quorum call:

mr. sanders: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to s. 1982, which the clerk will now report. the clerk: motion to proceed to the consideration of s. 1982, a bill to improve the provision of medical services and benefits to

veterans, and for other purposes. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: thank you, mr. president. let me ask unanimous consent that jason dean, my military fellow, be given floor privileges for the remainder of this congress. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sanders: mr. president, let me also thank senator murray, senator durbin, senator blumenthal for their very thoughtful and important remarks regarding the needs of veterans and why it is absolutely imperative that we pass this comprehensive veterans legislation, and let me also begin by thanking all of the members of the senate veterans committee for their very hard work in helping to craft what is not only an enormously important piece of legislation impacting the lives of millions of our veterans but is also to a large degree a bipartisan piece of

legislation. mr. president, it is no secret that congress today is extraordinarily partisan, and in fact is largely dysfunctional. on major issue after major issue, the american people are trying out to us, they are asking us to address the problems, the serious problems facing this country, and we're unable to do virtually anything. and i just hope, mr. president -- and i think this from the bottom of my heart and as chairman of the senate veterans committee, that at least on this issue, the need to protect and defend those veterans who have protected and defended us, those men and women who have put their lives on the line to protect this country, i would hope that in addressing their issues, their needs, we

can rise above the partisan rancor that we see down here on the floor every single day. that is what the american people want us to do, not just the veterans community. they have been clear on the need to pass this bill, but that's what the american people want us to do. they understand the sacrifices made by veterans and their families, and they want us to rise above the partisan acrimony that the american people see every single day. and, mr. president, let me be very clear and let there be no misunderstanding about this. i have tried as chairman of the committee to do everything that i can to bring forth legislation which includes provisions from republicans, provisions from democrats. my view is and has been that if there is a good idea that improves lives for veterans, i

don't care if it's an r attached to a senator's name or a d. or an i. as in my case, let's bring forth that legislation. and the reality is that to the best of my knowledge, there are 26 separate provisions that republican members have authored or cosponsored. that's a lot. some of them very significant provisions. and further, perhaps most importantly, two of the most important parts of this comprehensive legislation are omnibus bills that were passed unanimously by the committee. so what we have done is brought ideas together in two of the most important provisions in this bill with two separate omnibus bills passed unanimously by the committee. there are other provisions in the bill that were not passed unanimously but also passed with

bipartisan support. and also, i want to point out that the two provisions that were not discussed at the committee level have been passed almost unanimously by the republican-controlled house of representatives, and i believe has strong bipartisan support here in the senate. with almost unanimous votes, the house passed the provision -- a provision that would solve a long-standing problem and enable v.a. to enter into 27 major medical facility leases in 18 states and puerto rico. we have that -- i think it's virtually exactly the same language in our bill, and that was passed almost unanimously in the house. i think that's a nonpartisan, bipartisan provision. and the second provision passed by the house with very broad

support deals with insuring that -- ensuring that veterans can take full advantage of the post-9/11 g.i. bill and get in-state tuition in the state in which they currently live. that language i think is identical in our bill. so you have major provisions passed in the republican house with almost unanimous support that are in this bill. you have two omnibus provisions passed with unanimous support out of our committee. you have other provisions passed with bipartisan support. i'm not here to tell you it is 100% bipartisan, it is not, but we have gone a very long way to do what has not been done very often here in the senate and to bring everybody's ideas together to pass something that is terribly important for our veterans. the point that i'm trying to make here, mr. president, is that i happen to believe that

virtually every member of the senate, regardless of their political point of view, does care about veterans, and i say this especially about the members of the committee, veterans committee who would not be on the committee if they didn't care about veterans, and i believe that virtually every member of the senate wants to do the best that they can for veterans, and that is why i work so hard to do my best to make sure that this bill is as bipartisan as it can be. mr. president, in my view, this is in fact a very good bill, but like any other piece of legislation, it can be made better. we have 50 states. we have native american tribes. we have all kinds of issues out there, and there are 100 senators here in this body who know their states, who know their issues. so let me be very clear in echoing what the majority leader said this morning, and that is

he and i want to encourage every member of the senate, democrat, republican, independent who have germane amendments dealing with veterans' issues to please offer those amendments, bring them down. my understanding is that a number of amendments have already been offered by democratic senators, and we have some amendments now that have been offered by republican senators. my understanding is senator rubio and senator collins have offered amendments as well as a number of democrats. we look forward to more amendments coming on down so that we can have a serious discussion about those amendments. mr. president, the one thing i hope that will not happen as we discuss this legislation is that

instead of having an honest debate about the needs of veterans, is that this legislation becomes just another forum for the same old partisan politics that we have seen for years, a partisan politics that the american people are increasingly disgusted with. the american people understand that honest people have differences of opinion on the issues, but the american people do not want to see serious legislation being sabotaged because of political partisanship, and in my view, with regard to this veterans bill and the fact that we have language in this bill which can improve the lives of millions of veterans and their families, i

believe that it would be extremely disrespectful to the men and women who put their lives on the line to defend this country, to use this piece of legislation dealing with veterans' issues as nothing more than a political point for other issues that are totally extraneous to their needs. now, i fully understand, no great secret here, that my republican colleagues do not like the affordable care act. they are entitled to their opinion. we have discussed this issue and this law over and over and over. i ask my republican colleagues please do not inject obamacare into the veterans debate. it has nothing to do with the needs of veterans. i understand that some of my republican colleagues have strong feelings about sanctions in iran. clearly this is an important

issue, but it has nothing to do with the needs of veterans in this country. please do not inject the iran sanctions issue into a debate on how we can improve the lives of veterans and their families. i know there are strong feelings and disagreements about the wisdom or lack of wisdom of the keystone pipeline. i have my views on the issue. other people have their views on the issue, but frankly the keystone pipeline has nothing to do with the needs of our veterans, and there are many, many other issues out there. and let me just at this point quote from a tweet that came out, i believe, last night from the iraq afghanistan veterans association, and this is what they say. these are -- this is the organization that represents the men and women who have fought in iraq and afghanistan. this is what they said last

night, and i quote -- "the senate should not get distracted while debating and voting on the vets bill. iran sanctions, obamacare, et cetera, aren't relevant to s. 1982." end of quote, which is the issue that we are debating today. i just absolutely agree with the iada on this issue. and they also say in another treat -- "in 2013, veterans were not immune from gridlock in washington. this year has to be different. we urge the senate to pass this legislation." and as i mentioned yesterday, mr. president, this legislation, in fact, has the support of virtually every veterans organization in the country, representing millions and millions of veterans, from the american legion to the v.f.w. to the d.a.v., the iraq and afghanistan war veterans, to the

vietnam veterans of america, to the disabled american veterans, to the paralyzed veterans of america. we have just dozens of organizations who know how important this legislation is to their members. so my plea to my colleagues is let's debate veterans issues. you have an idea to improve this bill, i welcome it. let's have that debate. i do not believe that this legislation is immune to improvement. we can improve it, but please do not inject extraneous issues in here for totally political reasons. i think that is just unfair to the veterans of this country. mr. president, as you well know, on veterans day and memorial day i do and i suspect every member of the senate goes out and we speak to veterans, and we express our deep respect for them and their families and the appreciation for all that they have done for our country.

