Floor Statements

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), the Senator from North Carolina (Mrs. Hagan) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

It is my understanding the Senator from Louisiana has a unanimous consent request.

I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) is necessarily absent.

I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes; that following my remarks Senator Warren be recognized for 2 minutes; that Senator Landrieu then be recognized to speak for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. President, in this week of Veterans Day, I would like to take a few moments to speak about a very brave marine who was a great friend of mine and a true champion of America's veterans. Congressman Lane Evans of Illinois passed away last Wednesday. He was only 63 years old. Lane had been battling Parkinson's disease for nearly 20 years. A few years ago, another illness, Lewy body disease, began attacking his memory. One cruel disease ravaged his body as the other assaulted his brain. But his spirit and his quiet courage remained unbroken to the end.

Lane Evans and I were both elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1982, two surprised Democrats who were elected in traditionally Republican, conservative, downstate congressional districts. We were both sons of blue-collar families. We both learned our values from our parents, our neighbors, the nuns and priests at school. We both learned from politicians who were leaders in our State, such as Senator Paul Simon.

Lane and I worked closely together in Congress. Parkinson's forced Lane Evans to retire from Congress in 2007, long before his time. We remained friends. I used to visit him. When I did, we would share our favorite stories about political adventures. Lane Evans was a kind and good person. He was funny, with a razor-sharp intellect, and he was courageous.

He joined the Marines 2 weeks after graduating from high school. It was 1969. Lane was 17 years old. Military service was a tradition in the Evans family. Lane's dad had served in the Navy. One of Lane's brothers was already serving in Vietnam so Lane was stationed stateside and then in Okinawa. After 2 years in the Marines, he came home and used the GI bill to earn a college degree, graduating magna cum laude from Augustana College in Rock Island. Then he earned a law degree from Georgetown. He came home again and started a successful law practice in Rock Island serving children, the poor, and working families.

In 1982, Lane Evans decided to make a run for Congress. He may have been the only person in the beginning who thought he had a prayer of winning. He had never run for office before. He was all of 31 years of age. He looked as though he was 21 on a good day. History was against him. Voters in that district had only elected a Democratic Congressman once in the previous century. That had been only for 2 years.

Lane Evans worked hard. He got lucky when the incumbent Congressman, a lifelong Republican and moderate, lost to a hard-right challenger. On election night in 1982, Lane Evans and I were both elected to the U.S. House of Representatives for the first time. It was my third try to get elected. It was Lane's first. He never lost after that. He served 24 years in the House. His voting record was often to the left of many of his constituents, but he was unapologetic. Voters reelected Lane over and over because they knew he was honest, forthright, and he cared about them. He was straightforward and sincere. People knew he was a man of principle who would always vote his conscience no matter what.

When it came to constituent service, Lane Evans set the standard. Lane and his staff were so good at cutting through bureaucratic redtape that the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee once joked that ``two-thirds of the people in his district think that he signs their Social Security checks.''

Lane's speeches were always packed and not because he was a great speaker. People came to Lane's speeches because of what happened after. He never left a speech until everyone in the audience who wanted to speak to him had their chance. Lane's dad was a firefighter, his mom a nurse.

In the blue-collar neighborhood where he grew up, their steady incomes made the Evans family better off than most of their neighbors. As a young lawyer and Member of Congress, Lane Evans fought for people such as the parents of his childhood friends who worked shifts in factories and fire houses. He was a champion of blue-collar workers and senior citizens.

Lane fought for fair trade, a fair minimum wage, and the right to collectively bargain. He worked for a cleaner environment and protection of family farmers. He fought to give students from working- class families the same chance he had to get a good college education. He was a giant on the House Armed Services Committee. He understood the Rock Island Arsenal was more than just an arsenal for our Nation's defense, it was a major, important employer in his district. Most of all--most of all--Lane Evans fought for veterans. This week of Veterans Day is a good time to remember how much Lane Evans of Illinois meant to America's veterans and their families. He made veterans's concerns the cornerstone of his congressional career. He was the first chairman of the Vietnam-era Veterans Congressional Caucus and the first Vietnam-era veteran to serve as ranking member of the House Veteran's Affairs Committee.

