[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 53 (Thursday, April 7, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1795-S1802]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AMERICA'S SMALL BUSINESS TAX RELIEF ACT OF 2015--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Filling the Supreme Court Vacancy
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we have a unique opportunity for the
American people to have a voice in the direction of the Supreme Court.
The American people should be afforded the opportunity to weigh in on
this very important matter.
Our side, meaning the Republican side, believes very strongly that
the people deserve to be heard, and they should be allowed to decide
through their vote for the next President the type of person who should
be on the Supreme Court.
As I have stated previously, this is a reasonable approach, it is a
fair approach, and it is a historical approach--one echoed by then-
Chairman Biden, Senator Schumer, and other Senators.
The other side, meaning the Democratic side, has been talking a great
deal about the so-called pressure campaign to try to get Members to
change their position. It is no secret that the White House strategy is
to put pressure on this chairman of the Judiciary Committee and other
Republicans in the hopes that we can be worn down and ultimately agree
to hold hearings on the nominee.
This pressure campaign, which is targeted at me and a handful of my
colleagues, is based on the supposition that I and they will crack and
move forward on the consideration of President Obama's pick.
This strategy has failed to recognize that I am no stranger to
political pressure and to strong-arm tactics--not necessarily just from
Democratic Presidents but also from Republican Presidents.
When I make a decision based on sound principle, I am not about to
flip-flop because the left has organized what they call a pressure
campaign.
As many of my colleagues--and especially my constituents--know, I
have done battle with administrations of both parties. I have fought
over irresponsible budgets, waste, fraud, and policy disagreements. I
have made tough decisions. I have stuck with those tough decisions
regardless of what pressure was applied.
The so-called pressure being applied to me now is nothing. It is
absolutely nothing compared to what I withstood from heavyhanded White
House political operations in the past.
Let me say, by the way, that most of that has come from Republican
White Houses. To just give a few examples, in 1981, as a new Member of
the Senate and a brand-new member of the Senate Budget Committee, I
voted against President Reagan's first budget proposal because we were
promised a balanced budget and it didn't balance. I remember very
specifically the Budget Committee markup in April 1981 on President
Reagan's first budget.
It happened to be that I wasn't alone on this. I was one of three
Republicans to vote against that resolution because it did not put us
on a path to a balanced budget. You can imagine that when a budget has
to come out on a party-line vote, you cannot lose three Republicans,
and three Republicans who were elected in 1980 on a promise to balance
the budget did not go along with it.
What a loss this was for this new President Reagan--that his budget
might not get adopted by the Budget Committee. We were under immense
pressure to act on the President's budget regardless of the deficits
that it would cause. But we stood on principle and didn't succumb to
the pressure.
As an example, right after that vote where the President's budget
wasn't voted out of the Budget Committee, I was home on a spring
recess. I remember calls from the White House. I remember threats from
the Chamber of Commerce while I was home for Easter break, even
interrupting my town meetings. Four years later, I led the charge to
freeze spending and to end the Reagan defense buildup as a way to get
the Federal budget under control. In 1984 I teamed up with Senator
Biden, a Democrat, and Senator Kassebaum of Kansas, a Republican, to
propose a freeze of the defense budget that would have cut hundreds of
billions of dollars from the annual deficit.
At the time, it was known as the Kassebaum-Grassley Budget or the KGB
defense freeze. We were going to make sure that across-the-board
budgets were responsible.
For months, I endured pressure from the Reagan administration and
from my Republican colleagues who argued a freeze on defense spending
would constitute unilateral disarmament. President Reagan had put
together a less aggressive deficit reduction plan. We didn't think it
went far enough. My bipartisan plan was attacked for being dangerous
and causing draconian cuts to the defense budget. I knew it was
realistic and a responsible approach. I didn't back down.
We forced a vote that year in the Budget Committee. We forced a vote
on the Senate floor on May 2, 1984, and that particular year we were
not successful. However, this effort required the Senate and the Nation
to have a debate about a growing defense budget. We started that
debate, about the waste and inefficiency in the Pentagon and the
growing Federal fiscal deficits. Despite the weeks-long pressure from
conservatives in the Reagan administration, I did not back down because
I knew the policy was on my side.
In this process I stood up to pressure from President Reagan, Defense
Secretary Casper Weinberger, Secretary Barry Goldwater, Senator John
Tower, Chairman of the Budget Committee, and many others. I remember a
meeting at the White House where I reminded the President that he had
been talking through the campaign about the Welfare queens impacting
the budget. It happens that I reminded him there were Defense queens as
well.
I started doing oversight on the Defense Department. It wasn't long
before the evidence of waste and fraud began appearing. We uncovered
contractors that billed the Defense Department $435 for a claw hammer,
$750 for toilet seats, $695 for ashtrays. We even found a coffee pot
that cost $7,600.
I had no problem finding Democrats to join my oversight effort back
then, but it is interesting how difficult it is to find bipartisan help
when doing oversight in the current Democrat administration.
Nevertheless, 12 months later, on May 2, 1985, after a year of
[[Page S1796]]
work to make the case that the Defense Department needed structural
reforms and slower spending growth, I was successful. My amendment to
freeze the defense budget and allow for increases based on inflation
was agreed to when a motion to table failed by a vote of 48 to 51.
A majority of the Republicans opposed me, and a majority of the
Democrats were with me. That didn't matter because I knew we were doing
the right thing. I went against my own party, my own President, to hold
the Pentagon accountable, and I never backed off.
I had a similar experience with President George W. Bush in 1991. In
January 1991, the Senate debated a resolution to authorize the use of
U.S. Armed Forces to remove Saddam Hussein's forces from Kuwait. I
opposed the resolution because I felt the economic and diplomatic
sanctions that I voted for should have been given more time to work. I
was not ready to give up on sanctions in favor of war.
