to ObamaCare. That is not going on now. Many members of our staff don't have to go to the exchange. All others and Members of Congress get a huge taxpayer-funded subsidy that no other American at the same income level gets--no other American. And the Obama administration--White House officials--doesn't fall under that requirement at all to go to the exchange. That is No. 1.

No. 2, I don't take that subsidy. The assistant majority leader is a little late to the game. I made that decision months ago and announced it, so I do not take a subsidy.

No. 3, the assistant majority leader has just rejected a proposal of the majority leader in consultation with the Republican leader. I don't know why they can't take yes for an answer. They are complaining about my holding up a bill that is not on the floor yet, and I am asking for unanimous consent, which they initiated, with regard to energy amendments.

I will read the exact text of the hotline again.

The Majority Leader in consultation with the Republican Leader would like to enter into a unanimous consent agreement on S. 2262, the Energy Efficiency bill. The only amendments in order would be 5 amendments to be offered by the Republican Leader or his designee, related to energy policy, with a 60 vote threshold on adoption of each amendment. Following the disposition of these amendments, the Senate will proceed to a vote on passage of the bill, as amended, if amended.

I don't know why we can't take yes for an answer here. I'm holding up the bill? The bill is not on the Senate floor yet. I am asking for a unanimous consent that was a discussion and an idea of the majority leader in consultation with the Republican leader and now that is being objected to by the same sources who proposed it. This is silly.

Let's get on with the important votes. Let's get on with this important Keystone vote--a binding Keystone vote--and then in the future let's get on with important ObamaCare votes, which certainly includes my no-Washington-exemption proposal.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I believe our side has 38 seconds left, and I ask unanimous consent for an additional 60 seconds.

For an additional 60 seconds to the 38 seconds remaining.

Madam President, I come to the floor to address what I consider to be a very important issue which we have never voted on, and that is the basic principle that Washington should be treated as all other Americans with regard to whatever law we pass, including ObamaCare. Specifically, my ``no-Washington-exemptions'' proposal regarding ObamaCare has yet to get a vote, so I will be filing that proposal as an amendment to the Portman-Shaheen bill.

As we can remember, late last year it was filed as an amendment to that bill when it was on the floor. There was general agreement at that time, after some back and forth, that it should and would get a vote. It was reported in The Hill on September 17 that Senator Reid agreed to a vote on the amendment in the context of that bill. Senator Portman agreed to this concept at the same time--September 18--on the Senate floor, and Senator Shaheen did as well on September 18. So I am refiling as an amendment to the same bill.

I look forward to this important debate. I look forward to a vote. Obviously, if an alternative in the near future, such as a stand-alone vote, is presented, I will be happy to accept that as well. I look forward to coming back to the floor to debate this important issue.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I don't mean to cut my colleague off, but Senator Lee is here on behalf of Senator Coburn, who has been more involved, and so I will give the history of it. Some folks in the Senate had concerns about the bill and the fact that, in their view, it was not paid for. I met with them and talked through all of these concerns. I could not convince them to drop those concerns completely, so instead we found a solution, which is the Vitter amendment that is at the desk. That amendment has been cleared within its four corners. Nobody in the Senate--no Republican or Democrat--opposes the amendment. We found that solution in order to pass the bill through the Senate, and that addressed Senator Coburn's objections to the bill alone. That is the solution we worked out.

I can't fully walk through all of Senator Coburn's thoughts about the bill on its own and whether it was paid for. I can just tell the Senator that I met with him exhaustively, was not able to get him to completely drop his objection, but was able to agree on this compromise--this solution to the pay-for issue. So that is why the amendment, which is at the desk, was proposed, which removes the Coburn objection and thereby fixes the problem.

Mr. President, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

I would like to ask through the Chair, because this is significant information, whether Senator Sanders would object to passing the bill without amendment, because in all previous discussions to date, I understood he would object to that. But that is very significant information, so I would ask that of Senator Sanders through the Chair.

Mr. President, reclaiming the floor and reclaiming my time, that is very significant information that can guide us with regard to any path forward. So I would like to know from the Senator whether he would or would not object to a UC to pass the bill without this amendment.

