Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 346, S. 526.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to; that the Risch amendment at the desk be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time.

I know of no further debate on the bill, as amended.

I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of Calendar No. 942; that the nomination be confirmed; that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order; that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 347, S. 791.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time.

I know of no further debate on the bill.

I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 416, S. 2850.

I ask unanimous consent that the Flake amendment at the desk be agreed to, that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m., Thursday, July 19; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed. I ask that following leader remarks, the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the Bounds nomination; further, that all time in recess, adjournment, morning business, and leader remarks count against postcloture time.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order, following the remarks of the Senator from Delaware.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I rise today to discuss the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, or what is commonly known in our part of the country as the farm bill, which we are considering on the Senate floor this week.

The farm bill is a vital piece of legislation to the people of my home State of South Dakota, where our economy depends on agriculture to survive. With more than 31,500 farms across the State, South Dakota ranks in the top 10 for ag production, providing a $25 billion impact on our economy annually. Stability and certainty for our farmers, which this farm bill helps to provide, is crucial as they do their part to feed and fuel a growing global population.

I would like to thank Chairman Pat Roberts, Ranking Member Debbie Stabenow, and all of the other members of the Senate Ag Committee and their staff, who worked tirelessly to get this marketed-oriented bill to the floor for consideration by the full Senate body. This bipartisan bill will provide much needed certainty to our ag community at a pivotal time, when the ag economy is facing significant challenges. The ag economy is down more than 50 percent over the past 5 years, and the numbers don't look much better for 2018. According to the Department of Agriculture's own Economic Research Service, net farm income is projected to fall an additional 7 percent this year to $58 billion.

A 5-year farm bill is necessary to give South Dakota producers the certainty they need to help weather times of economic downturn, such as the one we are experiencing right now in ag country. Additionally, the uncertainty surrounding trade and tariffs has created instability in the market, which is having a significant effect on our commodity prices.

For example, in my home State of South Dakota, soybeans are one of the top commodities, and we rely heavily on exports to sell our soybean crop each year. A significant importer of U.S. soybeans is China, which accounts for about 25 percent of all of the U.S. soybean sales and 60 percent of all soybean exports.

While the tariffs on soybeans have not taken effect yet, they are already having a real impact on the market prices. Since the tariffs on Chinese goods were announced in early March, soybeans are down $1.86 per bushel on the cash market, representing a $449 million loss in South Dakota alone when we look at farmers' balance sheets. The USDA had projected ag exports to be flat in 2018 before tariffs were levied on the ag industry--or at least before those tariffs were suggested to be added to the ag industry.

With so much uncertainty surrounding trade deals since tariffs were announced, reauthorizing programs like the Market Access Program, or MAP, and the Foreign Market Development Program, FMD, are vital to help gain access to new markets for U.S. products. This bill does exactly that.

These programs help encourage the development, maintenance, and expansion of the ag export market to foreign customers.

I am pleased that this legislation also strengthens the crop insurance program with outlays projected to be approximately $7.6 billion annually. Crop insurance is a highly effective public-private safety net that helps farmers customize protection for their individual operations. Sometimes I don't think we emphasize that this is one of those safety net items for which farmers and ranchers actually pay premiums to participate. Crops in my home State of South Dakota contribute roughly $10.3 billion to our economy. Last year, in South Dakota alone, more than 50,000 crop insurance policies were written to provide $4.8 billion in protection for over 17.5 million acres of cropland. Nationwide,

more than 310 million acres were enrolled in crop insurance, backing more than $106 billion of crop value. It is vital as a risk management tool for farmers across the entire country. By maintaining strong crop insurance provisions, this bill will help our producers weather these very tough times in ag country.

Additionally, this legislation provides a modest increase in the cap of the Conservation Reserve Program, or CRP, to 25 million acres. That would be up from 24 million acres currently in the existing farm bill. While we would have preferred a more significant increase in CRP acres, to the tune of perhaps 30 million acres or more, a strong CRP program is an important tool to assist farmers and ranchers during these adverse times, such as during a drought like we experienced in South Dakota last year, or possible flood damage, which I fear we will be experiencing this year.