today i hope that we can keep faith with those promises. let us focus on veterans' issues, let us get the best bill that we can. let's not kill this bill because of the same old-same old partisan situation that we face. now, let me take a few minutes, mr. president, to tell you why we have brought forth this legislation which has been described as the most comprehensive piece of veterans legislation to have come before congress in decades. the reason is that while in recent years the president and congress have made good progress -- i think the president's budgets have been good, i think congress in a bipartisan way has done a good job in addressing many of the problems facing the veterans community. the truth is i hope everybody knows is that we still have a very, very long way to go. and what i want to do now is

just briefly tell you why we have brought forth this comprehensive legislation. and some of the outstanding issues that this bill addresses. mr. president, i think anybody who has nursed a kid or a parent who is ill or is injured knows how difficult and stressful that is. how sometimes you have to stay up all night, how sometimes you have to stay with your patient 24 hours a day, and i would like people to be thinking about what it means to be taking care day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year those veterans who are severely disabled in war. think about that for a moment,

what the stress is, how much of your own life have you given up to your loved one and their tens of thousands of wives who are now doing that, who are nursing, taking care of veterans from the world war ii, from korea, from vietnam, from iraq, from afghanistan. that is what they're doing right now. and they're doing it because they love their husbands or their wives or their sons or their daughters, and that's what they are doing. the very good news, mr. president, is that in 2010 congress passed legislation to develop a caregivers program for post-9/11 disabled vets. this was a huge step forward, huge step forward. and what it said is that those men and women who came back from iraq and afghanistan, perhaps without legs, perhaps blind, perhaps without arms, perhaps

ill in one way or another through ptsd or t.b.i., that we were going to make sure that their wives, their mothers, their sisters, their brothers, their kids had the support that they need to provide the kind of nursing care that -- in home that those veterans needed. and this legislation has been very successful for post-9/11 veterans. and let me just give you one example and there are obviously many. one family who benefited from the v.a.'s caregiver program is ed and karen matakum. i hope i've pronounced their name correctly and they live in my home state of vermont. in 2010 ed and karen were deployed together as medics with the vermont national guard, a national guard many of us in

vermont are very, very proud of. just two dpais days before independence day, the vehicle ed was riding in was hit by an i.e.d. the driver, ryan grande, was killed and we remember that loss very well. while ed and three others were severely injured. ed lost one leg immediately suffered a stroke and a severe final spinal cord injury. soon thereafter his other leg was amputated above the knee and he suffered yet another stroke. after three years of a rehabilitation, ed was medically retired from the army. because of v.a.'s caregiver program, a program we established in 2010, for post-9/11 veterans, and their families, karen, his wife, was able to separate from the army as well as becoming her full-time husband's caregiver. karen spends a significant time

every day caring for ed. she helps ed with personal care, fixing his meals and all of his transportation including to and from medical appointments. karen has gone through the training program and receives a monthly stipend to help compensate for her loss of income. i think that's the right thing to do. i'm not sure there are too many members in the senate who think that's not the right thing to do. here is a guy who suffered terrible wounds, his wife is giving up her career to care for him, should we not help that family? i think we should. and thanks to this program ed and karen are able to continue their lives together in their home, in their home and this is another important point. what might the alternative be? to end ed to a nursing home where he would be uncomfortable, not get the care of a loved one, and a great expense to the v.a. so this saves us money, provides better care for our

veteran, and this is what we did with the post-9/11 caregiver bill. the problem is, the problem is that that bill only applies to post-9/11 veterans. what i think should happen, what the veterans community thinks should happen, what i believe the american people think should happen is that we should expand that program to all veterans of all wars and their families. there are tens and tens of thousands of family members today who are caring 24/7 for veterans wounded in world war ii, korea, vietnam, other wars. they deserve the same benefits that the post-9/11 veterans' families are now receiving and that important provision is in this legislation.

and i hope my colleagues support it. there is another important provision in this legislation that i want to say a few words about and this is really a very important and sensitive issue. there are some 2,300 veterans who served in iraq and afghanistan who because of a variety of injuries are unable to start the families that they have wanted to start. some of the injuries are spinal cord, some of them may be genital injuries, some just impact affect the reproductive organs and they're no longer able to have babies. and many of these young men and women want to have babies. they want to raise children. they want as much as they can to have a normal family.

right now, the v.a. does not offer reproductive treatments to veterans, meaning that the most seriously injured among them cannot access the treatment or care needed to start a family. and i know senator murray, former chair of the veterans committee was on the floor yesterday speaking at great length about this important issue and i think if we send people off to war, these are young people, if they want to start a family, we have to assist them in being able to do so and that provision is included in this legislation. let me talk about another issue that we deal with in this bill. and, unfortunately, yesterday in this discussion this provision was mischaracterized by some who spoke against it. and this provision deals with expanding v.a. health care and making sure that some --

including some very vulnerable veterans who are today not eligible for v.a. health care in fact become eligible. mr. president, currently v.a. uses an extremely complicated system to determine eligibility based on income for veterans without service-connected injuries. often what we call priority eight veterans. what the v.a. now does is to determine income eligibility by looking at the income of an individual and his or her family, county by county in each state. and i know how many thousands of counties we have in the united states of america but let me tell you what this means in the real world in terms of how the v.a. currently determines income eligibility. in my own state of vermont we are a small state, 620,000 people, we are a rural state.