He was also the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee. During his time in Congress, there was no Federal program for veterans that did not bear Lane Evans' mark. Veterans today enjoy increased education benefits, improved health care, strengthened home loans, judicial review of their benefits, additional opportunities for veteran-owned businesses, and a host of other improved benefits because of the leadership, determination, and heart of Lane Evans.

From his earliest days in Congress, Lane Evans pushed for action on issues helping Vietnam veterans. He was an outspoken advocate to address the problems and embarrassment of the homeless and substance abuse among Vietnam veterans. In his first term he led the effort to create a pilot tram establishing community-based veterans centers to help with job and marriage counseling and post-traumatic stress syndrome long before it was a popular term.

The program has since grown to include veterans centers all across America. Lane Evans led the fight to give compensation for Vietnam veterans exposed to Agent Orange and for their kids born with spina bifida as a result of that exposure. It was not just his war that concerned him. He was one of the first Members of Congress to push for more information about the Gulf War Syndrome. He supported increased opportunities for women in the military, an early supporter for full civil rights for gays in the military.

Paul Rieckhoff, the CEO of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, here is what he said about Lane:

In the early days of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, Lane

was one of the first members of Congress to take on issues

like PTSD and TBI.

Traumatic brain injury.

He helped put our issues on the map.

Lane Evans worked to include Parkinson's research as part of funding for the VA, to make sure veterans suffering from this disease received the best possible care. He worked with Senator Leahy, then-Senator Hagel, and the Vietnam Veterans of America to push for a U.S. and international ban on the production of antipersonnel landmines.

He was awarded the Vietnam Veterans of America's first annual President's Award for Outstanding Achievement in 1990. In 1994, the AMVETs gave him the Silver Helmet Award, known as the ``Oscar'' of veterans' honors.

This is how Lane explained his commitment to veterans. He said:

Our veterans--those returning from Iraq, those who scaled

the cliffs above the beaches of Normandy, those who walked

point in the jungles of Vietnam, those who survived the

brutality of Korea and other battlefields, all who honorably

served or who are now serving, have earned the assurance that

VA--their system--will be there when they need it. ``Just as

we practice on the battlefield that we leave no one behind,

we should not slam the door on any veteran who needs the VA

system.''

The best way we can honor Lane Evans' memory is by more than just a speech on the floor of the Senate, it is to continue his work on behalf of America's veterans, continue to work to make the VA responsive to the massive number of disability claims that have been filed since Iraq and Afghanistan, and make sure every veteran receives respect, health care, job training, and the opportunities they have earned.

There is another way we can honor this champion of veterans; that is, by naming the year-old VA medical center in Galesburg, IL, the Lane A. Evans VA Community-Based Outpatient Clinic. This center is in the heart of what was Congressman Lane Evans' congressional district for so many years.

Nearly 4,000 veterans a year seek services there. I am honored it is a bipartisan effort to name this center after Congressman Evans, led in the House by Congresswoman Cheri Bustos. Lane used to say he loved the Marines because the Marines salute their lowest members. I hope my colleagues will join me in honoring one of the Marines' finest members by supporting this proposal to name the VA outpatient clinic in Galesburg, IL, in honor of Congressman Lane Evans.

Lane Evans was laid to rest at the Rock Island Arsenal on the date of the 239th anniversary of the Marine Corps. I remember so many years ago--18 years ago--when Lane and I were in a Labor Day parade in Galesburg, IL. I did not think much of it at the time. It was just another parade in another campaign. Lane told me later that he noticed something was wrong on that date. As he was waving his left hand, he realized it was numb and he had no feeling.

He continued to work even after he had been diagnosed with early Parkinson's. It made it difficult for him to stand without pain or to even smile easily. He never, ever complained. When his legs locked up when he was in terrible pain, he would tell his closest friends: I am so lucky. I couldn't carry mail, I couldn't be a meat cutter, but I can still do my job as a Congressman.