This legislation also gives the Secretary of Ag the necessary authority to reorganize the USDA. Ag Secretary Sonny Perdue recently introduced a plan to reorganize the agency, including combining the Natural Resources Conservation Service with the Farm Service Agency and the Risk Management Agency, creating a new farm production and conservation mission, which would be under the Under Secretary, Bill Northey. Streamlining these programs will help sharpen the agency's focus on domestic agricultural issues, providing farmers and ranchers with a one-stop shop so that USDA can better meet their needs.

Last year, as the Senate Ag Committee discussions on this farm bill took shape, I wrote to the chairman and ranking member of the committee to ask them to establish a foot-and-mouth disease vaccination bank to combat economic, food, and national security concerns. A major outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, or FMD, would be financially devastating to our producers, and I am pleased this bill highlights an FMD disease bank as a priority at USDA.

The final thing I will mention about the Ag Improvement Act of 2018 is that it increases the cap for individuals seeking loans under the Farm Service Agency loan guarantee program. This program provides financial assistance to farmers and ranchers who want to expand and improve their operations. Under this legislation, the FSA direct loan program cap will go from $300,000 to $600,000 for direct ownership loans, $400,000 for direct operating loans, and from $1.39 million to $1.75 million for guaranteed ownership and operating loans. Increasing both the individual cap for these loans and the total amount of money available for lending will allow a greater number of producers to utilize the program. Farming and ranching have become increasingly costly, and increasing these limits will more accurately reflect inflation and increasing costs of ag production today and make sure that lenders have flexibility during times of hardship.

South Dakota producers work hard every day to feed and fuel a growing global population. As in all businesses, some years are simply better than others. During those more difficult times, it is important that our farmers and ranchers have access to tools that can help them keep their operations vital. The certainty and stability of this farm bill will do that by allowing them to work to weather this current economic downturn, as well as strengthen the agricultural economy.

I support the Senate's efforts to provide certainty to our farmers, and I will continue to work with my colleagues to see this bill across the finish line so that we can provide our ag economy with much needed certainty and help get our ag economy back on track.

Let me also add that I believe we may very well see some very well- meaning amendments today that make good sense, but these amendments might very well not be supported by enough of our Members to where the actual bill itself would survive if the amendments were included. My interest is in making certain that this farm bill is allowed to continue forward, to be reconciled with the House, and become law as quickly as possible. I would ask the other Members to seriously consider the impacts; while we may very well have some great ideas on how to make improvements, unless we have enough to maintain that 60- vote margin in the U.S. Senate on a bipartisan basis, then we will have failed in providing that stability to the ag community in this time when they desperately need that reassurance.

With that, Madam President, I thank you for the opportunity to visit and talk about this very important piece of legislation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I rise today to discuss H.R. 5895, the Energy and Water, Legislative Branch, and Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act, 2019.

I couldn't help but listen to my colleague Senator Rubio and the very fine way in which he has expressed the same thing that many Americans feel, and that is a compassion for those individuals who find themselves at our border and who simply want a better way of life for their families, while at the same time expressing the frustration that our laws are very, very clear that if you want to come into our country, you have to follow the law. At the same time, there is the compassion that has been shown by people across this entire country with regard to these children who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in this serious predicament in many communities along the border.

I also want to express my appreciation to the President for the Executive order he has put in place in an effort to at least in a very short period of time address the situation for these young people and try to unite--as many of us want--those families once again. The compassion of the American people continues to shine through with regard to assisting and recognizing those who simply are not in a position to take care of themselves, regardless of which country they are a citizen of today.

Madam President, I would like to refer to and discuss the appropriations bill that is in front of us today. This appropriations minibus combines three separate appropriations bills, each of which was voted nearly unanimously out of the Senate Appropriations Committee earlier this year. It expends about $147 billion, or they propose to spend about $147 billion. This is significant because since coming to the Senate 3\1/2\ years ago, this is only the second time we are actually bringing smaller, separate appropriations bills to the floor months before the deadline and also having a healthy, robust debate on amendments to this legislation. It is a long-overdue step that is getting us back to what we call regular order, which is the traditional way of working appropriations bills through the Senate. It lets everybody see what is in the bill. It is truly long overdue.

Let me go over some highlights of this particular appropriations package of three bills, starting with the Energy and Water Development section.