there are just 14 counties. and in vermont as throughout the country, each county has its own threshold for determining eligibility for priority group eight veterans. for a veteran living in the county where i live, that threshold to enroll in v.a. health care is less than $48,000. but for a veteran living in windham county in the southern part of the state, that threshold is less than $39,000. that's a difference of nearly $9,000. in the state of georgia, there are 159 counties. that's a lot of counties. and nearly as many income thresholds. imagine that. so for a veteran living in walton county, georgia, that threshold is less than $41,000. but if you're a veteran living in cofee county, that threshold

is just over $28,000. now it may make sense to some people, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. in the state of texas there are 254 counties. for a veteran living in brazoria county near houston, that threshold is less than $48,000. for vairn living in bee county that threshold is less than $31,000, a difference of over $17,000. frankly, this whole process does not make a lot of sense. it is totally confusing and i know this from firsthand experience to veterans, am i eligible for v.a. health care? well, it depends on which county you live in, which side of the road you live on. this makes no sense at all. so what this legislation does is simplify the system. and what we do is establish a single income threshold for an entire state. so instead of having thousands of income thresholds, we have

50. it is true that the threshold that we use would be the highest in each state. that is true. there are making more veterans eligible for v.a. health care. and that is exactly in my view what we should be doing. some here -- there may be some in the senate who believe that a veteran in a given state who earns all of $28,000 a year should not be eligible for v.a. health care because he or she is -- quote -- "unquote too rich." i respectfully disagree. v.a. provides high quality cost-effective health care and there are many veterans in this country struggling economically who want v.a. health care and need v.a. health care. i should also add that these newly eligible veterans will pay

a co-payment just like all other currently eligible priority eight veterans. and, frankly, i would prefer those veterans getting high quality care at the v.a. rather than going into an emergency room at ten times the cost when they become ill. let me reiterate. unlike what some of my colleagues said yesterday, this important provision does not open up v.a. health care to every veteran in america, and there are 22 million of them. it doesn't do that. it will not open the flood geats and bring -- flood gaits and bring -- floodgates and bring in millions and millions of veterans. i cannot give you an estimate nor can anybody else how many will take advantage of this provision. but it will be a manageable number, largely because we make very clear and this is an important point some of my colleagues apparently did not understand -- we make very

clear in this legislation that v.a. has five full years to fully implement this provision in a way that will not negatively impact current patient needs. so anyone who says they're going to open the floodgates for every veteran, not accurate, and that because all these veterans are coming in, we're going to diminish the quality of care for current veterans, that's just not accurate. and let me reiterate this point which is also in the bill. we understand that the highest priority -- and we have tawbled to disabled american veterans about this issue -- we understand that the highest priority for v.a. health care is to take care of those veterans with service-connected problems. that is the case today and that will remain the case tomorrow after this bill is passed. those with disabilities, those with service-connected problems will remain the highest priority.

let me also say a word and this is a long discussion and we can go on and on for hours about this. i'm also on the health committee and i've studied this issue a little bit. yesterday some very, very harsh criticisms were made about v.a. health care. the truth is that the veterans administration runs 151 medical centers. 151 medical centers. they run some 900 community-based outreach clinics. they run hundreds of vet centers. the v.a. is the largest integrated health care system in the united states of america. it employs hundreds of thousands of workers, doctors, nurses, technicians, you name it. no one, obviously, has ever suggested that v.a. health care is perfect or that there aren't problems within the system. but i will tell you this.

i talk to veterans in vermont and i talk to veterans all over the country, and by and large there is very, very strong support for v.a. health care. because these veterans understand that when they walk into a v.a. facility, the people there are there to treat them, they understand their problems, and many of the workers there themselves are veterans. and i think if you talk to the veterans' community, they will tell you not that the v.a. doesn't have its set of problems, it does, and not that we shouldn't focus vigorously on improving the care at v.a., but they will tell you that, by and large, the care they're getting is good care. and the point that i want to make is that before we eviscerate, as was the case yesterday, the veterans administration health care system, let us remember today about what's going on in terms of health care in america.

let us understand that the v.a. is not the only health care system in this country which has problems. today as a nation we are the only major country on earth that doesn't guarantee health care to all ofit of its people as a rig. and tens of millions of people today, even after the affordable care act, lack any health insurance. let's remember today that 45,000 people, according to a harvard study, die each year -- die each year -- because they don't get to a doctor on time because they lack health insurance. and let us not forget that in the midst of high premiums, high co-payments, lack of insurance, the united states of america spends almost twice as much per person on health care as do the people of any other nation. and many of those other nations spend a fraction of what we spend, have better health care outcomes than we do in terms of life expectancy, infant mortality and many other important outcomes. i would also add that before we

go about attacking in a rather vicious way the veterans administration health care system, we should understand that according to a recent study that appeared in the journal of "patient study" -- and i quote -- "between 210,000 and 400,040 people each year who go to the hospital for care suffer some type of preventable harm that contributes to their deat death." according to that study, that number would make medical errors the third leading cause of death in america behind heart disease and cancer. in other words -- the presiding officer: the senator has used the hour of postcloture debate time. mr. sanders: i would ask unanimous consent for five additional minutes, which i would be happy --

the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: i thank my colleagues. my point of saying that is not to say that the v.a. health care system does not have its problems. it's saying that we have problems in every health institution in america, that's what we have. but when you look at the v.a. -- and i can go on and on -- they are doing some really cutting-edge stuff. you look about health care technology and health care records. v.a. has led the country in that direction. there was discussion yesterday, absolutely correct discussion, about our concerns within the v.a. and outside the v.a. about overmedication of people who are dealing with pain problems. to the best of my knowledge, the v.a. is leading the country, doing cutting-edge work in complementary and alternative medicine with good results, saying that maybe we don't have to use all of this medication, maybe we can use acupuncture, maybe we can use yoga, maybe we

can use meditation, and they are doing that aggressively. and by the way, this legislation expands those programs. one of the crises in american health care today is our failure in terms of developing strong primary health care system. guess what? sebok, the v.a. has 900 primary health care facilities all over this country. the v.a. has women's health centers dealing with the specific needs o of women. i could go on and on. i don't think it's fair just to pick on the v.a. they're vulnerable. every problem they have is on the front pages of the newspapers. well, you know what, i will never forget that a goom friend of mine went into a hospital and died of an infection. didn't make the front pages of the paper, and that's happening all over america. so i think, yes, of course, we want to improve the v.a. health care system. but let us thank the hundreds of thousands of highly qualified, dedicated workers who are

providing quality care to their patients. lastly i want to say a word, something that i feel very strongly about, i have always believed that dejt car dental cd be an integral part of health care as a nation and within the v.a., and what this bill does for the first time, through a pilot project, begins the process of opening dental care for non-service connected veterans of the so i'll have more to say later. there are a number of other provisions that are there but here's the bottom line. we owe more than we can ever pay back to people who sacrifice so much for this country. i think it is important that we pass this comprehensive legislation. i think it is terribly important that we have a serious debate about the serious issues facing the veterans community. so i look forward to my colleagues, republican, democrat, independent, bring forth your ideas, bring forth your amendments, but, please,

please, do not disrespect those people who have sacrificed so much by killing this bill because of the same, old politics that we have struggled with for years. this is a veterans bill. let's discuss veterans issues. and with that, mr. president, i would yield. and i want to thank my colleague for allowing me the extra two minutes. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. burr: mr. president, as paul harvey used to say on the radio, "now the rest of the story." you've heard a very glamorous description of bipartisanship, of benefits that have been not provided equitably to veterans and what i'd like to do is try to focus this on reality.