As we say in Illinois, thank heavens for Lane Evans, and I thank the good Lord he devoted so much of his life in Congress to the people he loved in his district and to the veterans of America.

I offer my condolences to Lane's family, especially his three brothers, to his brothers and sisters in arms, and to all of us who loved him and were touched by his gentle life.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

I announce that the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) and the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Udall) are necessarily absent.

There are moments when Members of the Senate have to reflect on the responsibility we are given--extraordinary moments, unlike other votes that we cast--because at least part of this important spending bill relates to U.S. military involvement in the Middle East. Reality tells us people will die if there is conflict. Of course we hope it will be the enemy, but we know better. Even some of our people are at risk to die in any military undertaking. So every Member of the Senate should take this vote seriously, and I am sure they do.

I remember October 11, 2002, as if it were yesterday. I was here in the Senate, weeks away from an election, and we were asked to vote on the invasion of Iraq. The buildup to this vote was overwhelming. The President and others--the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the head of the CIA, and a long list--had made the case to the American people that there were weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein; and that if we didn't move in, strike, and stop him, they could threaten our allies, friends, and even the United States. We debated that and voted on it. It was late at night on October 11, 2002.

I remember that vote as if it were yesterday. At the end of that vote, 23 of us had voted no against the invasion of Iraq--one Republican, Senator Chafee of Rhode Island, and 22 Democrats.

I went down to the well of this Chamber and there were two of my colleagues there, Paul Wellstone of Minnesota and Kent Conrad of North Dakota. I said to Paul Wellstone, who was up for reelection: I hope this doesn't cost you your seat--because he had voted no as well.

He said: It is all right if it does. This is what I believe, and this is how I am going to vote. I thought to myself: He may not return to the Senate. Tragically, he did not. He was involved in a plane crash just days later that took his life and the life of his wife and a staffer. But it is an indication of the gravity and the importance of this job, of this Chamber, and of this vote.

What we are being asked to do by the President is much different than what we were asked to do in 2002, when it came to the invasion of Iraq. The President has identified a threat to the United States. It is called the Islamic State, ISIL. It is an emerging group that has broken out of extremist groups in the Middle East, and it is on a rampage. It is marching through Syria and Iraq in a way we have not seen extremist groups act. It is capturing territory which extremist groups seldom do, and in capturing territory it is doing several other things. It is taking all of the tangible assets of cities such as Mosul, raiding their banks, breaking into the vaults, taking their money, taking over oil fields and gas fields--producing a small economy and budget which is growing by the day. This is not the typical terrorist group which we have seen in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, and, in the process, in their wake, they are killing people right and left.

The butchery, the savagery of this group is really unheard of in modern times. It hearkens back to the barbarism of centuries ago. To behead two innocent Americans--can we imagine to do it with a camera running? It is just unthinkable what those poor families are going through even today as they think about this. That is part of their tactics, to intimidate the United States. Now they have done it to a British captive, and they promise to do even more. They are serious. They want to take over Syria and Iraq. Should we care? Of course we should.

But what did we learn from the invasion of Iraq? What did we learn after spending 8 years there that would bring us back in any way? Well, here is what we learned.

We learned that putting American military on the ground--the best military in the world--is no guarantee of victory. We lost 4,476 American lives in Iraq; over 30,000 came home with serious injuries that still need to be cared for to this day. We added $1 trillion to our national debt because under the previous administration wars weren't paid for, they were just added to the debt. And we have chaos in Iraq today.

Here is what the President is suggesting, and I think he is on the right

track. We are not going to put in ground forces and combat troops. Instead, we will rely on the Iraqi Army to fight for the future of Iraq. We will help them, we will support them with logistics, equipment, direction, air support, but they have to be on the frontline risking their lives.

Secondly, he said we are going to put together a coalition.

The United States ought to think twice in this century about how many more Muslim countries we want to be involved in invading, and what the President has said that is my starting point; we will be part of a coalition that includes Arab and Muslim countries that believe, as we do, that ISIL is reprehensible and needs to be fought back.

I think the President's premise is sound. Not putting in combat troops is essential. Putting the burden on the Iraqis is absolutely critical, and I support him in those three efforts.