If I could address the Chair, I am happy to answer the question.

As Senator Sanders knows, I have serious concerns with his much broader bill. So I am not agreeing to his far broader bill. He knows that. We have talked about that. We have talked about those concerns. I am happy to restate that.

Having answered his question, I would like to reask through the Chair if Senator Sanders is objecting or would object to a UC request to pass this veterans clinics bill without the amendment at the desk.

I ask unanimous consent that the previous order be postponed for an additional 10 minutes so we can simply round out this very important discussion.

I believe I made an inquiry through the Chair, so I believe I have the floor and I would like to reclaim it if that is appropriate.

I apologize for interrupting, but I just want to ensure that of the additional 10 minutes that were granted, I would have 5 minutes.

I apologize for interrupting.

Mr. President, I think this discussion has been very important and very instructive because it underscores that not only does the distinguished Senator from Vermont object to my efforts to pass the veterans clinics bill with the amendment at the desk by unanimous consent, but he also objects to Senator Landrieu's efforts to pass the same veterans clinics bill, in her case, without the amendment, without the offset. I asked him that direct question. He made it very clear that he continues to demand that we pass his entire much broader bill and will not let this hostage go.

I think that is very sad and very inappropriate for him to object to my effort, for him to now object to the efforts of Senator Landrieu. She made the unanimous consent request to pass the clinics bill, the focused clinics bill. He is objecting to that as well.

It is also completely contrary to what Senator Sanders has said before, working on these and related issues. In another instance in late 2013, November, Senator Sanders himself, talking about our colleagues, said:

I'm happy to tell you that I think that was a concern of

his.

Another colleague--

We got that UC'ed last night. So we moved that pretty

quickly, and I want to try to do those things, where we have

agreements, let's move it.

Where we have agreement, let's move it. We do not have agreement about the significant details of the much broader Sanders bill. It is not 1 Senator objecting about that, it is 43, but we do have agreement about this clinics issue. No one, including Senator Sanders, objects to the substance of the clinics bill. We have worked out every issue, including through my discussions with Senator Coburn, about the pay- fors. The amendment at the desk solves that.

So when we take that bill and the amendment, no one objects to that substance. No one objects to it within the four corners of that material. The only objection constantly on the floor for the last several weeks--today again toward me, today again toward Senator Landrieu's UC--is, no, I need my whole bill.

We will continue to discuss those important issues and disagreements, but 43 Senators disagree with Senator Sanders. Sixty are needed to move forward. In the meantime, can we at least agree what we agree on and not hold veterans hostage? They have had guns pointed at them before, but they don't expect U.S. Senators to hold guns to their head and hold them hostage over veterans clinics.

So where we have agreement, let's move it. We have agreement about the

veterans clinics. Let's move it. That is my effort. That is Senator Landrieu's effort, which again is being objected to, moving this focused clinics bill, by the Senator from Vermont. I find that very unfortunate, but I will certainly continue to demand that we pass this and continue to talk regarding all of the other important veterans' issues.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I rise to discuss and present amendment No. 2931 to the bill before us. This is a germane amendment. It is all about the substance of the bill before us and it is a fully bipartisan proposal, since all of the substance of this amendment was actually contained in the President's most recent budget submission.

The amendment idea is very simple: It would prohibit unemployment insurance and disability double-dipping. Those are two different things. One is about somebody who is temporarily unable to find work, still looking for work, clearly able to work. That is unemployment insurance. Disability is fundamentally different, somebody who is disabled and because of that disability cannot work on a long-term basis.

So, as President Obama has proposed, as many Republicans have proposed, this would simply prohibit an individual from receiving both of those benefits at the same time, and would save about $1 billion over 10 years. That is President Obama's own estimation.

To fully present and consider this, I would ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to offer my amendment No. 2931.

Mr. President, I am going to repeat my request, because apparently the majority leader, based on his comments, didn't understand it.