In the end, I was one of just two Republicans, along with Senator
Hatfield of Oregon, to oppose the resolution. I was under pressure from
President Bush, Vice President Quayle, and White House Chief of Staff
John Sununu. I was even pressured by Iowa Governor Terry Branstad. I
heard from a lot of Iowans, particularly Republicans, who were
disappointed and even angry with my position. Some were even
considering a public rebuke because of my vote. As one of just two
Republicans, it was difficult to differ with a Republican President on
such a major issue. But as I stated at the time, my decision was above
any partisanship. It was a decision of conscience rather than a matter
of Republican versus Democrat.
After a tremendous amount of soul-searching, I did what I thought was
right, regardless of the political pressure. The same is true today
with regard to the Supreme Court vacancy.
Under President George W. Bush, I faced another dilemma. The
President and the Republican congressional leadership determined that
they wanted to provide $1.6 trillion in tax relief in 2001.
I was chairman of the Senate Committee on Finance. The problem is, we
had a Senate that was divided 50-50 at the time. The parties' numbers
also equal, on the Senate Finance Committee. I had two members on my
side who were reluctant to support a huge tax cut because they had
concerns about the deficit and the debt.
As we saw a few years later, their concerns were not totally
unwarranted. But, at the time, the administration leadership would have
nothing to do with anything except what the President wanted--$1.6
trillion in tax relief. Obviously, the White House wasn't thinking
about how many Republicans might vote against it, and when you have a
50-50 Senate, you can't lose a lot of Republicans.
After very difficult negotiations, I finally rounded up enough votes
to support $1.3 trillion in tax relief. A hailstorm of criticism
followed. There were Republican House Members who held press
conferences denouncing the fact that the Committee wasn't able get
enough votes for the whole $1.6 trillion. Those House Members were more
professional in their criticism of my position, than what we currently
witness almost every day from the current minority leader about my role
as chairman of the Judiciary Committee. But, it was still a very
contentious and difficult period that included both the budget and the
reconciliation process.
Minority Leader Reid has already recently brought up the pressure I
came under in regard to ObamaCare back in 2009. Of course, his version
is his usual attempt to rewrite the actual history. At that time, I was
the ranking member of the Finance Committee. I was involved in very in-
depth negotiations to try to come up with a health care solution. We
started in November of 2008. We had negotiations between three
Republicans and three Democrats on the Finance Committee. We met for
hours and hours at a time.
We met between November 2008 and mid-September 2009, and then the
other side decided they ought to go political and not worry about
Republicans. The minority leader, in his usual inaccurate statement of
facts has tried to say that Republicans walked out of those
negotiations on ObamaCare. The fact is, we were given a deadline and
told that if we didn't agree with the latest draft of the bill, then
Democrats would have to move on.
I would suggest that anybody in the Senate who wants some reference
on this should talk to Senator Snowe or Senator Enzi. I was the other
Republican. Talk to Senator Baucus, talk to Senator Conrad and the
then-Senator from New Mexico. The President called six of us to the
White House in early August of 2009. The first question I got was this:
Would you, Senator Grassley, be willing to go along with two or three
Republicans to have a bipartisan bill with ObamaCare at that point? And
I said: Mr. President, the answer is no. What do you think we have been
working on for 9 months? We have been working, trying to get a broad
bipartisan agreement. It's something like 70 to 75 votes you need to
get if you really want to have a changed social policy and have it
stick.
We didn't abandon this until 2009. But my idea is that probably it
was that meeting at the White House in early August 2009 where this
President decided: we don't want to mess around with those Republicans
anymore. We have 60 votes; we are going to move ahead. Well, that
happened then in that September.
The fact is, we were given that deadline, and we were shoved out of
the room. So when we didn't bow to this pressure and agree to
Democratic demands, it ended up being a partisan document. That is why
it still doesn't have the majority support of the American people.
I want the minority leader to know that is what happened, not what he
described a couple of weeks ago. Eventually, as we all know, the former
majority leader--now minority leader--had his staff rewrite the bill
that came out of the HELP Committee and in secret in the back rooms of
his leadership office. And we ended up with the disaster called
ObamaCare that we have today.
The Senate minority leader also recently proclaimed that rather than
follow Leader McConnell--and these are Senator Reid's words--
``Republicans are sprinting in the opposite direction.'' The minority
leader also wishfully claimed that the Republican facade was cracking
on the issue. Senator Schumer fancifully stated that ``because of the
pressure, Republicans are beginning to change.''
You can almost hear the ruby slippers on the other side clicking
while they wish this narrative they describe were true. The fact is,
the pressure they have applied thus far has had no impact on this
Senator's principled position or the principled position of almost
everybody on this side of the aisle. Our side knows and believes that
what we are doing is right, and when that is the case, it is not hard
to withstand the outrage and the pressure they and the White House have
manufactured.
The pressure we are now getting on this issue pales in comparison to
the pressure I have endured and withstood from both Democrats and
Republicans in the past.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the
bill that is on the floor, the Federal Aviation Administration
Reauthorization Act. I thank Senator Thune and Senator Nelson for their
leadership.
I serve on the Commerce Committee. I am proud of this bill. Our State
has a long history of aviation. It was the childhood home of Charles
Lindbergh. We are home to the Minneapolis-St. Paul International
Airport, the 13th busiest airport in the United States. We are home to
Cirrus Design Corporation in Duluth, which makes planes and is a very
successful company, as well as many people whose jobs and ways of life
depend on the aviation industry, not to mention the 148th Fighter Wing
National Guard base, as well as the one in the Twin Cities and the one
in Duluth.
