Comprehensive Veterans Health and Benefits and Military Retirement Pay Restoration Act of 2014
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. President, as chairman of the Senate Veterans Affairs' Committee, I want to thank many people for helping me bring forth the legislation we are going to be voting on this afternoon.
I thank those people who have come down to the floor to speak on behalf of our veterans. That includes Majority Leader Reid, who has been so helpful throughout, Senators MURRAY, BLUMENTHAL, HEINRICH, PRYOR, DURBIN, MERKLEY, WALSH, SHAHEEN, and CASEY. I suspect I have left out some Members.
I thank my entire staff at the Veterans Affairs' Committee--Steve Robertson, Dahlia Melendrez, Travis Murphy, Kathryn Monet, Kathryn Van Haste, Elizabeth Austin, Carlos Fuentes, Ann Vallandingham, Rebecca Thoman, Jason Dean, Shannon Jackson, Shanna Lawrie, and Rafael Anderson--for their help on this effort.
I thank the 28 cosponsors of this important legislation. I will not read their names. They know who they are, and I thank them very, very much.
As I indicated earlier, this legislation is not Bernie Sanders' legislation. This is legislation that, by and large, comes from the hearts and souls of the veterans of this country.
As chairman of the committee, I thought it was my obligation to listen to what the veterans of our country were saying about their problems and their needs and how we might go forward, and that is what I and others on the committee did. We listened. That is the reason why this legislation is being supported by virtually every veterans organization in the United States of America, representing millions and millions of veterans. I thank them for their support--and not only for their support but for their help in crafting this legislation: the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Disabled American Veterans, Jewish War Veterans, Vietnam Veterans of America, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, Wounded Warrior Project, Gold Star Wives, Student Veterans of America, Air Force Sergeants Association, American Ex-Prisoners of War, Association of the United States Navy, Commissioned Officers Association of the U.S. Public Health Service, National Guard Association of the United States, Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States, Fleet Reserve Association, Marine Corps League, Marine Corps Reserve Association, Military Officers of America Association, Military Order of the Purple Heart, National Association of Uniformed Services, Non Commissioned Officers Association, Retired Enlisted Association, American Military Retirees Association, National Coalition for Homeless Veterans, National Association of State Veterans Homes, and many other veterans organizations. Thank you very much for your support for this legislation.
It is no secret that Congress today is extremely partisan and to a significant degree dysfunctional. That is why the approval rating of Congress is somewhere around 15 percent. There are problems facing the American people, and we cannot address those problems. The American people are profoundly disgusted with what we do and, in fact, with what we do not do.
I had hoped from the bottom of my heart that at least on this issue--the need to protect and defend the veterans of this country and their families, others who have given so much to us--we could rise above the day-to-day rancor and the party politics we see here on this floor almost every single day.
We will, in fact, see within a short while whether we will rise to the occasion, whether we will, in fact, stand with the veterans of this country, or whether once again we are going to succumb to the same-old, same-old politics that we see almost every day.
Let me very briefly touch upon some of the objections my Republican colleagues have made to this bill. Some of them--not a whole lot, by the way, but some have come to the floor and they have objected to this bill. So let me respond to some of their concerns.
Some of my Republican colleagues have said they cannot vote for this bill because they could not get the opportunity to offer an amendment on the Iran sanctions situation.
Mr. President, you know what. The issue of Iran sanctions is an important issue, but it has nothing to do with the needs of veterans. In case people do not understand it, this is a comprehensive veterans bill, and while Iran sanctions may be important, they have nothing to do with what we are discussing today. That is not just my opinion. Far more importantly, we have the opinion of the largest veterans organization in this country, which represents over 2 million veterans, and that is the American Legion. Here is what Daniel M. Dellinger, the national commander of the American Legion, said just yesterday on this issue:
Iran is a serious issue that Congress needs to address, but it cannot be tied to S. 1982--
This veterans legislation--
which is extremely important as our nation prepares to welcome millions of U.S. military servicemen and women home from war. This comprehensive bill aims to help veterans find good jobs, get the health care they need and make in-state tuition rates applicable to all who are using their GI Bill benefits. This legislation is about supporting veterans, pure and simple. The Senate can debate various aspects of it, and that's understandable, but it cannot lose focus on the matter at hand: helping military personnel make the transition to veteran life and ensuring that those who served their nation in uniform receive the benefits they earned and deserve. We can deal with Iran--or any other issue unrelated specifically to veterans--with separate legislation.