what's -- what's actually in the bill, what's not in the bill, what was the intent of congress, what is the shape of the veterans administration. let me start with one very important thing. my colleague pointed out most of the veterans' organizations support this bill. he's in fact correct. now, let me read from an editorial written by the c.e.o. of concerned veterans of ameri america. i won't read the whole thing and bore the president or those who listen, but he says, "but given the vast scope of this bill, we should be skeptical. in recent years the v.a., which will take on a wide range of expanded responsibilities should this bill become law, has come under fire for dysfunctional management and poor service to veterans. if the v.a. is already failing to meet its obligations to veterans, is it wise to extend

its mission even further? of course not. and while we need to restore the shortsighted cuts to the military pension, there are more narrow ways to address these cuts, such as the ayotte military pension bill," which is in this alternative. "it's troubling that under in bill, v.a. services would be expanded far beyond veterans with combat injuries and service-connected disabilities. fundamentally changing the founding mission of v.a. this will only flood the v.a. system with new claimants, many of whom would be better served by health care coverage in the private insurance market. veterans seeking v.a. care already face wait times of months and even years. further expanding eligibility to veterans who would be better served by other health care options will only stretch the v.a. to its breaking point.

there is also currently no cost estimate of this massive expansion. meanwhile, there's another compelling question of cost. sanders has proposed shifting funding from the pentagon's overseas contingency operation to pay for these expanded veterans priorities, but taking funding from the men and women serving in afghanistan and elsewhere is shortsighted and could endanger their lives. that approach will likely meet with a chilly reception in the house of representatives and justifiably so. this means that the sanders bill would be paid for through the accumulation of additional debt. the c.b.a.," or concerned veterans of america, "has been clear that washington needs to cut debt, not vets. with $17 trillion in debt and massive annual deficits, our country faces a fiscal crisis of unparalleled scope. now is not the time in any

federal department to spend money we don't have. to be sure, there's much to like in the sashed sanders bill and e components were presented as separate, smaller as part of a carefully considered long-term strategy to reform the v.a., hold leadership accountable and improve service to veterans, we'd have no problem expending enthusiastic support. as with many bloated legislative projects in today's washington, the overreaching and overpromising in this bill will only lead to disappointment and recriminations as the high cost and unanticipated consequences are revealed. that will be followed by demands for an entirely new round of comprehensive reforms and the cycle will begin anew. congress should go back to the drawing board, assume a more modest approach and take up these proposals on an individual basis.

that's the better path to achieving enduring and effective reform and accountability for the services we provide to our veterans." so i point that out because he's a veteran. he's c.e.o. of a veterans organization. not all veterans organizations agree that more is necessarily better and that to blindly add to the system is not necessarily good. now, my colleague mentioned that there was a five-year implementation. i can tell you, i've got the legislation right here, mr. president. it's title 3, subtitle a, expansion and improvements of benefits generally, requirements for enrollment and patient enrollment system of the department of veterans affairs, of certain veterans eligible for enrollment by law but not currently permitted to enroll. it goes through all the subsections, basically says the secretary shall provide for the

enrollment in the patient enrollment system of veterans specified in paragraph 2 by no later than december 31, 2014. well, veterans in section 2. veterans with noncompensatable service-connected disabilities rated as 0% disabled who are not otherwise permitted to enroll in the system as of the date of enactment of the comprehensive veterans health and benefit military retirement pay restoration act of 2014. as of the date the enrollment under this section does not have access to health insurance except -- except -- through a health exchange. now, my colleague sat on the floor and begged me not to talk about the affordable care act. the affordable care act is in his bill. it's referenced in his bill.

now, get this. the affordable care act has been portrayed as the solution to the health care problem in america. forget for a minute the fact that premiums have increased for practically everybody in america. 90% have seen increases. where the 2,500 savings is per family, that's a wish, a hope and a dream. but my colleagues think so much of the affordable care act that if the only choice of a veteran is the affordable care act, then they can opt to go into the v.a. now, if the affordable care act and the exchange is so good, why would we want to shift them from something good into something that's questionable based upon what the editorial said? now, my colleagues said that the v.a. is the best health care system in the world.

it is. the hospital system has been rated high practically every year it's been rated. i made the statement yesterday, why would you take a system that was broken and stuff more people into it? why wouldn't you focus the debate on how do we reform the system? mr. president, this is one year's worth of inspector general reports on health care facilities with over 40 recommendations that they have made by the inspector general on health inspections. i can tell you what's in front of the v.a. they can't even get their hands around their own inspector general's report. these are deaths of veterans. these are individuals that used somebody else's insulin pen. this is legionnaires' disease. this is a system that drastically needs reform, and it's not a member of the united

states senate coming down and making an accusation. it is the inspector general of the veterans administration, and all these reports from 12 months. but we're talking about a massive expansion of the veterans administration where the chairman says oh, they have got five years to do it. i'm reading the -- i'm reading the legislation. there is no five years. there is a specified expansion of who is included in it, and it says the secretary will do it by december 31, 2014. if the phase-in is there, the chairman could come down and read me the language where it says five years. i'm certainly not trying to mislead anybody, although i am trying to make sure that we get the facts on the floor of what this legislation actually does. now, the chairman talked about the bipartisanship.

he's correct. quite a few of the bills in his package are my bills, and they passed out of the committee with unanimous support. incorporated in this bill is 143 provisions, 26 of which are republican. i never judged whether i liked the bill based on how many of mine were in it or our side of the aisle were in it. i base it on what's in the bill. what are the policies? what is our intent? do we accomplish that in the language of the legislation? well, let's look at it for just a minute. there are no reforms, zero. zero reforms in the bill. it is a massive expansion of individuals in the system.