I have an amendment that is about unemployment insurance. I have an amendment that is germane to the bill. It is not about ObamaCare, not about EPA, not about the Koch brothers. I have an amendment that is a proposal contained in President Obama's last two budgets. My amendment has nothing to do with any of the comments and objections he makes. For that reason I am trying to clarify that, and I would again ask unanimous consent that my germane amendment proposed by President Obama in his last two budgets be in order, and it be in order for me to offer my amendment No. 2931.

Well, Mr. President, reclaiming the floor, I think it is very unfortunate. I don't know why it is diversionary to talk about the substance that is before us in this bill. That is not changing the subject, I would say through the Chair to the majority leader; that is talking about the subject. I don't know why it is delaying anything to consider an amendment during the time set aside for this bill. That is not delaying anything. That is doing the business of the Senate by bringing valid ideas to the floor and offering them as an amendment, and I don't know why it is Republican obstructionism to have an amendment that is a proposal contained in President Obama's last two budgets.

So again, I would make the point that everything the majority leader said in objecting to my being even able to present my amendment for a vote doesn't apply to my amendment. It is complete nonsense. It is just talking past the substance of this amendment which is about unemployment insurance reform and which is a bipartisan proposal and which is included in the President's last two budgets.

This is an important and commonsense reform. It is common sense because eligibility for the two programs we are talking about is mutually exclusive. It is apples and oranges. Disability is designed to assist folks who are physically or mentally unable to work for a significant period of time, sometimes permanently. Unemployment insurance, in contrast, is intended to replace some of the earnings for those individuals who become unemployed and are unable to find work temporarily.

It is an oversight, a technical imperfection in the law, the fact that some limited number of folks can double-dip and get both at the same time. This is widely recognized on a bipartisan basis.

On the Republican side, of course, I have this amendment. Senator Coburn, my colleague from Oklahoma, has had similar proposals. Senator Portman, my colleague from Ohio, has had similar proposals.

On the Democratic side, there is no higher ranking Democrat I can possibly cite than President Obama. The President has included this reform--exactly this reform--in his last two budget proposals. I have never heard any articulation from any Democrat or any Member of the Senate why this reform doesn't make sense.

The majority leader, while objecting to my even being able to present this amendment for a vote, offered no such rationale. He talked past it. He talked about the Koch brothers and he talked about EPA and he talked about ObamaCare, instead of talking about my germane, commonsense bipartisan reform amendment to this bill, which has been included--this proposal--in President Obama's last two budgets.

So I find this very unfortunate, but I am going to continue to fight for a vote on this amendment. It will improve the bill, whatever you think about the bill. This will improve it. This will save $1 billion over 10 years. This will clear up the double dipping which was never intended and contrary to the fundamental different purposes of the last of the two programs, and this will advance a proposal that has been included in President Obama's last two budgets.

With that, I will return to promote this amendment, but for now I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I rise to try to advance important legislation to fully authorize 27 Veterans Affairs clinics around the country in 18 different States, in communities that desperately need these facilities for our veterans, including two in Louisiana, Lafayette and Lake Charles.

These clinics have been on the books, planned for, approved for quite a while. Unfortunately, they ran into several bureaucratic glitches and hurdles. In the case of our two clinics in Louisiana, the first thing was a flatout mistake, a screwup at the VA, which they fully admit to. They made some errors in the contract letting process. Because of that, they had to stop that entire bidding process and back up and start all over.

That basically cost us 1 year in terms of those vital community-based clinics in Lafayette and Lake Charles. Then, as they were into that year of delay, out of the blue the Congressional Budget Office decided to score these sorts of clinics in a different way than they ever did before. That created a scoring issue with regard to all 27 of these clinics in 18 States.

On a bipartisan basis, a number of us went to work on that issue to clear that up. We have solved that issue, and the House has put a bill together with strong bipartisan support--virtually unanimous support-- and has passed the bill that resolved that issue.

It came to the Senate. I reached out to all of my colleagues. There were a few concerns, and I addressed those concerns proactively by finding savings in other parts of the budget to off-balance, counteract any possible costs of this bill, and so we added that amendment to that proposal. Through all of that hard work, we have addressed all of the substantive concerns with moving forward on these 27 clinics.