Then comes our vote today. It is not about Iraq; it is about Syria. What are we going to do in Syria? Syria has just been a free-for-all of violence, terrorism, deceit, and carnage for 3 years. Three million people have been displaced, 300,000 have been killed, and the fighting is so intense it is hard to tell who is on what side. Oh, we know Assad the leader has his army, and he is fighting off all the resistance to his government. We have no use for him, but he has some military power, obviously. He is still there. We also know that, in addition to ISIL, this terrorist group, there are up to 1,500 other militia groups. They have neighborhood militias protecting families and neighborhoods.

What the President has called for is a challenge: Find moderate opposition forces who do not align with Assad that are willing to fight ISIL and stop them in Syria. That is our vote. That is what the title 10 authorization does. It allows the United States to train and equip moderate opposition in Syria to fight these forces. We have some pretty strict language in here--I just took a look at it again and I have read through it a couple of times now--about reporting back to committees: Let us know your progress.

So this is where we are. This continuing resolution will be the law of the land, if it passes, until December 11, if I am not mistaken--the Appropriations Committee chair, Senator Mikulski, nods in the affirmative--until December 11.

So what we are doing now is setting up a course of action in Syria to work with the moderate opposition to train and equip them to fight off this ISIL group. We will be back. After the elections we will back. We will be able to measure the progress that has been made.

Then, come December 11, we have a much larger question to ask: What do we do from that point forward? Will we continue the strategy? Assuming we do, I believe--and many of my colleagues share the belief-- we have a special responsibility given to us by the Constitution that says the American people declare war--not the President--and the American people do it through Members of Congress.

So we will come back and start the debate on what is known as an authorization for the use of military force--a modern version, a new version applying to this situation--and it will be through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Armed Services Committee.

It is a debate that is long overdue. The President has invited us to do this. He believes he has the authority to go forward, but he said to Congress: If you want to be part of this, I welcome your participation.

Well, let's accept that challenge. So I will be supporting this continuing resolution. I will be supporting the title 10 authorization until December 11 to start seeing if we can form a force of moderate opposition groups in Syria to fight back on ISIL while we are working in Iraq to do the same. I think we have no choice but to do this--but to do it thoughtfully, without combat troops, with clear accountability and reports, and behind a coalition that has many Arab and Muslim nations that agree with us that ISIL is reprehensible.

Secretary of State John Kerry told us yesterday they have had meetings with the Russians, with the Chinese, and with the Iranians who have spoken up and said: We have to stop this group. They are going to destroy the Middle East. I think we have to take that seriously, and that is why I will be supporting this effort.

I know some of my colleagues disagree. I remember my thinking on that October night in 2002, that we should hold back and not get involved in Iraq, and I think I was right. I think history proved me right. That is why I have looked at this with a critical eye and with the understanding that this is not the end of the debate, this is not the end of the conversation. This is our step forward in ridding the world of this savage group that is killing so many innocent people, and we are going to do it as part of a coalition and alliance. That to me is the thoughtful and sensible way to address this.

We will have time to review our decision on a regular basis, as we should, to hold this President and any President accountable as we move forward. But this is something we absolutely must do as a Nation at this moment in time.

So I will be supporting this resolution, H.J. Res. 124, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

How much time do I have remaining?

I also wish to say a word about Secretary Kerry, who has been working night and day since he left the Senate, as Secretary of State, and he testified yesterday. I know what he is trying to achieve. I salute him for that and of course the President as well.

Let me hope that one thing emerges from this. I remember serving in the House of Representatives, and we voted on the invasion of Kuwait under President George H.W. Bush. I had my questions about that. I voted no. The House voted yes to go forward with that foreign policy. The Speaker of the House, Tom Foley, if I am not mistaken, followed that vote, where we decided to go forward with the invasion of Kuwait, with a resolution saying that now the foreign policy had been decided by this country, we should stand together in a bipartisan fashion to support our men and women in uniform who were engaged in this conflict. That happened, and we all voted for it--even those of us who disagreed with the policy.