This section authorizes funding for the Department of the Interior, the Department of Energy, and the Army Corps of Engineers, just to name a few. It appropriates $42.8 billion to these agencies to improve our water infrastructure and invests in critical national security needs concerning nuclear energy.

It also provides additional resources to invest in science and energy, including providing full funding for the Long-Baseline Neutrino Facility and the Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment, which, at $145 million, is up from $95 million last year. This funding will allow the scientists at the Sanford Underground Research Facility in Lead, SD--a world-renown research facility in my home State--to continue their important research on neutrinos and dark matter.

The report language of this section also encourages the Army Corps of Engineers to finally implement the snowpack monitoring program in the Upper Missouri River Basin. It does this by recommending that the snowpack monitoring equipment be eligible for funding under the operation and maintenance account. This is significant because the implementation of the Upper Missouri River Basin snowpack monitoring system will help mitigate the possibility of a major flood event for those living or working along the Missouri River and the Mississippi River.

It is time for the Army Corps to step up and finally implement this much needed program, which was originally authorized under the 2014 water resources bill 4 years ago. This was in direct response to the flood that occurred on the Missouri River and the Mississippi River in 2011. It is time to implement this monitoring process now.

The Military Construction and Veterans Affairs section of this bill, which was supported unanimously when it was reported out of committee, supports infrastructure investments to help ensure maximum readiness for our troops, providing a total of $10.3 billion in funding for military construction. This includes report language that appropriates $15 million for a new National Guard readiness center in Rapid City,

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw amendment No. 2273.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the votes following the first vote in this series be 10 minutes in length.

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

Mr. President, as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I am pleased that we as a committee have once again come together in a bipartisan fashion to advance the National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA, which I believe is a vital piece of legislation for our national security.

I thank the chairmen and ranking members in both the House and Senate for their leadership--Senator Inhofe--and the Members on both sides of the aisle who have continued to work together on this very important Defense bill.

Congress as an institution continues to come together each year to show our troops and their families that they have our full support. The Federal Government's No. 1 responsibility is to provide for the defense of our Nation.

This year's NDAA, the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act, honors our chairman, who has dedicated his life to serving our country. Few people are more passionate about our troops and our military readiness than Chairman McCain, and the courage he has exhibited during his years of service and in his current battle has inspired all of us. I am pleased we were able to put together legislation bearing his name that builds on last year's efforts to provide adequate tools so our forces can fully rebuild our military and adequately address the challenges they face.

The most important capability we have is our people, the men and women in uniform who defend our Nation and the families who give them the strength to do so. That is why I am pleased that this year's NDAA includes a 2.6-percent pay raise for our troops.

We are also fortunate that the leader of our Armed Forces, Defense Secretary James Mattis, has provided us with a national defense strategy that clearly articulates the current and emerging threats we as a nation are facing. This strategy focuses on the central challenge facing our Nation: the reemergence of long-term strategic competition with our near-peer competitors, such as Russia and China. It is our duty to provide Secretary Mattis and all of our troops with the tools they need to execute this strategy.

The world is more dangerous than at any time since the Cold War era. China and Russia are both strategic competitors. Great uncertainty still remains on the Korean Peninsula. Iran continues to threaten Middle Eastern stability. Our forces remain engaged in combat in Afghanistan and are conducting counterterrorism in multiple areas of operation.

Our superiority in the maritime, air, ground, space, and cyber domains--once taken for granted--is constantly challenged by our strategic and regional competitors.

Even more concerning, the threat of sequestration and repeated continuing resolutions has prevented our troops from being fully equipped to prepare and defend against these threats. As a result, modernization, readiness, and sustainment have all suffered.

It is our duty to provide funding stability and avoid arbitrary budget caps that constrain defense spending below that which is required to protect our Nation. Failure to provide adequate, stable funding disrupts planning, impacts responsible obligation of critical funding resources, degrades readiness, and inhibits modernization, and there have been disturbing real-world consequences.

The high operational demand with an insufficient fleet, overburdened maintenance infrastructure, and an erosion of training all were factors in a string of recent Navy surface fleet incidents. The Marine Corps and Air Force have had their own serious readiness issues with the F-18 and the B-1 fleets, which experienced multiple class-A accidents, some of which caused the loss of life. The shortage of pilots in every service is a strategic readiness concern that must be addressed.