That is Mr. Dellinger, the national commander of the largest veterans organization in this country. I thank him very much because he is exactly right, and he reflects what the overwhelming majority of the American people believe: Deal with the issue at hand.
But it is not just the American Legion I want to thank. The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America tweeted the other day:
The Senate should not get distracted while debating & voting on the vets bill. Iran sanctions, Obamacare, etc. aren't relevant to S. 1982.
They are absolutely right. Let's talk about veterans' needs.
Now, some other Republican colleagues, in objecting to
this bill, have said they cannot vote for it because it is not bipartisan enough and it has not been fully marked up in committee.
Well, that is not quite true. Almost all of the provisions in this bill did come out of the committee. In fact, two of the major components of this bill--two separate omnibus bills--were passed by a unanimous vote. You cannot get much more bipartisan than when you have two major provisions in a bill passing with all Republicans and Democrats voting for it. That is pretty bipartisan where I come from.
Furthermore, this legislation contains a number of provisions authored and supported by Republican members of the Veterans Affairs' Committee. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, there are 26 separate provisions that Republican members have authored or cosponsored.
This legislation also includes two key provisions that were passed in a bipartisan way by the Republican House of Representatives. With almost unanimous votes, the House passed a provision that we have in this legislation that would authorize the VA to enter into 27 major medical facility leases in 18 States and Puerto Rico. In other words, this was a new provision that I did add to this bill, was not discussed in committee but, in fact, has overwhelming bipartisan support. The second provision we added to the bill not discussed in committee also passed the House with broad support, and that deals with the very important issue of ensuring that veterans can take full advantage of the post-9/11 GI bill and get instate tuition in the State in which they currently live.
So to as great a degree as possible I have tried to make this bill a bipartisan bill. That is where we are.
Now, other Republicans have come to the floor and they have objected to this bill because they argue that by expanding VA health care to veterans currently not eligible for it--veterans who in some cases are trying to get by on $28,000, $30,000 a year in this tough economy; and it is true, we do expand VA health care to those veterans who do not have a whole lot of money--the Republicans who object say, well, that would open the floodgates for millions or tens of millions--I think somebody said 22 million veterans--every veteran in America would be eligible for VA health care, that the health care system would be swamped and health care, especially for those most in need, would deteriorate because so many people came into the system.
As I mentioned yesterday, this is absolutely untrue. No new veteran would be added into VA health care until the VA had the infrastructure to accommodate those new veterans. So we are not opening the door for millions of new veterans--not true--and, as currently is the case, those with service-connected disabilities would continue to get the highest priority service, as they currently do and which, in my view, should always be the case. Those who were injured in war are the top priority, and those folks must always be the top priority, and that is certainly the case in this legislation.
Then last but not least there is the objection that we are going to be dealing with in about 45 minutes--the vote we will be having--and that is that some of my colleagues basically say: Senator Sanders, this bill is just too expensive and we just cannot afford to pass it. This bill costs $21 billion--that is a lot of money, I do not deny it--and that is just too much money, and we cannot afford to pass this bill, which helps millions of veterans.
I want to respond to that point in two ways. First, I want to address it from an inside-the-beltway, more technical perspective, and then I want to talk to the American people about the cost of war and what we can afford and what we cannot afford.
In terms of the funding of this bill, the Congressional Budget Office--the nonpartisan scorekeeper--has estimated that mandatory spending in this bill will total $2.88 billion over the next 10 years--$2.88 billion. All of this mandatory spending is completely offset. Let me repeat that. All of this mandatory spending is completely offset, not by OCO funds, but through more than $4.2 billion in actual savings from the programs within the jurisdiction of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee. As a result, CBO has determined that overall mandatory spending in this bill will be reduced--will be reduced--by more than $1.3 billion.
That is what the CBO said. In addition, this bill authorizes $18.3 billion in discretionary spending. We have 4.2 in mandatory, more than offset, and then we have 18.3 billion in discretionary spending over the next 5 years.