I see my colleague from Arizona is here, so I will focus on one
issue, and that is aviation security.
Mr. President, 9/11 was our country's wake-up call that our
transportation system is a target, and the attacks in Brussels last
month remind us that we must continue to do everything we can to
strengthen security, and not just in our security lines at the airports
but also in places like baggage claim areas and other forms of
transportation, like train stations. We need to make sure
[[Page S1797]]
our soft-target areas, as they are called--like the security lines,
baggage claims, and ticketing counters at the airport--are safe.
I am a cosponsor of the amendment that passed today that will help
address the issue by doubling the number of visible intermodal
prevention and response teams from 30 to 60. These teams help provide
important deterrent security at potential air and ground transportation
targets across our country.
This amendment which passed today will also improve existing security
systems in airports and train stations by expanding bomb-sniffing dog
patrols, law enforcement training for emergency situations, and
security in all perimeter areas of the airport.
We must also improve the secure areas of airports where airline
employees have secure access to what are called sterile areas. In
March, as we all know, an airline employee was arrested after
attempting to use his badge to enter the boarding area of a terminal
from the tarmac, bypassing security gates. He had a backpack with
$282,000 in it. In the same month, we saw another employee try to
smuggle 70 pounds of cocaine in her suitcase at LAX, and she was caught
at a security checkpoint. The most egregious breach of security
happened at the Atlanta airport, where airline employees helped to
facilitate a gun-smuggling ring and were successful at getting guns on
at least 20 flights from Atlanta to New York. Needless to say, there
continues to be significant concern, as much as we know that the vast
majority of our airline employees are hard-working and good employees.
Eighty-five Senators just voted in support of the Airport Security
Enforcement and Oversight Act, a bill I cosponsored that would help
address this issue of security at the airport, but I would like to add
our own story out of Minnesota-St. Paul.
First of all, it is a story of inefficiency, so we made a
reconfiguration at our airport. There were lines at one point where the
average time was 45 to 50 minutes--average time. That was just a month
ago. There were passengers waiting for 2 hours and missing their
flights. There were simply not enough TSA agents. They were out at a
training, which was, of course, necessary because of the inspector
general's report that came out this June and showed some severe
problems in security at our airports. So we had a perfect storm of
people out for training, a new reconfiguration, and finally the spring
break travel. But it was simply unacceptable when our taxpayers are
paying for TSA. In fact, this Congress authorized $100 million--$90
million more than they asked for in the last budget year.
I have appreciated TSA Administrator Neffenger coming to Minnesota,
saying that it was unacceptable, saying that they were hiring people
with the budget money that was provided.
There are also plans to use these K-9 units not just in the
perimeters of the bill we passed today but also on these lines. Not
only do these dog teams add more security, by working a line of
passengers, they actually speed up that line because then those
passengers essentially become precheck passengers and they don't have
to be prechecked. They become prechecked because of the dogs, and that
speeds up everything for all airport passengers.
I think we have seen enough of these terrorist attacks across the
country, planes with bombs going down in other places. We know this is
a danger. We don't want this in our homeland.
I appreciate the support of my colleagues on these amendments. We
will continue to work on security issues.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Permanent VA Choice Card Act
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the urgent need
for Congress to reform how the Department of Veterans Affairs delivers
health care to our Nation's veterans. One of the great scandals and
shameful aspects of the greatest Nation in the world is the way we
treat our veterans. I believe important progress has been made since
the scandal in which veterans died, waiting on nonexisting wait-lists
for care at the Phoenix VA medical center and VA hospitals around the
country, but we have a long way to go to fulfill our solemn promise to
every veteran who has served and sacrificed.
In the matter of that terrible scandal, I was proud that Congress
quickly acted to pass the bipartisan Veterans Access, Choice, and
Accountability Act. That bill was an important first step--and I
emphasize ``first step''--in reforming the gross mismanagement and lack
of accountability at the VA.
In my view, the hallmark of the bill is the Choice Card Program,
which for the first time allows any veteran who is waiting more than 30
days for an appointment or who lives more than 40 miles from a VA
health care facility to receive a Choice Card that they can use to
visit a participating doctor in their community instead of being forced
to wait with no recourse.
So how is the VA Choice Card working? My colleagues in the Senate and
I continue to hear from veterans in Arizona and across the country
about their ongoing problems receiving care. Veterans find that VA
staff don't know about the Choice Card or how to authorize care through
it. Veterans are forced to wait on hold for hours with a call center in
order to schedule an appointment. Community doctors and hospitals that
volunteered to participate in the Choice Program are not getting paid
for their services. Veterans who are able to use the Choice Card once
and need to use it again have to start all over from scratch. Veterans
still have to drive long distances to get prescription medications.
There should be no doubt that the VA is failing to fully and
effectively implement the Choice Card. In doing so, it is preventing
our veterans from receiving the flexible care they have earned and
deserve.
We know that when implemented correctly, the Choice Card Program is
improving care for our veterans. After an extremely difficult start,
the VA Choice Card is now authorizing more than 110,000 appointments
for veteran care per month--over 5,000 per workday. Each of these
appointments represents a veteran's appointment that would otherwise be
delayed and pending for months in the VA scheduling system. It also
frees up appointments at the VA for veterans who do not use the Choice
Card, helping countless veterans receive an appointment faster.
We have also seen what can happen when the VA properly reimburses
community doctors for their services. In the western region alone,
community doctors participating in the VA Choice Program have increased
from around 95,000 to nearly 160,000. More than 90 percent of all
doctors are being paid within 30 days, and the vast majority of doctors
are choosing to stay in the VA Choice Program--mainly because of their
love of country--to treat our Nation's veterans.