Our sailors, soldiers, airmen, and marines deserve the very best in training and equipment. This year's NDAA does that by providing a total of $716 billion in fiscal year 2019 for national defense.

Voting for this vital legislation is not--I repeat: not--an act of budget-busting. In fact, in 2010 we spent $714 billion--just $2 billion less than this year--on national defense, but a dollar went a lot further back then. Adjusted for inflation, this bill actually authorizes more than $110 billion less than in 2010 buying power. We are slowly digging ourselves out of a hole that has hollowed our Armed Forces. The real budget-busting is being done with mandatory spending, and we don't even vote on mandatory spending.

Since the Cold War, the stakes for failing to take decisive action have never been higher. This legislation will enable our Armed Forces to continue taking necessary steps to rebuild and restore our national security.

As an example, in the Navy--this year's NDAA builds on last year's bill to improve ship and aviation readiness and the infrastructure necessary to support the fleet, which directly addresses a significant problem the Armed Services Committee has examined in multiple hearings this year. Significantly, it improves the Navy's capacity to execute maintenance in naval shipyards by continuing to grow the workforce while investing in shipyard infrastructure, including facilities, equipment, and information technology. This increase in workforce will help the Navy to meet scheduled ship maintenance, support additional ships, and reduce the backlog that has accumulated from over a decade of increased operational tempo.

Similar plans to restore readiness will be executed across the force so long as we honor our commitment to invest in a complete life cycle acquisition system.

As chairman of the Cybersecurity Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I am pleased that the NDAA includes important provisions that take steps to address the serious cyber threat our Nation faces. This includes providing the Secretary of Defense with the authority to conduct military operations in cyber space, developing a program to establish cyber institutes at educational institutions, and investing in cyber programs in the defense industrial base. These are important steps we can take to defend the Nation in the cyber domain.

I am also glad that the bill we are considering today includes strategic measures that I offered to improve officer personnel management and increase the capabilities of our training ranges throughout the Department of Defense to better support the objectives outlined in the national defense strategy. Today, a number of our personnel and training systems are outdated and fail to provide our forces with the tools they need on the modern battlefield. This bill changes that.

While we champion this year's bill, we must also extend our view beyond fiscal year 2019. We must be prepared for the future while reacting to the present, especially as it relates to funding. For the past 3 years, I have served

as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, bearing witness to potential challenges that could threaten our national security if we do not address arbitrary budget caps placed on our defense. These arbitrary budget caps have forced the kinds of false choices that are potentially so devastating for our Armed Forces.

We must also avoid the false choice of paying for readiness while assuming risk for modernization or vice-versa. We cannot let the pursuit of the perfect modernization solution prevent us from implementing mature technologies--to address short-term capability gaps--now, today.

The bill we are considering today avoids these choices.

In closing, I thank Chairman McCain, Ranking Member Reed, Senator Inhofe, and my other Armed Services Committee colleagues and everyone on staff for their work on this year's NDAA.

I look forward to getting this bill to the President's desk in a timely manner as we continue our strong tradition of coming together on a bipartisan basis to support our troops and their families so that they can continue to keep us safe.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have been listening to the debate, and I wish this debate would go on, on a regular basis, in the U.S. Senate. I think it is healthy. I wish there were a process in place today so that every single amendment brought up could have this type of discussion and debate and those proposals could actually be amended on the floor of the Senate to improve them.

I will share with you that I thought what our friend from Tennessee was trying to do was an honest attempt to bring back to Congress section 1 or article I responsibilities that we have, over a period of years, allowed to be delegated to the executive branch.

I also shared with the Senator that while the debate was a very healthy one, I felt at this stage of the game that it probably would not, in its current form, be appropriate and that the President was already acting on these tariffs. I thought that I probably could not support his bill, but I thought he should have an opportunity in this process to have the debate.

Let me now share that what the chairman--or the ranking member, who is acting as the chairman in this particular case--is doing is protecting the National Defense Authorization Act and making it as viable as possible in the long term to survive in both the House and the Senate.

For those who are wondering what we are talking about in a nebulous sort of way, what Senator Corker had tried to do was to have a debate about whether the tariffs that the President had proposed for national defense purposes under a 1962 law were appropriately determined to be a national security

threat. That was the language Congress had delivered to the President.