I have been trying to pass this bill with an amendment at the desk so that these 27 clinics can move forward as expeditiously as possible. As I said, every substantive concern about this bill, as it would be amended, has been met--everybody's concerns, conservatives, moderates, liberals.

The only objection to the bill now is from the distinguished Senator from Vermont, who, quite frankly, wants to hold it hostage, wants to object to it, simply to try to advance his much broader veterans bill which he brought to the floor and was unsuccessful in passing several weeks ago. While I appreciate the Senator's passion on this issue--I appreciate his legislation and his focus on it--the problem is that legislation does have many Senators with concerns about it, including me. Forty-three Senators, forty-three percent of the overall Senate, 43 out of 100, have serious, substantive concerns with that much broader bill.

In contrast to that, no one in the Senate has substantive concerns with my narrower bill with regard to 27 VA clinics around the country.

I simply suggest that we agree on important matters we can agree on; we use that to begin to build consensus to move forward constructively, do what we can agree on, and continue to work on that on which there is some disagreement.

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

Reclaiming the floor and reclaiming the time, I find this approach very unfortunate. To follow through on the scenario the Senator from Vermont himself laid out, yes, we can find agreement here on the floor,

but then, ``Katy, bar the door.'' That might lead to our finding agreement on other important matters that can help veterans, and we might be moving forward in this area and that area and the other one. God forbid that we make progress to help veterans and actually get something done versus having a hostage standoff. God forbid. I think the more productive way of working together is to agree on what we can agree on and keep talking about those areas where we have disagreement.

In fact, in the past Senator Sanders has endorsed that approach in the area of veterans affairs. He has said, in the past, working on another issue in November of 2013:

I'm happy to tell you that I think that was a concern of

his . . .

This was referring to another Senator. He continues:

. . . we got that UC'd last night. So we moved that pretty

quickly, and I want to try to do those things, where we have

agreement, let's move it.

He agreed on a small focus bill where we did have agreement. He said, let's do that by unanimous consent, let's agree where we can agree and be constructive and move on. He said, ``I want to try to do those things where we have agreement, let's move it.''

Well, I would say to Senator Sanders, through the Chair, we have agreement. This is an important matter. Twenty-seven clinics isn't the world, but it is an important matter that affects hundreds of thousands of veterans in 18 States, including in my Louisiana communities of Lafayette and Lake Charles. We have agreement, so let's move it. I agree with that approach. I think that is a constructive approach versus saying: I have majority support, but not the 60 required, so I am holding everything else veterans-related hostage, I am not agreeing to anything else.

I don't think that is a constructive approach. I don't think that reflects the spirit of the American people who want us to try to reach agreement where we can reach agreement. I don't think that is a constructive way to build goodwill and to build consensus.

I would urge my colleague, with all due respect, to reconsider. Let's agree where we can agree, where we have agreement. Let's move forward where we have agreement. Let's move it.

This isn't the world, but it is meaningful, it is significant, and it does not relieve any pressure in terms of the broader veterans discussion regarding the Sanders bill or the Burr alternative or anything else. Those bills are so much massively larger that these 27 clinics, being done separately, do not change the discussion or the dynamics of this in any way, shape, or form.

I would urge my colleague to reconsider. I would urge my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Landrieu, to urge Senator Sanders to reconsider, something she has not done to date. A lot of us are waiting for her support of these important community-based clinics in Lafayette and Lake Charles. She hasn't been on the floor. I urge her to join me on the floor to get this done.

Reserving the right to object, I would again point out that I am not only going to object to this, there are 43 Senators who have serious substantive concerns with this very broad and expansive bill, and those concerns and objections have been laid out. They have been laid out by my staff, in meetings with the staff of the Senator from Vermont, and they have been laid out by the Republican ranking member on the committee, Senator Burr. I share the general concerns of Senator Burr about the bill. So if the distinguished Senator from Vermont doesn't understand those concerns, quite frankly he hasn't been listening very hard. We have laid them out, and they are shared by 43 Senators, versus a bill, as amended at the desk, with no objections to its substance--none, 100 to 0. Big difference. Big difference.