as a matter of fact, under this piece of legislation, the v.a. adopt even support it. let me read you what the principal deputy under secretary for health said. dr. robert jesse. he indicated that expanding enrollment of priority aids, and i quote, presents many potential complicationed and uncertain affects on -- complications and uncertain affects on v.a.'s enrollment system. this is the individual in charge of health at the v.a. that says i don't think this is a good idea. so i guess the only mistake that the chairman made was as he suggested that i was opposed to it, he was accurate, but he didn't ever say the v.a. is

opposed to this massive expansion. he talked about the caregiver bill. i know something about it because i wrote it. and we implemented it as a demonstration project. why? because senator akaka and myself believed that v.a. was not in a position to absorb this massive program and to administer and implement it in an effective way. as a matter of fact, senator akaka said at the time, who was then chair of the veterans committee, he said there were three reasons he was reluctant to -- let me just say when the caregivers program came up in debate on the senate floor, senator akaka, then-chair, noted these benefits and services were not made available to all

veterans for three reasons. one, the needs and circumstances of the newest veterans in terms of injuries are different, different from those of veterans of other eras. two, the family situation of the younger veterans is different than the older veterans. three, by targeting this initiative on a specific group of veterans, the likelihood of success -- successful undertaking is enhanced. i say to my colleagues, would the author of the caregivers program not be the first one to come to the floor and lobby for an expansion. i think the answer's yes. but would the author of the caregiver's legislation want to wait until the system can handle it? do you realize that in two states in america, a veteran can file for caregivers in one state and be denied and file the same

application in another and be granted caregiver status? it happened in colorado and florida. now, how in a system that's created to equally treat veterans is that possible? and now what we want to do is we want to extend it to veterans of all eras. i would suggest to my colleagues that this is almost ludicrous to even think about. mr. president, i see quite a few members here, and i'm not going to take up but a couple more minutes. i want to make sure that my colleagues understand my opposition is not to veterans. my opposition's to proceeding with legislation that could hurt veterans, not help them.

in this particular case, more is not necessarily better. as the c.e.o. of concerned veterans of america stated, the right congressional action will be stop, take a breath, focus on the things that are broken, fix the system, then have a debate about which veterans, if any, should be included in v.a. delivery of care. the chairman highlighted yesterday that incorporated in both his bill and my bill is a house provision that provides leases for 27 new v.a. outpatient facilities, and he said that's proof that we have got in the system enough facilities to handle the population.

no, mr. chairman, that's not. what those 27 leases are, they are for trying to make sure that we have got facilities to handle our current population within the v.a. those veterans who are driving over two hours to do a primary care visit, those in the individuals who transportation is the number one issue. 27 doesn't even get us up to taking care of today's population. as i said yesterday, we have got, i know, $14 billion worth of production that's currently under way in the v.a., yet we appropriate $1 billion a year. it will take us 14 years to build out the inventory we have today. but the legislation calls for an incredible increase in the size of the veterans' population by december of 2014. we don't have any of those 27

facilities that would be legislated in this bill done by december, 2014. so i'm going to urge my colleagues as we move forward. let's not do anything to damage the veterans. let's not do anything to overwhelm the veterans administration. let's commit to work with them to reform the system. let's listen to what they want and not put them in a situation where they are telling us we don't want what you are proposing. let's listen and let's apply common sense to legislation versus to just be focused on the cheers we have received from a few who were paid to represent

folks in washington. you see, the chairman said a number of times this is about veterans. i can tell you it's a little bit more. it's about the american people. it's about my kids, your kids, your grandchildren. it's about what they inherit from us, and they are going to inherit from us probably the most important thing, the obligation to keep our promise to veterans of all eras. i think the decision we have got here as we debate this legislation is whether we're going to commit to a promise that's bigger than what our kids can fulfill. that costs more than our kids can afford and that doesn't

necessarilyien hans the health care delivered to our veterans. if anything, today it would probably be detrimental to those that need it the most. mr. president, i thank you for your indulgence. i thank my colleagues if they have patiently waited. this is way too big an issue to rush through, and i look forward to the next several days at a real debate about the specifics in this bill and more important about what we should do as a congress to help veterans and to help the veterans administration. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. coats: mr. president, i don't come to speak on this bill, although i certainly appreciate the remarks of my colleague from north carolina relative to the alternative. i also see the chairman is here. i don't know if he -- i'm only prepared to speak, mr. chairman, on a separate subject, probably

five to seven minutes time. mr. president, as i said, i appreciate the comments of my colleague and particularly the need when we're dealing with veterans and their benefits and their health care in particular, to be very careful in terms of what we're doing so we do it in the right way because we do owe them all our nation's gratitude for the sacrifices this they have -- that they have made. as a former veteran myself, i have some appreciation of that. my daughter has married into a military family. nevertheless, we need to be very, very careful how we go forward in making sure that the care they get through the v.a. system is the very best care possible. my colleague has outlined a number of issues that do need to be debated, and i dearly hope that the majority leader will allow us the opportunity to not only debate but vote on an alternative which, in my opinion, addresses the issue in

the very best way. but today i come to talk about the president's visit to minnesota. i wish it were indiana. he had to fly over indiana probably to get there, but he's going there for the purpose, as stated, to discuss a new initiative. i think it's a transportation initiative that he hopes will create jobs and stimulate economic growth. clearly, that's been an ongoing challenge for this administration, but how ironic. how ironic to go to minnesota, a state like my home state of indiana that's been one of the most -- had one of the most negatively impacted taxes imposed upon one of its most dynamic job creators, the medical device industry. how ironic that you go to talk about creating jobs and economic growth, at the same time a proposal, a provision that was

incorporated in the so-called affordable care act imposed a -- an egregious excise tax on not the profits but on the sales receipts of medical device companies simply as a pay-for for the obamacare act. as i said, indiana and minnesota, are home to many of the country's largest medical device manufacturers. in fact, my state of indiana exported more than $9.7 billion in life science products, including medical devices, and is second in the country, only to california, in terms of exports of life science products. so it's very important to our state and we have over 300 f.d.a. registered medical device manufacturers. some of them large, some of them small. they employ 20,000 hoosiers directly with an indirect

support by nearly 30,000 more. so it's not a small thing for our state. it's one of the, pardon the pun, cutting-edge industries producing devices that improve the health of americans and extend the life of americans through some remarkable innovation. these companies have revolutionized the medical field with life-enhancing as well as lifesaving technology. and so what is the effect of this excise tax that has been imposed on these companies and this thrieferg industry? let me respond in a way -- thriving industry? let me respond in a way that reflects what some of the hoosiers have told me as i've traveled across the state talking to these device manufacturing employees, c.e.o.'s, manufacturers, learning what the impact of this tax is on their industry which is so important to our economic growth and tht our country's