The President has made his choice, and there are a number of Members who feel that while they support the President, they think he has overstepped with regard to whether they were actually of national security importance. Senator Corker wanted to have that discussion, and I agreed he should be able to have that discussion. However, I had shared with him that I thought it needed to be in different order and that he was making it too tough for the executive branch to succeed with the numbers he had proposed. He wanted a 60-vote margin for the Senate to proceed. That is the way, though, he was going to introduce it.

I was prepared to vote on it and, hopefully, win in an honest debate on the floor of the U.S. Senate with those arguments, but in doing so, I also learned, as the chairman has shared, that the House had sent over a bill to us. We were on the House bill. In order to get, in this particular case, a vote on this particular topic, the Senator from Tennessee, in a very innovative way and one that normally would be used earlier in the process where everyone had the opportunity to recognize it, would have to change the underlying bill. In changing the underlying bill, it would have to go back to the House, and they would have to revote on the bill once again. Doing so puts this very important bill in jeopardy. As a Member who has been here only for 3 years, I understand that is not always the easiest thing do.

I wish to thank our Chairman for making what is a very hard decision and stepping up to protect the National Defense Authorization Act because of everything else that is in it, while at the same time I will commit the same as the chairman has committed, in this particular case, to Senator Corker that his item of discussion, which is the appropriate use of tariffs for national defense purposes, is a healthy debate to have, and it should be had in such a fashion that amendments could be offered on the floor of the Senate, and a very straightforward debate could then determine the fate of that legislation on its own and not in connection with the NDAA.

For that purpose, I simply wish to say that what I think the American people have seen here today is, No. 1, our commitment to making certain that the National Defense Authorization Act moves forward because it is critical every single year that we improve our ability to defend our country, while at the same time making a very hard decision, which the chairman did today, to suggest that even though we all want to have a debate on this particular issue, unfortunately, this bill is not the place to do it.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today to discuss the legislation before us, known as the VA MISSION Act of 2018--a significant change for the healthcare delivery system at the Department of Veterans Affairs.

The VA MISSION Act passed the House of Representatives last week and is scheduled to be voted on in the Senate in the coming days. The bill is a result of months of negotiations and discussions between stakeholders, the administration, and the House and Senate Veterans' Affairs Committees, of which I am a member.

While I appreciate the hard work of those involved, unfortunately, the final legislation is not something that I am able to support. Before I get into my concerns about the bill and what I believe to be its fatal flaws, I want to acknowledge that there is a host of good provisions in here that I do support.

The one on the forefront of many minds is the caregivers program expansion. The caregivers program, a program that gives support and assistance to certain veterans so they can receive home healthcare by a family member, has always been limited to post-9/11 veterans. However, there are many pre-9/11 veterans' family members who do the same work as a caregiver recipient but are not compensated for that work. This program is more cost effective over the long term than an alternative long-term care accommodation. It is due time for this expansion to occur for all families.

I also support section 101, paragraph (a), which expands extended care services, such as nursing home care, through the community care program. It is similar to a bill I introduced with the senior Senator from North Dakota, the Veterans Access to Long Term Care and Health Services Act. This provision will allow long-term care services to more easily work with the VA in serving veterans.

Further, section 101, paragraph (k) of the VA MISSION Act establishes in law that a veteran shall not pay a greater amount for receiving care or services outside of the VA, compared to receiving care at a VA facility. It is similar to the Veterans Equal Cost for Care Act, which I introduced in Congress last year. This section makes certain that veterans will know that VA policy will not change in this regard and that the VA will not place additional financial barriers for veterans to access care outside of the VA at a private provider in an effort to incentivize in-house VA care.

Last, section 101, paragraph (d)(1)(D) of this bill, along with section 104, requires the VA to develop appropriate access standards when seeking healthcare. However, I remain concerned that the VA will not implement it properly.

If the VA implements access standards similar to TRICARE, which is the health program at the Department of Defense, then, these sections could be good for veterans.

Let me get into my concerns with the bill. This bill makes significant changes to the 40-mile rule under the Choice Program, and I am concerned that it puts our rural veterans in jeopardy.

The Choice Act, which Congress passed in 2014, before I took office, allowed all veterans who live 40 or more miles from a VA facility to receive care at a local, private hospital or clinic. Under the VA MISSION Act, this provision will end for all veterans except those in the top five rural States after 2 years.