So on behalf of the total of 43 Senators, I do object.

Madam President, retaining the floor, I would also ask the distinguished Senator from Vermont through the Chair--because he mentioned Senator Landrieu--has Senator Landrieu asked him to remove his objection to this bill so we can get a clinic in Lafayette and Lake Charles, No. 1; and No. 2, all those veterans groups he mentioned, do they oppose moving forward with this bill as it would be amended at the desk? Do they publicly oppose moving forward with those 27 veterans clinics?

I would ask those two very important, pertinent questions of the Senator from Vermont through the Chair.

Madam President, in that case, I ask unanimous consent to wrap up this discussion in about 45 seconds.

I thank my colleague.

Again, Madam President, I think this is very important. I agree with what Senator Sanders said last November--where we have agreement, let's move it. We have agreement about these 27 clinics, 18 States, including Lafayette and Lake Charles. Let's move it.

I didn't hear him say that any of those veterans organizations he continually cites oppose this because they do not. They take the commonsense approach the huge majority of Americans take: Where there is agreement and we can constructively move forward for veterans, let's do it and let's build on that.

Finally, if Senator Landrieu has forcefully asked the Senator to remove his objection to this, apparently she has not been very effective. I think that is very unfortunate because veterans in Louisiana are suffering today. They have been waiting for this. They have been waiting for years for this, and they still wait, even though there is no substantive disagreement with this bill.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have a germane amendment to this matter, which I have been trying to get recognized to present.

I call up my amendment No. 2931 to the Reid amendment No. 2874.

Mr. President, in light of the fact that our practice of regularly shutting out Senators from the ability to offer reasonable and germane amendments is inconsistent with all of the history and traditions of the Senate, I appeal the ruling of the Chair that the amendment is not in order and ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I come to the floor again to try to move forward on a bill with near unanimous support. In fact, with regard to the actual substance of the bill, within the four corners of the bill, it has unanimous support because it would advance 27 community-based health care clinics for veterans in the VA system immediately, around the country, which would serve hundreds of thousands of veterans in communities that absolutely need this type of expanded community-based clinic. Two are in my State--one in Lafayette, one in Lake Charles, LA.

All of these community-based clinics--including the ones in Lafayette and Lake Charles--have been fully authorized by the VA and throughout the process. They have been on the books. We have been planning on them and moving forward with them for some time. But they have hit a series of bureaucratic glitches.

For the Lafayette and Lake Charles facilities in particular, first they hit a big VA glitch when the VA just screwed up--and those are their words, not mine--just screwed up in the letting process to put out contracts to locate land and to build or lease these facilities. Because of that bureaucratic mistake, the VA lost a whole year in the process in terms of moving forward with these clinics that are fully approved, fully authorized.

During that year of delay, out of the blue CBO decided to score how these clinics are financed differently than it ever did before. I won't go into the weeds, but suffice it to say that under this new scoring method, it created a scoring issue, which it never did before. Well, that was an additional hurdle and additional point of delay to which we had to respond. We overcame it with a proposal that ensures the VA funds and handles this correctly so there is no scoring issue. The bill passed the House nearly unanimously. In fact, the vote in the House was 346 to 1. As the Presiding Officer knows, not much passes either body nearly unanimously, but this did with very widespread bipartisan support, 346 to 1. This is the bill which has come over here to get final approval.

With the addition of an amendment to help pay for any costs associated with the bill--and the amendment has been fully vetted and is supported in a bipartisan way--with the addition of an amendment, we have no opposition here in the Senate on the actual substance of my proposal, on moving forward with these 27 important VA clinics around the country, two of which are in Louisiana.

Unfortunately, the only objection that appears to reside here in the Senate is from the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Sanders, who does not object to this bill as amended, who does not object to the substance within the four corners of this bill, but who simply wants his much bigger, much broader VA bill passed. I applaud his passion to advocate for it, but there is significant concern with that much bigger, much more complicated proposal. There are 43 Senators, including myself, who have very significant concerns about that proposal.