As the Presiding Officer knows, there is no rule in the Senate that an authorization of funding has to be offset. That is what the Committee on Veterans' Affairs is. We are an authorizing committee. We are not an appropriations committee. In essence, the discretionary spending provisions in this legislation are just recommendations on how much additional funding we believe is needed for our Nation's veterans. It will be up to future legislation in the Appropriations Committee, as is always the case, to approve or disapprove of these recommendations.
In other words, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, an authorizing committee, has made a recommendation. The final word, as is always the case when we spend money, rests with the Appropriations Committee. The discretionary spending authorized under this bill is, in fact, paid for by using savings from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, otherwise known as the OCO fund.
Again, these are recommendations. The Appropriations Committee has the final word. CBO estimates that spending for Overseas Contingency Operations will total a little over $1 trillion over the next decade. Spending as a result of this legislation to improve the lives of millions of our veterans will be less than 2 percent of that $1 trillion. So anybody who comes down to the floor and says this bill is going to take away from the needs of our men and women in Afghanistan or elsewhere is simply inaccurate.
One trillion dollars is what is in the fund for the next 10 years. We spend less than $20 billion of that fund. Some people say, well, yes, that is fine. But OCO funding has to go into ammunition, it has to go into planes, it has to go into tanks. That is where it goes.
That is not quite the case. Let me give you an example of how we have spent past overseas contingency operation funds.
Since 2005, the Defense Department has used OCO funding for childcare centers, for hospitals, for traumatic brain injury research, for equipment, and schools. In 2010, $50 million of OCO funds were used for the Guam Improvement Enterprise Fund. To my mind, if we can use money for the Guam Improvement Enterprise Fund--I do not know much about that--I do believe we should be able to use some of the OCO funds to protect the needs of men and women who made enormous sacrifices defending our country.
Last year OCO funds were allocated to a number of countries around the world: Egypt, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Lebanon, Somalia, South Sudan, and many other countries.
This year $28 million in OCO funding is being used for the TRICARE health care program. In other words, we are using a tiny percentage, less than 2 percent of the funds in the OCO fund, to protect veterans. We have seen over the years OCO funding used in a whole lot of other areas.
I happen to believe that what we are trying to do with OCO funds falls well within the definition of what that fund is supposed to be used for. If we are supposed to be using that fund for military purposes, then we take care of the military personnel who served our country--totally legitimate, totally consistent.
That is kind of the technical, inside-the-beltway explanation for why I think the funding mechanism we have chosen and the approach we have taken is legitimate. But let me get actually to the far more important reason as to why this bill should be passed and it should be paid for; that is, very simply, this bill in a small way attempts to pay back and help veterans and their families for the enormous sacrifices they have made for this country, sacrifices which in the deepest sense can never, ever be fully paid back.
This is what this bill does. This bill helps Members of Congress, on Memorial Day or Veterans Day, when they go out and they meet with veterans and their families, that if a Member of Congress, Member of the Senate bumps into a young veteran who is in a wheelchair, who because of a war-related injury is unable to have a baby and start a family that he or she wanted, some of those injuries, maybe the spinal cord, some of them may have taken place in the genital region, but for whatever reason--we have over 2,000 veterans in this country today who are unable to naturally have babies. Many of them want families. If a Member of the Senate wants to look that veteran in the eyes and say to him or her that they think we cannot afford to help that individual who sacrificed so much for this country have a family, well go do that. Tell that individual that you think we cannot afford to help him or her, but when you do that, I hope you will also tell him why you voted to give $1 trillion in tax breaks to the top 2 percent at a time when the wealthiest people in this country are doing phenomenally well. Virtually all of my Republican colleagues thought it was appropriate to provide huge tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires.
So when you speak to that young veteran who can no longer have a child and you are going to explain why we cannot afford to help that family, tell them it was OK to vote for tax breaks for the Koch brothers or the Walton family, but we do not have enough money to help them start a family.