When the Choice Act was first enacted, giving rural veterans the option to receive care in their communities, rather than at a VA facility, they overwhelmingly chose to stay close to home and receive private care. They voted with their feet.

Because of the law, many are getting better local, private care. I believe veterans who use this type of eligibility successfully today ought to be able to use this program in the future, no matter which State he or she is from.

In fact, these concerns were addressed when the original legislation was crafted in the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, and all veterans who use the Choice Program today were grandfathered into being able to use the 40-mile rule in perpetuity. Unfortunately, the proposal agreed to in committee is not the one in front of us today.

I understand that the number crunchers did the math and concluded that the bill discussed in committee was too expensive and they didn't want to pay this much for the care of our veterans. So the provision I offered was cut down significantly to be limited to the top five rural States, including my own State of South Dakota.

While South Dakota was fortunate to be a part of the top five States, this country has many rural States and many rural veterans who rely on the Choice Program's 40-mile eligibility to get their healthcare.

There are roughly 750,000 eligible 40-mile veterans across the United States. Of this portion, a little less than half, or 330,000 veterans, have used this eligibility to receive healthcare.

In just 2 years, many of these veterans will no longer be eligible to receive care outside the VA system based on the 40-mile rule alone, as they do today. Instead, more veterans will have to work through more gatekeepers and review processes to get their community care request granted, if it is granted at all.

Just as important is the way in which 40-mile-eligible veterans receive community care. Currently, when a rural, 40-mile veteran wants community care, they get community care. There are little, if any, barriers to access community care today. The VA can't decide for the veteran where he or she should get the care. The veteran is in total control of their care. There are no reviews, gatekeepers, or consultations. The veteran just goes.

Under the VA MISSION Act, as it stands today, a VA clinician acts as a gatekeeper for the veteran. Section 101, paragraph (d)(2) states that a VA employee must consider certain criteria, some of which are peculiar to a rural veteran, when consulting with a veteran on where the veteran should go for healthcare. ``Consider'' is not a very tough or obligatory word, and it leaves a lot of leeway for our Washington bureaucrats to write rules in a way that may not put the care of our veterans above all else.

My concern here is that when this bill is signed into law, rules are going to start to be written, and the number crunchers are going to influence every rule to meet the bare minimum of the required language.

Just in case anyone is interested in an example, let me briefly remind the Chamber that the original Choice Act intended to provide community care to veterans who live 40 miles or more from a VA facility. How was that rule initially written? Community care was based on 40 miles as the crow flies. That is right--as the crow flies. It took intense pressure from the veterans organizations and Congress to amend that rule to be based on driving distance, or better known as the way almost every veteran travels to a VA facility.

Why was that rule written to determine community care as the crow flies? Cost. Cost and nothing more. The VA wrote the rule in a manner that complied with the bare minimum requirements of the law but not with the spirit of the law. The VA did not write the rule in a way that was in line with the way a normal veteran would access community care. By writing the rule this way, the VA was able to restrict community care access to veterans to control cost.

With so much ambiguity in the language as it is currently written, my fear is that the same cost-first mentality will be used once this bill is signed into law. We believe veterans should be in full control of their healthcare, not a bureaucrat.

Additionally, under the Choice Act, the access standards have been clear when it comes to the 30-day rule. It states that if you wait longer than 30 days, you can use a private provider, period. Under the VA MISSION Act, the standards are fluid, and the cut-and-dry 30-day standard goes away. We know that this has been a widely used metric for veterans' eligibility to receive care outside the VA. In fact, since the Choice Act began in November of 2014, there has been roughly 1.4

million instances in which a veteran has been authorized for care outside of the VA based on the 30-day rule.

Under the VA MISSION Act, there will be a new review process for veterans who request to receive care outside the VA system, based on meeting an access standard which has yet to be written. Again, if the VA implements these access standards like TRICARE, this could be good for veterans. But whether that happens is subject to rulemaking and cost constraints.

Finally, I am concerned about title II of this bill, which is the asset and infrastructure review provision that paves the way for what is essentially a VA BRAC that could close out some of our most vulnerable VA facilities, particularly in rural areas. I know that my friend and colleague from West Virginia was just expressing some of the same concerns. Of particular concern is a provision that would seek to neutralize appropriations language that prohibits the VA from reducing services in the Veterans Integrated Services Network 23 unless a series of important criteria are made.