Moreover, we have seen that when the VA is equipped to handle the
demand for Choice Program appointments made through call centers,
veterans are getting their appointments faster. Recent openings of new
call centers have greatly reduced wait and on-hold times among our
veterans. Today, wait time averages for veterans calling into the
western region call centers for Choice Card appointments are less than
1 minute.
As a result of a positive VA policy change last year, contractors are
now able to contact veterans and ensure that their authorizations for
care are approved ahead of time so that appointments can be made much
faster over the phone.
While we are seeing important progress as a result of the Choice
Card, far too many veterans are still experiencing long wait and on-
hold times with call centers and confronting difficulties getting an
appointment. Unfortunately, some veterans, veterans service
organizations, and opponents of the VA Choice Card cite these
shortcomings as evidence that the whole Choice Card Program is broken
and needs to be eliminated. These opponents are wrong, and they know
it. The problem isn't the Choice Card; it is that the VA refuses to
implement it correctly.
Instead of working to solve the problems at the VA head-on, the same
bureaucrats who have completely bungled the implementation of the VA
Choice Card are using their own failures as an excuse to shut down the
entire program. Allowing them to do so would only send veterans back to
the unacceptable status quo of never-ending
[[Page S1798]]
wait times for appointments. Does anybody want to return to the status
quo?
I refuse to send our veterans back to the nonexistent wait-lists that
led to the scandal of denied and delayed care in the first place. Every
representative in Congress and every official at the VA should too.
According to a poll recently released by Gallup, the American people
overwhelmingly agree. Ninety-one percent of survey respondents believe
that veterans should be allowed to get health care from any provider
who accepts Medicare, not just the VA.
This chart describes the main problems with VA health care before the
Choice Program. Today, military and civilian retirees; Federal
employees, including VA employees; ObamaCare enrollees; civilians on
employer insurance plans; and refugees and illegal immigrants have the
ability to choose their doctors. The only group of Americans who is
still being denied universal choice in health care is disabled
veterans. How is it that we have created a system where virtually
everyone in America gets to choose their doctor except for our Nation's
disabled veterans?
Our veterans want and need the opportunity to choose the health care
that works best for them. It is simply unacceptable that half a million
veterans nationwide today are waiting for a medical appointment that is
scheduled more than 30 days from now. We can address this crisis now by
making simple changes to the law. Under the law, the VA Choice Card
pilot program expires next year. We cannot and will not go back to the
way our VA operated before the scandal.
While some senior VA leaders are aggressively implementing the Choice
Program, many others believe veterans should be forced to stay within
the walls of the VA no matter what. Making the program permanent will
send a clear message that we refuse to send veterans back to the days
of denied and delayed care. That is why I introduced legislation to
make the VA Choice Card permanent and universal. I believe every
veteran--no matter where they live or how long they are waiting for an
appointment--should have the ability to see a doctor of their choice in
their community.
Last week I held a townhall meeting with veterans in Phoenix, AZ,
along with Mike Broomhead, a distinguished leader in our community.
With tears in their eyes and frustration in their voices, veterans
described the unending wait times for appointments and difficulty
obtaining and using the Choice Card to receive the care they want and
need. More than 2 years after the scandal in care first arose in
Phoenix, AZ, and more than a year after reform legislation was signed
into law, the VA is still failing our veterans.
It doesn't have to be this way. There are additional steps we can
take now to reform this broken health care system. That is why I
recently announced my Care Veterans Deserve action plan. The elements
of my plan address some of the most urgent problems still plaguing the
VA.
First, the action plan proposes keeping the VA open later during the
week and opening the VA on weekends for local doctors and nurses to
treat our veterans. This would address the most common complaint we
hear that wait times for appointments are still too long. In Arizona,
wait times have gotten worse--not better--over the last year, with more
than 10 percent of all the Arizona veterans having to wait more than 30
days for care at the VA.
Despite these long wait times, veterans are still not allowed to make
appointments past 3 p.m. during the week and have very few appointment
options on weekends. VA employees abruptly close clinics no matter what
a veteran needs at the end of the day. By keeping the VA open later and
adding hours on weekends, we can address these unacceptably high wait
times and maximize the use of our VA facilities.
I have also proposed in the Care Veterans Deserve action plan that
the VA allow community walk-in clinics to treat veterans for minor
injuries and illnesses such as a cold, the flu, allergies, sinus
infections, immunizations, vaccines, sore throats, and minor headaches.
Again, this would greatly reduce the need for veterans to visit VA
emergency rooms after hours and would free up appointments for everyone
waiting for care at the VA.
The plan also proposes that we require VA pharmacies to stay open
until 8 p.m. during the week and for at least 8 hours on Saturday and
Sundays. This would tackle a common complaint among our working
veterans who cannot visit VA pharmacies during their limited workday
hours to obtain a prescription. It is absurd that a civilian can go to
a pharmacy 24 hours a day in most cities in America, but VA pharmacies
close early on weekdays and completely on the weekends.
I also propose in this action plan that individual VA hospitals
undergo peer review from the best in health care: Mayo Clinic,
Cleveland Clinic--there is a long line of them--and other top-tier
health care networks. I was disappointed that the independent review
required by the Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act only
resulted in a high-level review of the VA health care system. Its
findings were so broad and general that they provided Congress with
very little guidance on what is happening at individual VA hospitals in
our States. By requiring the VA to undergo peer reviews from the best
in health care, we will have better insight into how to fully reform
the VA health care system.