I think it is really unfortunate for him to block something where there are no concerns--it has been vetted, it has bipartisan support, and every conceivable substantive issue has been worked out--simply to hold that as hostage for a much broader bill that has concerns and opposition from almost half of the Senate, 43 Senators. So I hope we can avoid that, and I come to the floor to ask for unanimous consent.

I think the American people want us to work together. I think the American people want us to agree on things we can agree on. There is a lot to fight about, there is a lot to wrestle with, there is a lot to disagree about, and we should work on that stuff too, toward an agreement. I am open to doing so with Senator Sanders. But in the meantime, I firmly believe the American people want us to agree where we do agree. Don't create disagreements that don't exist. They want us to move forward where we can move forward. They want us to make progress where we can and keep working on the rest.

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

Mr. President, I object on behalf of 43 Senators, including myself.

Reclaiming the floor and reclaiming my time, I would say we all want to work very hard to help veterans. We all acknowledge that the health care and work claim backlog issues are extremely important. That is why I am very involved in all of those issues across the board. That is why, for instance, I am an active member of the claims backlog working group, working with the VA to improve that situation and proposing focused legislation. We all care very much about that.

But right now Senator Sanders' comprehensive bill has significant concerns in opposition--43 Senators, over 40 percent of the whole body. I do object on behalf of myself and the rest of those folks. I do commit to continuing to work on those issues, but I also express real regret that when this body is very divided on the important details of that bill--and the details do matter--we don't come together on something we agree on, and we can't accomplish a few important steps at a time.

Perhaps Senator Sanders thinks that if we do this, somehow it takes away momentum for his larger bill. I think that is nonsense. These 27 clinics in 18 States are important, but they are a trivial part of that broader bill. They are a trivial part of all of the proposals in that broader bill. I don't think it takes away any momentum in any way, shape, or form for that broader bill. I will continue to be just as committed and just as interested in VA health care issues and working down the claims backlog and everything else. These clinics are a tiny part of that. So he doesn't lose any advantage. He doesn't lose any momentum. We could move forward on something we do agree on and build from there. I think that is more reasonable and more constructive.

There is literally no disagreement among any of us in this body about these clinics. I have worked hard with several other colleagues to address every question and every concern out there. The amendment at the desk erases some of those concerns. We have covered the waterfront on this clinics issue in particular.

I am very disappointed that we can't move forward as a first step and agree on what we agree on. We disagree on enough. Let's agree on what we agree on. Let's move forward on what we agree on and pass these 27 clinics and start that progress and certainly continue to work on important compromise on the much bigger piece represented by the Sanders bill.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 2845 and ask that it be modified with the changes at the desk.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, I will briefly summarize this amendment, but I first want to thank the chairman and ranking member of the committee for working through this amendment and agreeing to what I think will be a quick consideration and adoption by voice vote.

This amendment is very simple, straightforward, but important. Present law with regard to child care and development block grants-- present Federal law--says that States should and must prioritize for two categories of children: low-income kids and children with special needs. I think we all agree with that prioritization. The problem is, as recent reports have indicated, about half of all the States--23 to be exact--do not do that. They just basically ignore that Federal law.

This simple, straightforward amendment would bring accountability to the system and make sure all States follow present Federal law and give that appropriate priority treatment to children with special needs as well as low-income kids. It would do this by saying that there is going to be some accountability; that the Federal Department involved in the program already will annually make sure States follow this aspect of present law and that if a State is not doing that, it gets 6 months to cure the problem, but if it does not cure that within 6 months, then that State would feel the pinch by having 5 percent of its block grant funds withheld until it corrects the situation.

The amendment also gives the Secretary waiver authority for extraordinary circumstances, such as natural disasters and other emergencies.

Again, I appreciate the chairman and ranking member working out this provision. I do think it is important that all States follow Federal law, and we give these children--special needs children, low-income children--the priority treatment they deserve.

I yield the floor.

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