For years, the VA has incrementally sought to close the Hot Springs campus in my home State of South Dakota. The VA has not conducted its due diligence in deliberating over the future of the Hot Springs campus, which provides veterans from three States and Indian Country healthcare. This is a pocket of rural America where few healthcare options exist.

This VA BRAC provision puts VA facilities like the one we have in Hot Springs in jeopardy. The Hot Springs VA facility has consistently been named one of the top VA facilities in the entire United States. If we are truly putting the care of our veterans before all else, we should be propping up facilities that have a track record of delivering timely, high-quality care to our veterans.

With the asset and infrastructure review provision in this bill, I worry about the future of rural VA facilities such as Hot Springs. More importantly, I am concerned about our rural veterans' access to adequate care, including mental health services, should these vital facilities be closed in the future.

Some have been saying that even though the provision is in there, the VA has provided assurances that places like Hot Springs are not in jeopardy, despite the law allowing the agency to review and eventually close facilities across the Nation if it determines it is necessary.

While the VA has some great employees, including its leadership, I am reluctant to consent to the BRAC process because the appropriations language requirements are what I view as due diligence by the VA before any decision is made on the closing of campuses like those in Hot Springs. In this particular case, the asset and infrastructure review language intends to neutralize that appropriations language, and I will not support that path forward.

At the end of the day, all we can count on is what we have enacted through legislation, and this bill clearly allows for the VA BRAC to occur.

My decision to oppose the VA MISSION Act is not one that I have made lightly. I recognize the many good provisions in this bill that would go a long way toward improving care for our Nation's veterans. I also want to recognize the hard work that went into the final package. I particularly want to thank Chairman Isakson, our Senate Veterans' Affairs chairman, for making a truly honest effort to address the ideas and concerns of all the committee members, including my concerns, which were reflected when we passed our bill out of committee earlier this year. Unfortunately, those concerns were not included in the final package. That said, the fight is not over.

Even though we expect the VA MISSION Act to pass the Senate and be signed into law before Memorial Day, there will be plenty of work to do as the law is being implemented. I will continue working with my colleagues, the administration, veterans groups across the State, and other stakeholders to keep a close watch on the VA's implementation of the VA MISSION Act to make certain the agency is putting the proper care of our veterans above all else.

Now, this is something that you never hear in this body, but this is an instance in which I would be happy to be wrong in my assessment. In fact, I challenge the VA to prove me wrong. We were close to having a really good bill with the VA MISSION Act by expanding the caregivers program to pre-9/11 veterans, by expanding community care to include community services, and in providing payment protections to rural vets so they will not pay a greater amount for using community care than they would for care at a VA facility, just to name a few.

I would have happily voted for any of these provisions as separate measures, and I am grateful that our veterans will greatly benefit from them.

I had hoped to get a place in the final bill where my concerns would be able to be fixed, but at the end of the day, my concerns outweigh the good, and I have to vote no.

I have the privilege of serving on both the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee, and I cannot tell my colleagues what an honor it is to fight every day to make sure that our servicemembers and veterans receive the tools and the care they so clearly deserve. They make incredible sacrifices so that we can be free. We have a responsibility to take care of them when their service is complete. I look forward to continuing to work to fulfill that responsibility.

Thank you, Madam President.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, today I recognize Muhammad Babar Khokhar, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all the hard work he has done on behalf of myself, my staff, and the State of South Dakota.

Currently, Babar is attending the University of South Dakota in Vermillion, SD, where he studies economics and psychology. He is a dedicated and diligent worker who has been devoted to getting the most out of his internship experience and who has been a true asset to the office.

I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Babar for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I recognize Kellie Morford, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all the hard work she has done on behalf of myself, my staff, and the State of South Dakota.

Kellie is a graduate of Spearfish High School in Spearfish, SD. Recently, she graduated from Chadron State College in Chadron, NE, where she studied criminal justice and legal studies. Kellie is a dedicated and diligent worker who has been devoted to getting the most out of her internship experience and who has been a true asset to the office.

I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Kellie for all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.