I intend to include the elements of that action plan in a bill I will
introduce in this Congress. By enacting legislation as soon as
possible, we can fix the serious inequity in veterans health care. It
is absurd to me and many others that virtually every American receives
Federal subsidies for choice and freedom in health care while veterans
are forced to wait in line and ask permission from a VA bureaucrat
before getting access to care.
I thank my colleagues for working with me on these and other measures
that will help finish the work we started nearly 2 years ago with the
Veteran Access, Choice and Accountability Act and urge passage of my
commonsense reforms as soon as possible.
Before I close, I want to take a moment to applaud the efforts of my
friend from Georgia, the chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs
Committee, Johnny Isakson, for his leadership, particularly on the
issue of accountability at the VA. One of the most disgraceful aspects
of the scandal at the VA is that only a small number of senior VA
executives responsible for the wait-time scandal were fired. This was
despite the fact that Congress provided the VA Secretary broad
authority to hold corrupt executives accountable for wrongdoing. I look
forward to working with Chairman Isakson and my colleagues in the
Senate to pass legislation that would ensure we hold all those
responsible for denied and delayed care, even the deaths of some,
accountable.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
EUREKA Act
Mr. WICKER. Mr. President and my fellow colleagues, I once again come
to the floor to talk about Alzheimer's and the efforts being made in
this country and in this Senate and in this city to find a cure and
find better treatments for the scourge of Alzheimer's. Many of you know
this is the most expensive disease our country has ever seen; one-half
trillion dollars a year in costs to programs that we need to protect
like Medicare, Medicaid. This will rise to $1 trillion per year in the
lifetime of many people within the sound of my voice unless something
is done.
I am so appreciative of the some 1,200 people who descended on
Washington this week advocating on behalf of the millions of Americans
living with Alzheimer's and their family members. I was honored to be
invited to their conference and to speak to over 1,000 people in the
hotel where they were meeting earlier this week. They then came to
Capitol Hill to visit in the offices of Senators and Members of the
House of Representatives, and I had a great meeting on Wednesday in my
office. We want to reaffirm our dedication to putting an end to this
terrible disease. My mom died with dementia. Most of us have family
members who have had Alzheimer's or who have been impacted by
Alzheimer's.
[[Page S1799]]
I appreciate the support of my colleagues in this Congress for NIH
funding. It is very important to continue funding, to continue
increasing the funding for the excellent work done by the National
Institutes of Health to fight Alzheimer's disease and fund Alzheimer's
research.
I appreciate my colleagues voting for a $350 million increase in
research for Alzheimer's disease, but of course this falls far short.
This is funding that experts say is needed to reach our goal of curing
Alzheimer's within the next decade. Along those lines, I have
introduced legislation that I think gives us a different way to
approach the disease of Alzheimer's. My bill is called the EUREKA Act
that involves a prize competition, in addition to everything we are
doing in research, everything NIH is doing, and all the research being
done around the country. It is a prize competition inviting innovators,
inviting people to think outside the box, come forward, and give us
their ideas.
EUREKA stands for ``Ensuring Useful Research Expenditures is Key for
Alzheimer's.'' Of course, the Greek translation for Eureka is ``I found
it.'' That is what we are trying to do--trying to find a cure for
Alzheimer's, trying to find milestones that will lead to a cure, and
trying to find treatments to help those suffering from the disease.
The goal of my EUREKA Act is to find the best and brightest minds in
the country, the best and brightest minds in the world, to come forward
and use their ingenuity to solve this complex problem. As I have
reiterated in visits with Member after Member, and I have reiterated on
the floor, with a prize competition, we pay only for success.
Regardless of the amount of money we put on the prize, you don't pay
the money until we have success, which is one of the reasons this
EUREKA provision wouldn't come out of NIH funding. It would add to it,
and we would only pay the money if we got the result, which of course
would be far more valuable than the prize.
The numbers associated with Alzheimer's are daunting--even worse,
chilling. The disease affects 5 million Americans. The number of people
with Alzheimer's is on the rise, as we all know. It is the sixth
leading cause of death in America and, again, it is the most expensive
disease in America: $236 billion this year and $1 trillion per year by
the year 2050. Of course, there is a huge burden for the caregivers
also.
There is good news, to be sure. It was announced last week that
there's been an analysis by UsAgainstAlzheimer's, and it showed some 17
drugs for Alzheimer's could be launched in the next 5 years. In
Mississippi, the University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson
has developed a service called TeleMIND as part of its MIND Center.
Telehealth technology is being used to attack Alzheimer's, to treat
Alzheimer's patients, and make life better for them and their family.
Let us try the concept of EUREKA also. Let us try the concept of
offering a prize to young minds. Perhaps people from around the world
might come to the United States. This might be someone in a basement or
in his mom's garage or might be some major international corporation.
We don't care. We want to offer an incentive for somebody to come
around, think outside the box, and get us to a cure quicker.
Prizes have a history of success. In 1927, Charles Lindbergh achieved
a nonstop flight between New York and Paris. He won a prize of $25,000
in so doing. In 2004, the XPRIZE--sponsored by the XPRIZE Foundation--
offered $10 million for the first reusable manned spacecraft. You know
what happened. It drew down $100 million in investments, this $10
million prize. In 2011, $1 million was awarded for a breakthrough in
oilspill cleanup. So prizes work. It can work, in addition to the
research NIH is doing around the country.
Let me say, in addition to myself as principal sponsor of this act,
we now have 39 cosponsors among this 100-person Senate. We are day-by-
day, step-by-step getting toward a majority. It is my hope the
leadership of the HELP Committee that is now working on the 21st
Century Cures Act that came over from the House with an overwhelming
bipartisan vote--I hope we can, in a bipartisan fashion, with the
leadership of Senator Alexander, with the leadership of Senator
Murray--his lead Democrat on the committee--I hope we can make a
decision to add the EUREKA bill to the 21st Century Cures Act, to have
this extra opportunity, in addition to everything we are doing, to cure
Alzheimer's.