Even after this vote on Iraq where 23 of us had voted no, virtually all of us voted for the resources that our military needed. My thinking was: Durbin, even if you disagree with the Iraqi invasion, what if that were your son over there? Wouldn't you want him to have everything he needs to come home safe? You bet.

What I hope will emerge, even after the heat of debate over this whole question of ISIL and how we deal with them, is this coming together--a bipartisan coming together behind our troops, behind our pilots, behind those advisers on the ground. Let us show them solidarity behind their effort if we decide to vote to go forward. There is too much partisan division, and it certainly ought to stop at the water's edge when it involves support for our men and women in uniform.

So at the end of this vote today, I hope we will see emerging a bipartisan consensus that we are going to work as a Nation to accomplish our goal to end this terrorism as best we can or slow it down in this part of the world and stand behind the men and women of our Nation who are willing to risk their lives in service to that cause.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, of the 21 million veterans in our country, about 750,000 live in Illinois. I hear from many of them as I travel around the State meeting with different groups. Like veterans throughout the United States, Illinois veterans are concerned about their health care. They are frustrated by lengthy wait times to get an appointment and, like all of us, they are furious about the wait list scandal uncovered this year. One factor that has contributed to the long wait times is a shortage of medical personnel at VA hospitals and clinics. In many cases there are not enough doctors and nurses to meet demand. Many of the doctors and nurses we do have are overwhelmed.

One way we can address this is to give VA doctors and nurses a raise. I am happy that VA Secretary Bob McDonald announced this morning the agency is going to lift a salary freeze on medical personnel and plans to increase compensation for the health care providers who work with our veterans. This is a positive step in improving the ailing Veterans Health Administration.

Salaries for VA doctors and nurses often are lower on average than those of their private sector counterparts, and those salaries have been frozen for 3 years. Primary care doctors and internists at VA facilities earned about 33 percent less than private sector primary care physicians in 2012, according to the Medical Group Management Association. A similar disparity can be found in nurses' pay.

Last week Secretary McDonald testified at a Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee hearing that the VA needs about 28,000 new medical staffers-- doctors, nurses, other care providers, and

administrative staff--to improve the timeliness of care to the 8 million veterans enrolled in the Veterans Health Administration. We can help meet that demand if we make those jobs more competitive by adjusting the pay scale.

In the bill we passed this summer--which is now law--Congress gave Secretary McDonald the authority to fire underperformers. The other side of that coin is competitive pay for those who are performing. These doctors and nurses are caring for the men and women who put their lives at risk through military service. Let's lift the pay freeze on their salaries. The VA should have the best and the brightest medical staff out there. That means hiring the best and firing those who do not pass muster.

The shortage of health care providers is not a new issue-- particularly in rural areas of the country. We have struggled with this in Illinois. The Danville and Marion VA medical centers--both in small towns far from an urban center--struggle to fill health care positions. In 2009 I offered an amendment to the fiscal year 2010 funding bill that set aside $3 million for incentive pay to help with recruitment and retention for medical personnel to serve in rural VA facilities. Raising salaries would help facilities such as these attract and keep topflight doctors and nurses.

The Veterans Health Administration is an important training ground for many medical students. At Hines VA medical center in Chicago, medical students from Loyola get much of their training in a clinical setting. The veterans benefit from the addition of these young doctors. And hopefully that experience leads to more doctors looking to the VA as a career choice. But no matter how appealing the VA is, medical school debt is a factor. The VA offers a loan repayment program that can help offset those worries, but offering pay that is more comparable to the private sector would make working for the VA health care system even more attractive to new graduates and would help retain current staff.

The VA cares for America's heroes, the men and women who have worked to keep our country safe and defend American ideals abroad. As recent investigations have brought to light, VA must improve recruitment and retention of medical personnel to keep pace with growing demand. I am happy Secretary McDonald is lifting the salary freeze on medical personnel and plans to increase compensation for the health care providers who work with our veterans. They deserve the best.