economic growth. one device manufacturer located in warsaw, indiana, develops and sells orthopedic implants for children, but recently had to shell of two -- shelve two important products because they had to get the money to pay the tax and couldn't put it into the research and development of the next product. i quote an employee of this company, "the medical device excise tax has inhibited us from developing new products that can reduce a wheelchairbound child's discomfort or allow a kid to walk for the first time." real consequences here. companies that are many innovative, struggling to design that new product that can be life-enhancing and life saving have simply had to defer their product simply to pay the

tax. they may not have made a penny in net profits. many of these are start-up companies hoping to develop and get f.d.a. approval for the next new innovation, the next new life-enhancing innovation yet they're taxed not on their net profits or many losing money initially, in order to go through the tortuous and time consuming process of getting f.d.a. approval, but -- which denies them getting their products out to the market for a long period of time, so most of them early on are not making any profit. but the devices that they are selling all -- and every dollar that comes in in support of this is taxed, even though they have no net profits. and therefore they have to take money out of research and development, out of capital equipment, out of employee compensation in order to put

it -- in order to send a check to the government. now, cook medical which is located in bloomington, indiana, another hoosier device manufacturer, was forced to table plans for a major expansion because the device tax. in testimony before the senate budget committee last year, cook's medical chairman steve ferguson said this -- "cook has made the difficult decision that without repeal of the medical device tax, we will move important new product lines outside of the u.s. our previous plans were to open up five new manufacturing facilities in american towns. these are now on hold as we use capital intended for these projects to pay for the excise tax." there are very real consequences here in terms of job creation and economic growth that are

being inhibited and we're getting just the opposite, we're getting job killing and deflated economic results, as a result of this tax. and it's an egregious tax. now, the advanced medical technology association recently conducted a survey of its members. they shared that with me earlier today. and found that the device tax forced manufacturers to let go of or avoid hiring 33,000 workers last year. 33,000 people that could have joined the work force, at wages which are in my state 56% higher than the average state wage. so these are good-paying jobs. they require good skills but they're good-paying jobs, and it is an emerging product, series of products that can be exported around the world. the survey also found that one-third of the respond entsd had -- respondents had to

reduce their research and development as a result of the medical device tax and in terms of investment dollars, three quarters of the respondents said they had taken juan one or more of the following actions in response to the tax. they have deferred or canceled capital investments, deferred or canceled plans to open new facilities, reduced investment in start-up companies, found it more difficult to raise capital, particularly among start-up companies and reduced or deferred increases in employee compensation. there are real results, negative results that come from taxing anything, but when you tax sales, when you tax on an excise basis, it has a compounding effect for particularly start-up companies. and even for established companies in terms of what they're able to do in terms of hiring, in terms of plant expansion, in terms of research and development, in terms of innovation. this is happening across the

country. we just happen to be two states, minnesota and indiana, that have been particularly hard hit here. we ought to be encouraging these companies to continue their research and development. we shouldn't be punishing them with an egregious tax which is simply a by-product, a way that the administration said we have to find a pay-for for obamacare, and here's a process spielberg -- prospering industry, let's take money had from them not on their profits, but from their sales, an excise tax so we can apply it to obamacare. that's like -- essentially what they're doing is sair taking money -- they're taking money from a program that works and puts people back to work, and generates taxes on the -- the right way, and transferring that money to a program that is in distress, has turned out to be a job killer according to

studies and a number of agencies that have looked at this and is very much in a state of confusion and disarray right now among the american people. so you take money from something that works and you give it to something that doesn't work. what kind of rationale is that, and how can the president go to minnesota and say i'm here to stimulate growth and create jobs while his very own policy has done just the opposite? now, the senior senator from minnesota, senator klobuchar and i chair the senate medical technology caucus and we have been able to pull together a bipartisan effort to increase awareness of these unique issues, but also to achieve a boat, which is hard to do around here, to get a vote on something. but during the budget we had the so-called vote-a-rama, we get to offer any amendment we want, it's not binding law but settles the stage and shows you where the senate is on particular

topics. on this one, on this one, 79 out of 100 united states senators, republicans and democrats, that's 45 republicans and 34 democrats, voted for repeal of this tax. 79. so this isn't a republican standing here challenging the president of another party, or members of across the aisle and saying, you know, we're asking you to support this republican issue. this is a bipartisan issue. almost as many democrats as republicans support this. but yet the majority leader has refused to allow this to come to an actual vote which would put it into passage because the house has already supported and passed this and being sent to the president for his signature. so i guess what i'm asking here today is that the majority leader at least allow us the

opportunity to go forward with a vote which would then, should it pass and since 79 voted for it in a bipartisan way, i suspect it would pass -- and be able to send it to the president. if we -- he really wants to create jobs and stimulate the economy, we have living proof of something that will do it. i don't know how the president can go to a state and say i'm here to stimulate the economy and provide new jobs and at the same time have in place and not support and a majority leader who won't allow us a vote on, something which does exactly not only what the president wants to do but what we all want to do. we all want to enact measures here that will get our country growing again and will get people back to work. and particularly in an area where we're providing life-enhancing and lifesaving medical technology, it's

particularly important. so my plea, madam president, as i finish here, i urge the majority leader and i urge the president if they're serious about encouraging economic growth, spurring job creation and improving health care, to support the repeal of this unfair and destructive tax on medical devices. madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. coons: mr. president, i yield 45 minutes of my hour under cloture to chairman sanders of the veterans' affairs committee. the presiding officer: time is so yielded. mr. coons: mr. president? i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. sanders: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated, please. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sanders: madam president, earlier this afternoon, i spoke about the many important provisions in this veterans bill that came out of the veterans committee. the fact that we worked as hard as we could to make it

bipartisan, the fact that there are many, many provisions in this bill that came from republican members, the fact that some other provisions in this bill were passed almost unanimously by the republican house of representatives, indicating very strong bipartisan support. but what i also said is that while i believe the american people understand the full cost of war and understand the sacrifices made by veterans and their families, what they also believe is that when you have a piece of legislation -- an important piece of legislation -- on the floor dealing with the needs of millions and millions of veterans and their families, whether it is health care, whether it's dental care, whether it's sexual assault and how we dra address that issue, whether it is the fact that some