I would urge my colleagues, I would urge the staff members who might
be listening to this, to check and see if their Members have
cosponsored this and to help us with an additional tool to attack the
problem of Alzheimer's.
Thank you very much, Mr. President.
I thank my colleague from Michigan for deferring for a moment or two
while I make these remarks.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Flint, Michigan, Water Crisis
Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, it is very hard for me to believe I am
once again standing on this floor. I have to come before my colleagues
in the Senate to report that despite the fact that we have been
building bipartisan support for legislation that will address the
catastrophic situation in Flint, we still have one Senator standing in
the way of this coming to a vote.
It has been now nearly 2 months since Senator Stabenow and I
introduced legislation to deal with the catastrophic crisis in the city
of Flint, MI. Since that time, we have been able to build a broad
coalition of folks on both sides of the aisle, Republican cosponsors
who have joined with us to say it is time for this body, it is time for
the Senate, to stand and help those in need in the city of Flint, as
well as issues all across this country. Senator Stabenow and I offered
legislation, along with Senator Inhofe, and a long list of Democrats
and Republicans, including Senators Burr, Capito, Kirk, and Portman,
have been working very closely with Senator Murkowski as chair of the
committee as well.
Yet we have one Senator, one Senator who says that is not enough. He
wants to have more, and he is standing in the way of the people of
Flint getting the help they desperately need. He is standing in the way
of children like this young infant who appeared on the cover of Time
magazine. To me, those eyes are very compelling, and I think those eyes
are very compelling to every American who has witnessed what has
happened in that city, who has witnessed the horror and the tragedy of
having poisoned water going into people's bodies for many months while
the State government dropped the ball.
I will say folks around the country have responded. There has been an
outpouring of help from people in every corner of this great country of
ours. People have sent bottled water. They have sent filters and are
providing resources. It is what our country does. It is what our people
do when we see people in crisis. We stand and lend that helping hand.
We know any one of us at any time could be in that situation. The
wonderful thing about being an American is that as Americans we look
out for each other. We know we are a community, a very special place in
this world, and we look out for each other.
That is why people back home in Michigan--and as I travel around the
country--people are at a loss and wondering why the U.S. Congress
hasn't done something to address this issue. When I tell them we have
legislation that will help deal with infrastructure, not just in Flint
but in communities all across the country, that will plus-up public
health programs to deal with lead poisoning at a time when we realize
lead poisoning is not just an issue for Flint but is an issue for
communities all across this country and one we need to focus on and
probably ignored for far too long, they wonder why we have not acted.
When I tell them we have one Senator--just one Senator--standing in the
way, it only adds to their belief that this is a dysfunctional place;
that partisanship and polarization have prevented this body from doing
what is right.
We can't forget the people of Flint, and I know many of my colleagues
on the Senate floor have not. That is why we have been able to get
broad support from both Democrats and Republicans, who have come
together and said to both my senior Senator, Ms. Stabenow, and me: We
understand it is a problem in Flint, but we also understand it is a
problem in other communities around the country. Let us design
legislation to deal with that.
That is what we have before us. We have legislation that will provide
money for those cities that may be in
[[Page S1800]]
a declared emergency, which is where we are with the city of Flint, but
we also know there may be other communities in this country--in fact,
we think there will be a community very soon--that will also have a
declared water emergency that will be able to access those funds. We
also know aging infrastructure is not unique to the city of Flint. It
is with cities all across the country, especially older urban areas
that have lead surface lines, but there are certainly many rural areas
that have that as well. Those pipes need to be taken out.
In this legislation, we create a fund that will allow money to be
loaned to those communities--oftentimes, communities that don't have a
lot of resources but desperately need infrastructure improvement. It is
a loan fund that will be paid back to the taxpayers but will extend the
money necessary to make improvements that truly will be lifesaving
improvements for the citizens in those cities.
We also plus-up a number of public health programs from the CDC that
deal with lead poisoning in children.
The insidious thing about lead poisoning is that once it gets into
the brain of a young child--like this child who is looking at us right
now in this picture I have in the Chamber--it has lasting effects. It
has lifetime effects. We need not only to embrace that child with our
love but understand that the child is going to need health care for
decades. That child is going to need educational support to be able to
pursue his or her version of the American dream that he or she may
have. They are going to need to have, in addition to education and
health care, good nutrition, making sure the food they eat will provide
their bodies with the nourishment that can counter some of the impacts
of lead.
But it is not just the children; it is everybody in the city of
Flint. Senior citizens have also been impacted. I have gone door to
door in Flint and worked with volunteers, including the American Red
Cross, delivering bottled water to the people of Flint. I never thought
I would have to go with the American Red Cross to deliver bottled water
to a community because the water they were getting out of their pipes
was poisoned--not in this country, not in the United States of America.
But that is what people are doing, and filters as well are being given
door to door.
The people of Flint are appreciative. Please know they are extremely
appreciative of the generosity they have seen from people across this
country and from FEMA response as well, but they are also frustrated.
People can't bathe with bottled water. They are cooking and cleaning
food--all of the basic things we take for granted each and every day.
It is simply impossible to live just on bottled water and have that
bottled water delivered to them every few days. It is not a workable
system. It is unacceptable, and it certainly should be unacceptable to
everybody in this country.
That is why we need to have a long-term solution. It has to be a
long-term solution that will fix the problem permanently by making sure
the infrastructure improvements are there, lead pipes are pulled out,
but makes sure other support services are going to be there for
decades.