Mr. President, in honor of Hunger Action Month, I want to say a few words about the real and lingering problem of hunger and food insecurity. Hunger has no boundaries. In a Nation that prides itself as the land of plenty, more than 47 million people--including more than 1 in 5 children--do not know how they will put food on their table.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP, formerly known as food stamps, is one of our most important antihunger programs. More than 80 percent of SNAP households have incomes below the poverty line, which is less than $500 a week for a family of four. Seventy percent of SNAP participants are in families with children, and more than 25 percent are in households with seniors or people with disabilities. Basic sustenance ought to be a guarantee in a civilized society, not a gamble. If children or adults are hungry in America, that is a problem for all of us, and it is a problem we can do something about.

I have traveled across my State and met families and parents that rely on food assistance and heard their stories. They are our neighbors, they are hardworking people who lost their job or got sick. They are seniors living on a limited income.

They are people like Maureen, who works cleaning houses. Her husband fell ill and had to stop working due to a disability. Maureen struggles to put food on the table for her two daughters in high school. Her husband's doctor says he needs to eat more vegetables, but Maureen says they are just too expensive. The $126 a month in SNAP benefits Maureen receives help, but she still struggles and relies on a food pantry to feed her family. Unfortunately, Maureen is just one of the more than 1.8 million Illinoisans who do not know where their next meal will come from.

The millions of Americans, like Maureen, who rely on safety net antihunger programs, may not have the loudest voice in the debate or big public relations firms, but we must protect these programs and work to improve the lives of vulnerable families, children, and seniors at their time of need.

Hunger in America is not something we can ignore. No family should have to wonder where their next meal will come from. As a co-chair of the Senate Hunger Caucus, I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues and those in the antihunger community to shine a light on this important issue and eliminate domestic hunger.

I announce that the Senator from New York (Mrs. Gillibrand) and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, today, I want to talk about an incredible champion of America's railroads. James A. Stem, Jr., has been a tireless advocate for the men and women who keep our Nation's railroads operating for nearly 50 years. He has done just about every job in the industry and will soon be retiring as the national legislative director of the Transportation Division of the Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, Transportation Workers, formerly the United Transportation Union, UTU.

James began his career in 1966 as a trainman for the Seaboard Air Line Railroad in his native Raleigh, NC. He joined the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen and worked in numerous capacities including as a trainman, switchman, hostler helper, hostler, fireman, and locomotive engineer. He even holds seniority as a locomotive engineer on a CSX line.

In the 1970s, James became much more involved in rail labor in North Carolina for the United Transportation Union. He was a delegate to five UTU International conventions and was eventually elected as the North Carolina State legislative director in 1984. He would go on to become the UTU alternate national legislative director in 1998, serving alongside a legend, James Brunkenhoefer--also known as ``Brokenrail.'' James was elevated to national legislative director in 2009. In 2011, United Transportation Union and Sheet Metal Workers International Association merged to become the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers. James continued his work with an even larger membership, now more than 216,000 strong.

James has frequently testified before Congress, always advocating for the betterment of working men and women in the railroad industry. He was part of the original 1997 Positive Train Control Working Group sponsored by the Federal Railroad Administration.

James has been a great defender of Amtrak and commuter rail and a strong proponent of high speed rail. When cuts threatened the effectiveness of passenger rail, James fought to block them on Capitol Hill. When railroad workers needed improved health and safety benefits, James was there. He has tirelessly advocated for the working men and women on the railroads, making sure they have good paying jobs, proper health care, and a solid retirement.

James' influence can be felt at almost every level of government, within the industry, and inside rail labor. Two of his former UTU colleagues currently serve as Federal Railroad Administrator and Chairman of the Surface Transportation Board. Both will tell you that without James's leadership and friendship, they would not be where they are today.

It is with great pride that I congratulate James A. Stem, Jr. for his long career in the railroad industry and for the incalculable contributions he made there. I wish James and his wife Bonnie well in their retirement and hope they are able to enjoy extended family time with their children and grandchildren.

Mr. President, I have great respect for the Senator from Tennessee, having worked together on many issues, as politicians often throw those words around. He is a good person, a good Senator. I enjoy working with him. I do have to take exception to one thing, though.