over 2,000 veterans have lost their ability to have kids and what we can do to make it possible for them to have children, whether it is the fact that you have tens of thousands of families in this country where loved ones are taking care of disabled vets who need some support, and we have the need to expand the caregivers act, whether it is the fct that we have some -- the fact that we have some young people who are eligible to use the post-9/11 g.i. bill but are unable to do it because they cannot get in-state tuition, whether it is the issue of advanced appropriation in making sure we never again find ourselves in a position that we did a few months ago when the government was shut down and where disabled veterans were a week, ten days away from losing the checks that they depend upon ... i think there is widespread support in america for that bill, for the understanding that we do owe the men and women who have put their lives on the line to defend us a

debt of gratitude that can never be fully repaid. but we've got to do our best, got to make life as good as we can for those who are injured in war. we've got to protect the hundreds of thousands who came back from iraq and afghanistan with ptsd or traumatic brain injury. but whatever one may think of the bill, madam president, whether you like the bill or you don't like the bill, you think the bill is too expensive, you think we should have done more, the one thing i think most americans understand is that it is totally absurd to be bringing forth extraneous issues into a debate on veterans needs in order to kill the bill. so i say to my colleagues exactly what the majority leader said this morning: if you have amendments dealing with veterans' issues, we welcome them. and we have a number of democrats who have come forward

with amendments. we have some republicans who have come forward with amendments. we welcome amendments that are relevant, germane to the needs of veterans. what we do not welcome are extraneous amendments that are designed only -- only for partisan political reasons, exactly the process that the american people are disgusted with today. now, interestingly enough, that is my view. i mentioned earlier today that the iraq and afghanistan veterans of america just sent out a tweet yesterday. it is what they said. these are the folks who represent those who served us in iraq and afghanistan. and they said, and i quote, "the senate should not get distracted while debating and voting on the vets bill. iran vangs sanctions, obamacaret

cetera, are not relevant to s. 1782, which is what we are dealing with today. that's the iraq and afghanistan vets of america. they said focus on veterans' issues, which i think is a very simple request and one that should be heeded. but today just a little while ago, we heard from the largest veterans organization in america, that is the american legion, which represents 2.4 million members. the largest veterans organization in this country. i suspect they have chapters. i suspect strong in vermont, hawaii, strong all over this country. this is what the american legion national commander, daniel m. dyladillinger said today. "iran is a serious issue that congress needs to address, but it cannot be tied to s. 1982,

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 use the g.i. 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 serve 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." end of quote. and i think commander dillinger hit the nail right on the head.

what he is saying, fine, we can debate iran at some point. we can debate obamacare -- it's going on day after day after day. but this is a bill that deals with veterans' issues. and i thin thank the american ln not only for their support -- and they along with vitterly is every other veteran -- with virtually every other veterans organization in the country supports this legislation, the v.f.w., d.a. vie, the iraq-afghanistan veterans of america, just dozens of organizations. but i thank the american legion in particular for their statement in making it clear that our job is to debate a veterans bill, not kill this bill, because of an extraneous issue like iran sanctions. i wanted to say one other word before i proceed to my remarks. my colleague from north carolina mentioned that -- quoted from a

group called the concern the veterans of america -- concerned veterans of america. in support of our legislation, we have the largest veterans organization in america, second-largest, third-largest, fourth-largest, sixth-largest, all the way down the line. supporting his position a is group called the concerned veterans for america. i have -- you know, i don't mean to be personal here, but just the simple fact that people should understand, this organization, according to "the washington post," is significantly supported by the koch brothers. we are going to be running into the koch brothers. there are going to be organizations out that there they support. this someone the concerned veterans of america. madam president, i talked earlier about the many, many portions of the important issues

in the bill, the reproductive issues, the right and belief that the federal government and the v.a. should assist those men and women who lost their ability to have kids. talked about caregivers. i talked about all of that. so i want to just touch on a couple more issues at this moment. i have believed for a very long time that dental care should be regarded as a part of health care. i think we make a mistake as a nation saying this is health care, this is dental care. our legislation for the first time begins the process of providing dental care to non-service connected members through a -- a significant pilot project. and i have the feeling that once we do this, you're going to see veterans from all over the country who are dealing with long-term demghts problem dental themselves of this service. it's the right thing to do and something that i think we should be doing. another provision in this bill deals with the cola issue for

military retirize. and i think everybody here -- retirees. and the i think here is familiar that in the bipartisan budget act of 2013, it reduced by 1% annually the cost-of-living adjustments for military retirees until age 62. now, the good news is that the house and senate recently passed legislation completely rescinding those cuts and the presses has signed that bill. that's the good news. the bad news is that those cuts continue to exist for those who joined the military after january 2014. and i know that the veterans' organizations are concerned about that. i am concerned about that. i think that that is wrong. our legislation corrects that. so if you're talking about cuts to military retiree colas, we end it, pure and simple. those cola cuts will no longer

exist if this bill is passed. madam president, as i -- mr. president, as i mentioned earlier, this legislation addresses the issue of the benefits backlog. there is great concern among all members of the senate that veterans are forced to wait much, much too long to get their claims processed. and what this legislation does is it supports v.a.'s ongoing efforts to end the backlog and would make needed improvements to the claims system. and, again, this is the result of some bipartisan efforts. secretary eric ca shinseki, of e v.a., as he moves the claims am from a paper to electronic system has advanced the very impatience goal of making sure that every game filed by a

veteran will be processed in 125 days at 90% -- 98% accuracy. and that is a very ambitious goal and the language that we have is going to hold the v.a. accountable and make sure that we reach this very ambitious goal. madam president, i gather there may be differences of opinion on this view but this -- another provision in our bill deals with the educational needs of service members and making sure that they get a fair shot at attaining their educational goals without incurring an additional financial burden, which is what the post-9/11 g.a. bill has been all b. that bill has been enormously successful. there are certain problems with it and we address these problems. given the nature of our armed forces, service members have little to no say as to where

they serve and where they reside during military service. thus, when transitioning service members consider what educational institution they want to attend, many of them choose a school in a state other than their home state or a state where they previously served. mr. president, i have heard from too many veterans that many of these public educational institutions consider them out-of-state students. given that the post-9/11 g.i. bill only covers in-state tuition and fees for public educational institutions, these veterans are left to cover the differences between costs and the in-state tuition rate and the out-of-state tuition rate. in some states, that difference can be more than $20,000 a year and that is certainly not what the purpose of the 9/11 g.i. bill was about. as a result, many of the veterans -- manufacture our nation's veterans -- many of our nation's veterans must use loans to cover this difference and in the process become indebted with large school loans that will take them

years to pay off. my office has heard from a number of veterans and veterans organizations about this problem. we heard from sky barkley who lived in florida prior to joining the u.s. marine corps in 2006. after serving her county, sky decided to -- country, sky decided to remain with her family in north carolina so her husband could finish serving his military obligations. less than a year later, they moved to sky's hometown in florida to transition back to civilian life and finish their college education. sky and her husband changed their residency immediately, started renting a home and ensured her car registration was up to date. however, the school they chose to attend could not consider either of these veterans as in-state students. as a result, they were forced to pay an additional $2,000 out of pocket each semester. due to the additional financial burden, sky and her husband were unable to afford day care for their daughter.