If you as a Senator see a 70-year-old woman or 75-year-old woman pushing a wheelchair for a veteran who lost his legs in Vietnam, tell that woman, have the courage, have the honesty to tell that woman we cannot extend the caregiver benefits to her that we have, quite appropriately, for the post-9/11 veterans. Tell that woman who may be taking care of that disabled vet 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, who lives under enormous stress, that we do not have the resources to help her with a modest stipend; we do not have the resources as the U.S. Government to maybe have a nurse come in once a week to relieve her. We do not have the resources to give her some technical help for herself, for her husband. Explain to her that we cannot afford to do that.
But then in the same breath, if you please, explain how you can support a situation where one out of four corporations in this country does not pay a nickel in Federal income taxes. It is OK for General Electric, some of the largest corporations in the world in a given year, not to pay a penny in Federal income tax, but we somehow do not have the money to give a little bit of help to a 70-, 75-year-old wife who is working 24/7 to give support to their loved ones.
I say to my follow Senators: If you happen to meet a veteran who is trying to get by on $28,000, $30,000, $35,000 a year, and you notice that the teeth in his mouth are rotting, if you notice that person may not have health insurance, one of the million veterans in this country who have no health insurance, I want you to go up to that veteran and have the courage, the honesty, to tell them that you believe the United States of America does not have the money to take care of his needs, to get him VA health care, to help him fix his teeth.
But explain to him why you may have voted for more than $100 billion in tax breaks for the wealthiest three-tenths of 1 percent because you think we should repeal the estate tax that only applies to the wealthiest three-tenths of 1 percent, the wealthiest of the wealthy. You are prepared to vote, and virtually all Republicans are, to give millionaire and billionaire families, the wealthiest of the wealthy, the top three-tenths of 1 percent, $100 billion in tax breaks, but we are not prepared, we supposedly do not have the money to get VA health care for someone making $28,000, $30,000 or dental care for someone whose teeth are rotting in his mouth.
You go explain that. Have the honesty, the courage, guys, to say: Yes, tax breaks for billionaires, but we do not have the resources to get you into VA health care. I want you to explain to a young woman who left the military, maybe broken in spirit because she was raped or sexually assaulted while in the military, tell her America does not have the resources to get her, through the VA, the proper care she needs to get her life back together after her sexual assault. Tell her that.
If you happen to meet a young man who was eligible for the post-9/11 GI bill, who today cannot afford to go to college where he lives because he is not eligible for in-state tuition and there is a gap between what the GI education bill pays and what is required in the State he is living in of $10,000, he cannot afford it, cannot go to college, explain to him that we do not have the money to help him.
If you bump into an old veteran--we have heard some discussion in the last couple of days that the VA lacks adequate health care facilities, we do not have enough around the country. This legislation that we are voting on right now, that in fact was already passed in the House, provides for the VA to enter into leases for 27 medical facilities all across this country in 18 different States.
Tell him, tell that 70-year-old veteran or the 80-year-old veteran who wants access to primary health care near where he lives that we do not have the resources to provide that primary care, but we can spend billions of dollars rebuilding the infrastructure in Afghanistan, where most of that money is stolen by a corrupt leadership.
Maybe, colleagues, one of you will see a young veteran, one of hundreds of thousands of veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan who are dealing with PTSD or traumatic brain injury or maybe it is a young man who has come back who just cannot find a job in this very tough economy. Go up to him and say: Yes, tax breaks for the rich are great; corporations not paying taxes, that is OK, but I do not believe we should be providing help to you.
The bottom line is what we believe in. It is not just speeches we give on Memorial Day and on Veterans Day. I know my colleagues give great speeches.
The question is, and the more important issue is, not your fine rhetoric, but are you prepared to vote for programs that help human beings in need. Speeches are great, but action is better and far more important.
This is about who we are as a people. It is about what our priorities are. In my view, at the very top of our priority list has to be to protect and defend those people who protect and defend us, those people who have given much more than we can ever repay.
There are gold star wives who want to go to college, and we allow that in this bill. They lost their husbands. They are trying to take care of their kids. They want a new shot at life. They need a college education. We say they should have that. I don't think that is asking too much.
Enough of the rhetoric, enough of the speeches, enough about how everybody loves the veterans. Now is the time for action. I implore all of my colleagues to overcome this vote, to give us the votes that we need to go forward to protect those who have protected us.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source