My fear for the people of the city of Flint is that although they
have been the beneficiaries of a great outpouring of love and support
from people around the country, they have been able to get that because
the spotlight has been on Flint and the TV cameras are in Flint. We all
know in today's media world that those cameras will eventually go away.
There won't be media attention for Flint. There won't be the bright
lights of publicity motivating people to do what is needed in the city
of Flint. When those lights go down and when it goes dark, the people
of the city of Flint will still be confronted with this absolutely
catastrophic situation that is impacting them in their homes. It is
impacting businesses--businesses that have been rocked as a result of
this. People don't want to go to restaurants because they are not sure
of the water there. Real estate values have plummeted. This is a
different kind of a disaster than a natural disaster if a hurricane
goes through or a tornado goes through. Then we can rebuild, and it can
be as good as new.
Our concern with Flint is that there will always be this stigma
attached to the city as a result of this, and if that stigma is there,
it is going to make it even more difficult.
The people of Flint are resilient and courageous and brave and
strong. They will survive, but we need to be there to lend that helping
hand. That is why it is even more frustrating to me, given the fact
that when we have natural disasters across this country, this body--the
Senate--acts. We send money. We help those local governments. The State
governments provide help.
Now, I know some colleagues have said that this is not a natural
disaster, that this is a manmade disaster. All I can say is to ask that
child when he or she grows up: Does it make a difference that it was a
manmade disaster or a natural disaster? Ask the senior citizen in Flint
right now. Ask the parent who is concerned about that child. Does it
make any difference? I don't think any American here thinks it makes a
difference. There isn't anybody in this country who thinks it makes a
difference. A disaster is a disaster.
Now, it is true the State government messed up horribly in Michigan.
In fact, the Governor's own task force that he appointed to look into
it clearly points the finger at the State of Michigan and the
incompetence that was shown by the government of the State of Michigan.
That is a given. They are primarily responsible and need to step up,
and they have. But they need to do a whole lot more than what they have
done so far.
But even though the State has to do that and must do that, that
doesn't prevent us, the Federal Government, from also standing up and
saying: We can help as well because that is what we do. It is what the
American people expect us to do. I certainly hope my colleagues will
help Senator Stabenow and I move this legislation forward. If we can't
get around this one Senator who wants to constantly move the goalpost,
who wants to change the basis of negotiations even though this
legislation is completely paid for--we have used a pay-for that Senator
Stabenow fought for, authored to help manufacturers in the Midwest. I
fought aggressively to keep that fund when I was a Member of the House.
This is something that is important to us, but we know that dealing
with a catastrophic situation in Flint and water infrastructure across
this country so that we don't have any more Flints is more important.
That money will be used to help the people of Flint and communities
across this country. Not only does it pay for this, but it actually
reduces the deficit at the same time.
I think it is important to say that usually when a disaster hits this
country, we don't look for pay-fors. We step up and provide money for
people in need. We have been asked to come up with a pay-for, and we
did--completely paid for while reducing the Federal deficit at the same
time. Yet we have one Senator who wants more. He wants more.
I don't know how that one Senator can hold up something that has been
able to get this kind of bipartisan support and can hold up something
that is so important to this child in this picture. How can you stand
in the way? If that one Senator does not like this legislation, that is
fine. They can vote against it. But allow the other 99 Senators in this
body an opportunity to have their say. That is the way this institution
is supposed to work.
I still believe in this institution. I still believe the Senate can
do better than allowing one Member to stand in the way of helping this
child and other children just like this one.
It is now our task as Members of this body to come together and say:
Enough is enough. We are going to help somebody in this country no
matter who you are, no matter where you live, no matter the
circumstances. If you have been hit by a major disaster, we will stand
with you. We will help you. That is who we are as Americans. It goes to
the very core of our values.
It is now up to my colleagues here in the Senate to please join
Senator Stabenow and me and our long list of both Democratic and
Republican cosponsors. Put this legislation on the floor. Let's vote on
it, let's pass it, and let's help the people of Flint and other folks
all across the country.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
[[Page S1801]]
Tribute to Trent Harmon and La'Porsha Renae
Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I don't know what other Members of the
Senate will be doing at 8 p.m. eastern time, but I can tell you I will
be in front of my television set watching ``American Idol.'' We all
take pride in people from our own States, but I want to boldly predict
that the winner of ``American Idol'' tonight will be a contestant from
my State of Mississippi. The reason I am so certain of this is that two
talented Mississippians are the two finalists remaining in the
``American Idol'' competition tonight.
They say this will be the final season of ``American Idol.'' Perhaps
we are only going to have a timeout for a few years, and we will see it
back. This is the 15th season of ``American Idol.'' I am so proud to
announce to my colleagues in the Senate and to the Presiding Officer
that the two finalists are none other than Trent Harmon of Amory, MS,
and La'Porsha Renae of McComb, MS.
Now, in Mississippi we proudly call ourselves the Birthplace of
America's Music, and I think we do that with some justification. From
blues to country to rock and roll, our State has produced more Grammy
award winners per capita than any other State in the Nation. Elvis
Presley comes from Mississippi, as well as Robert Johnson, B.B. King,
Jimmie Rodgers, Charley Pride, Faith Hill, and the list goes on and on
and on.
Last month, I was honored to participate in the opening of the Grammy
Museum in Cleveland, MS. There are now two Grammy museums in the
country. One is in Los Angeles and the other is in the Mississippi
Delta in Cleveland. The Mississippi Delta is a testament to the many
musical inspirations that have emerged there.