instead, they have to juggle two demanding schedules with one of them attending school in the morning and the other in late afternoon. bottom line here is, mr. president, that we passed a post-9/11 g.i. bill which is working incredibly well. over a million veterans and their family members have used this program. it is very important for higher education in america. and i think that we should support our veterans who move to another state and make sure they get in-state tuition. so, mr. president, let me conclude my remarks at this point. i will be back later to reiterate the major point i want to make. we can play the same, old politics here. my republican colleagues can defeat this bill because of some extraneous matters in it. i think that that is incredibly

disrespectful to those people, to the veterans community that have sacrificed so much. that's not my view. that is what the american legion believes, what the american lee legion says. discuss veterans issues in a veterans bill. the iraq and afghanistan veterans of america say the same thing. so we may have disagreements on this bill. people may choose to vote against it, for whatever reason. people may offer amendments that we love to see. some of them may be good, some of them may not be so good. but let us respect those folks who have given so much to this country. let's not demean the veterans community by killing this bill because of something to do with iran sanctions. that has nothing to do with veterans' needs. so i hope we have a -- continue to have a vigorous debate on this amendment. i see my friend from florida over here. people want to vote for it,

good, want to vote against it, fine. but let's not -- let's not play the same, old politics which so disgust the american people. and with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. rubio: mr. president, if i could inquire as to the pending business before the senate is the veterans bill? the motion to proceed? the presiding officer: it is indeed the motion to proceed to s. 1892. mr. rubio: mr. president, i appreciate this opportunity to address a number of matters of great concern. certainly i don't think there's -- there might be but i don't know of any state that has a greater presence of veterans within it than florida. certainly per capita we have a huge military presence in our state and a large number of veterans. and i've commented to people, by the way, that in my time here in the senate, which is now about three years and two months, a substantial percentage of the calls that we get to our office are from veterans regarding veterans issues. i have a veteran in my family,

my brother, who's recently encountered some bureaucratic hurdles he's trying to overcome in terms of getting services from the v.a. so these are relevant matters that i think are of great importance. i'm glad the senate is on the debate. i'm glad we proceeded to have this debate and i think it's an important one. and i do hope that i'll have an opportunity to offer an amendment that i have relevant to the bill that involves and gives the opportunity for the secretary that oversees this department to be able to hire and fire and particularly hold accountable mid- and higher-level officials within the veterans administration who resident doing their jobs and are contributing to this backlog -- are not doing their jobs and are contributing to this backlog. i can tell you that in florida we have a veterans hospital that's well over budget and well over time and it needs to be addressed. and i think that's an issue on veterans that has extraordinary bipartisan consensus and my hope is that we'll be able to address it and my hope is that we'll have an amendment process here that allows these ideas to be brought forth. and from what i heard the senator commenting a moment ago, he welcomes amendments and so i hope we'll have an opportunity

to offer that. i know that as part of this debate th issue of iran sanctions -- the issue of iran sanctions has been raised. and i don't think it's rare to have issues that perhaps aren't directly on point to a bill offered in a debate, particularly when getting into a debate on that issue has been so difficult. and that's -- and that's part of the problem here with the iran sanctions issue. and i -- and i understand when you file a bill, you've worked hard on it, the last thing you want is for it to be slowed down because of debate on some other topics that's not directly on topic. and i understand that concern, i do. but on the other hand, i hope members will understand that part of the frustration has been the inability to even get a debate on what truly is an extraordinarily important issue. for those here watching and those at home watching and those who may see this later, let me just take a moment to briefly discuss what's at stake here. and i -- i briefly discussed this a few weeks ago but i wanted to taking an opportunity to do so again. here's the issue.

iran a few years ago began developing a nuclear processing capability. what that basically means is that they take uranium, for example, and they reprocess it to a certain level. now, you need to have a certain level of reprocessing in order to, for example, provide domestic energy, nuclear energy plants. many countries in the world have nuclear energy. but only a handful actually process it themselves. most just decide to buy it already processed from abroad. we have agreements and we have arrangements with countries all over the planet that do that. only a handful actually retain the capacity to reprocess it or -- or -- or to enrich uranium or reprocess plutonium. when you see a country -- when you see a country announce that they are going to invest money, time and energy in developing a processing -- a reprocessing or an enrichment exaibilityd, that raises -- capability, that raises red flags and here's why. because while you only need a

certain level of enrichment to be able to provide nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and a little bit of a higher level in order to be able to use it for medical isotopes, the exact same machines, the exact same facilities, the exact same scientists are the exact same runs that can also reprocess or enrich to an even higher level to use in a weapon. the story of iran has been over the last few years to increase their enrichment and reprocessing capabilities. so that in and of itself raises red flags. adding to that uncertainty and concern about it has been the fact that they've tried to hide most of this. consistently iran has been found to have secret development projects ongoing. that they only admit to once they are discovered, and they take tremendous amounts of effort to hide it from the world. that begins to raise red flags. because if it's truly just a

peaceful program, there would be no reason to hide it. or to hide your capabilities. but iran has consistently hidden it. but there's even more reason to be cempe concerned. in addition to increasing their capacity to enrich and reproce reprocess, iran is also developing long-range missile capabilities. now, a long-range missile, basically a missile that can my from iran, a thousand miles, 1,500 miles, 2,000 miles, 3,000 miles, that costs a lot of money to develop. it takes a lot of time to develop. you don't spend time or money developing those capabilities for purely conventional purposes or for defensive purposes. usually when you undergo those efforts to develop that kind of capability, it's because you want to have the opportunity to one day put a nuclear warhead on one of those rockets. so that's the story of iran. massive expansion in their enrichment and reprocessing