In 1986, Paul Simon sang: ``The Mississippi Delta is shining like a
National guitar.'' He sang that line 20 years before the first
Mississippi Blues Trail marker was placed, but he was correct. We now
have some 200 Blues Trail markers across our State, and I invite each
and every Member and all the rest of you to come and visit those
locations in Mississippi.
But tonight, the entire State of Mississippi will be shining like a
national guitar with talents like La'Porsha Renae and Trent Harmon.
They are keeping our legacy alive. They represent the wide range of
Mississippi's musical influences. It was wonderfully touching to watch
the video of their hometown visits, where the people came out to
support them, showing off their Mississippi talent and the dedication
of their fans.
Trent Harmon is from Amory, MS. He grew up on his family's farm,
working in his parents' restaurant, the Longhorn Fish and Steakhouse.
Growing up in Amory is truly a small town beginning. The town has a
population of around 7,500 people. Trent's interest in music was
apparent from early on, as he spent his time in high school and college
performing in musicals. My wife and I have numerous times been to Amory
High School to see Trent Harmon perform in programs such as ``Joseph
and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat,'' ``Forever Plaid,'' and other
performances. He was a star then, and he is going to be a star in the
future. Trent's powerful voice and versatility seem effortless. He can
do it all, from southern soul to R & B.
La'Porsha Renae comes from McComb, MS, down in the southwestern part
of our State. She worked for a call center before auditioning for
``American Idol.'' She has shared with America the details about her
story of survival from an abusive relationship in which she had to seek
refuge in a women's shelter. Her soulful voice has been compared to
Aretha Franklin, and the emotion she pours into every performance is
truly show-stopping. She credits her former high school algebra
teacher, Angelia Johnson, as one of her biggest mentors who encouraged
her to embrace her own signature style. La'Porsha dedicated last
night's moving performance of ``Diamonds'' to her young daughter who
was in the audience.
So when it comes to talent, I believe ``American Idol'' may have
saved the best for last, and I very much anticipate a great performance
tonight. Millions of Americans will choose one of these outstanding
young Mississippians as the latest, but perhaps not the last,
``American Idol.''
Trent and La'Porsha have made Mississippi proud. They have made me
proud, and I wish them all the best tonight and in their future musical
careers. I am quite certain that both of them will be incredibly
successful.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendments Nos. 3499, as Modified; 3508; and 3505 to Amendment No. 3464
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following
amendments be called up and reported by number: Wyden No. 3499, as
modified; Collins No. 3508; and Tester No. 3505.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the amendments by number.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Thune], for others,
proposes amendments numbered 3499, as modified; 3508; and
3505 to amendment No. 3464.
The amendments are as follows:
Amendment No. 3499, as modified
(Purpose: To require a review of heads-up guidance system displays)
At the end of subtitle D of title II, add the following:
SEC. 2405. HEADS-UP GUIDANCE SYSTEM TECHNOLOGIES.
(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Administration shall initiate a review of heads-up
guidance system displays (in this section referred to as
``HGS'').
(b) Contents.--The review required by subsection (a)
shall--
(1) evaluate the impacts of single- and dual-installed HGS
technology on the safety and efficiency of aircraft
operations within the national airspace system;
(2) review a sufficient quantity of commercial aviation
accidents or incidents in order to evaluate if HGS technology
would have produced a better outcome in that accident or
incident; and
(3) update previous HGS studies performed by the Flight
Safety Foundation in 1991 and 2009.
(c) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall submit to the
appropriate committees of Congress a report containing the
results of the review required by subsection (a).
Amendment No. 3508
(Purpose: To continue the contract weather observers program through
the end of fiscal year 2017 and to require the FAA report to identify
the process through which the FAA analyzed the safety hazards
associated with the elimination of the contract weather observer
program)
On page 40, line 15, strike ``and'' and all that follows
through line 25, and insert the following:
(3) indicating how airports can comply with applicable
Federal Aviation Administration orders governing weather
observations given the current documented limitations of
automated surface observing systems; and
(4) identifying the process through which the Federal
Aviation Administration analyzed the safety hazards
associated with the elimination of the contract weather
observer program.
(b) Continued Use of Contract Weather Observers.--The
Administrator may not discontinue the contract weather
observer program at any airport until October 1, 2017.
Amendment No. 3505
(Purpose: To direct the Comptroller General of the United States to
study the costs of deploying advanced imaging technologies at all
commercial airports at which TSA security screening operations
procedures are conducted)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. GAO STUDY OF UNIVERSAL DEPLOYMENT OF ADVANCED
IMAGING TECHNOLOGIES.
(a) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States
shall conduct a study of the costs that would be incurred--
(1) to redesign airport security areas to fully deploy
advanced imaging technologies at all commercial airports at
which security screening operations are conducted by the
Transportation Security Administration or through the
Screening Partnership Program; and
(2) to fully deploy advanced imaging technologies at all
airports not described in paragraph (1).
[[Page S1802]]
(b) Cost Analysis.--As a part of the study conducted under
subsection (a), the Comptroller General shall identify the
costs that would be incurred--
(1) to purchase the equipment and other assets necessary to
deploy advanced imaging technologies at each airport;
(2) to install such equipment and assets in each airport;
and
(3) to maintain such equipment and assets.
(c) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit
the results of the study conducted under subsection (a) to
the appropriate committees of Congress.
Vote on Amendments Nos. 3499, as Modified; 3508; 3505; 3495; and 3458,
as Modified
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now
vote on these amendments, as well as the Heller amendment No. 3495 and
the Casey-Toomey amendment No. 3458, as modified, en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I know of no further debate on these
amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendments en bloc.
The amendments (Nos. 3499, as modified; 3508; 3505; 3495; and 3458,
as modified) were agreed to en bloc.
____________________