the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the senator from new york. vote:

the presiding officer: do any

senators desire to vote or change their votes? if not, on this vote, the ayes are 78, the noes are 17. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to the consideration of the following nomination, which the clerk will report. the clerk: peace corps, carolyn hessler radelet of virginia to be director. the presiding officer: the question is on the nomination. all in favor say aye. any opposed, nay. the ayes have it. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motions to reconsider are considered made and laid upon the table and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's actions.

the presiding officer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. enzi: inquiry. are we -- the presiding officer: if we could come to order in the chairman wchamber. mr. enzi: what's the status of business that we're in? the presiding officer: the senator is recognized. mr. enzi: thank you, mr. president. i'd ask unanimous consent for floor privileges for the day for daniel head of my staff. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. enzi: thank you, mr. president. i rise today -- the presiding officer: will the senate be in order, please. will the senate be in order. the senator from wyoming. mr. enzi: thank you. i rise today to talk about the new regulations president obama proposed this week that are obviously aimed at the coal industry. but let's be frank, these regulations go far beyond the president's campaign to put coal out of business. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. enzi: these regulations go

far beyond the president's campaign to put coal out of business. these regulations target energy, to make it less affordable and less abundant. once again we're seeing how consumers, students, low-income families are getting priced out of the economy because of a government policy. the more the government dictates and promotes a one-size-fits-al solution, the more it hits folks in their pocketbooks. mr. president, i don't think i've ever met a single person who ever said they were antienvironment. i can't think of a single person that likes dirty water or polluted skies. but if you listen to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, you'd assume that republicans have made it their life's work to kill the planet. it makes for great soundbites and it can help rally their base. it does not, however, contribute much to the discussion at hand. or make much of a difference.

actions have consequences and these proposed regulations will have a real, tangible, measurable impact on the economy at a time when job creation should be our focus. the truth is that the coal powers -- that coal powers america. almost 70% of all energy produced in this country came from the ground, most of it coal. even electric cars. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. please take conversations out of the chamber. mr. enzi: the truth is that coal powers energy. almost 70% of energy produced in this country came from the ground and most of it was coal. even electric cars are powered by coal. but sadly, you won't see that on a bumper sticker. that's what i'd call a convenient truth. if we were to shut down our coal facilities for a single day, i think even my colleagues from the other side of the aisle would quickly be calling for these plants to be turned back

on. in wyoming, of course, coal is one of the largest employers. it provides high-paying jobs for our residents as it does to folks across the country. the revenue from energy production even provides scholarships for our students to get an education. for our state, coal isn't just an energy source. it's a livelihood. the president may want us to run from coal, but i think we should be running toward it. george washington carver developed over 100 products from peanuts. think what we could do with coal if we spent more time and resources developing our most abundant resource instead of trying to destroy it. american ingenuity would lead to our next energy revolution. but that's not happening. instead a project, the university of wyoming and the private sector were working on to produce clean energy from coal were canceled because of

the president's efforts to kill coal. there is no future in selling the products that would be developed to enhance coal. we've got to trust american ingenuity. no one likes to sit in the dark, and i imagine most folks like being able to run their air conditioning in summer. states that rely on coal for their power see an average of 30% lower electricity costs than states that use other fuels. an increase of that size would be noticed by almost everyone regardless of political affiliation. we could learn a thing or two from germany. they're going back to coal after experimenting with alternative sources. they realize coal is readily available and will help them bring energy prices down. incidentally, coal is the only energy source you can stockpile for emergencies. the plain fact is that this president is proposing a cap-and-tax proposal that already failed in congress.

my colleagues then realized that it's an extremely expensive idea, and the increased costs would be passed along to consumers, who must pay to use more expensive energy sources. but the fact that congress rejected this proposal seems to have encouraged the administration to yet again sidestep congress and implement another costly backdoor regulation. even some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say they're angry about this tax imposed on the people without approval from their representatives in congress. i've heard comments about how courageous the president is for finally going after coal. it's not like the president ever hid his disdain for energy that comes from the ground. he's been targeting it with red tape his entire presidency. these ideas are purely political and will have a heavy impact on the economy with little or no measurable impact on the environment. as the "wall street journal" pointed out in a recent

editorial, based on the e.p.a.'s own carbon accounting, the e.p.a.'s own carbon accounting, shutting down every single coal-fired power plant tomorrow and replacing them with a zero carbon source would reduce the earth's temperature by about 1/20th of a degree in 100 years. let me repeat that. the "wall street journal" pointed out in a recent editorial, based on the e.p.a.'s own carbon accounting, shutting down every single coal-fired power plant tomorrow and replacing them with zero carbon sources would reduce the earth's temperature by about 1/20 of a degree farenheit in 100 years. when government tries to pick winners and losers in any part of the market, everyone loses. just look at how great our health care system is doing. if we as a body allow the president to get his way on this

regulation, we're looking at billions in annual economic losses. hundreds of thousands of people will lose their jobs. we'll burden our businesses with billions of dollars in costs, all of which will be passed on to consumers in the form of double-digit energy price increases. if you're elderly, a low-income or a middle-class family, or you're living on a fixed income, are you willing to pay this energy tax that won't make a dent in co2 emissions? i can't imagine they would. these new regulations will only succeed in making the pocketbooks lighter and the country darker. when we have affordable, abundant energy, america stays competitive with the rest of the world. low-cost energy could help create more than one million jobs over the next decade. it can lure more investment into american manufacturing. the cost of energy is a big

factor in manufacturing. we all say we need to put more people back to work. driving up costs to consumers and businesses doesn't seem to benefit anyone. i hope my colleagues from the other side of the aisle will join me today and say enough is enough. the president is proposing to leave a permanent stain on our economy. we shouldn't be putting people out of work or driving up energy prices. i hope every american will call on their representatives to oppose this president's proposal. it's our constituents who keep us accountable. the republican leader has already introduced legislation to stop this reckless move by the e.p.a., and i'm proud to join him in that effort. our bill is simple. it requires that the president prove that this rule will not cause job losses, that it will not increase energy rates, that it will not hurt our country's economic output. we know the president's regulations will put america at an economic disadvantage, but i

worry that we won't get a vote on this commonsense bill or even done as an amendment. and that's a real shame because i think a majority of this body would support the bill and oppose the president's proposal. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: mr. president, thank you for recognizing me. a momentous occasion is occurring tomorrow, and that is the 70th anniversary of d-day. 70 years ago tomorrow as the american people slept in their beds, the greatest naval invasion in history was underway. on d-day, june 6, 1944, tens of thousands of american soldiers, sailors and airmen joined allies from around the free world to begin what general eisenhower called a great crusade, one that sought to free a continent. they came by amphibious landing craft, and i think my colleague from louisiana is going to talk

more about that in a moment. they also came by gliders, by parachutes deployed behind enemy lines. and at beaches calmed omaha and utah and at the cliffs of point au hawk. they stroke a mortal blow to the tphad stkeu regime. -- tphaz stkeu regime. thousands gave their lives that day aoeufplt seen the cemetery. rows of the stars of david, a stark reminder of the price they paid for us. these men did not go into battle alone, mr. president. as general eisenhower said to the allied expeditionary force on the eve of the battle, the hopes and prayers of liberty-loving people everywhere march with you. eisenhower wasn't exaggerating. as word of the invasion spread through the predawn hours of tuesday morning, people gathered all over this country, in churches, synagogues, meeting houses, public places large and small to seek god's blessing on the men who were even then in harms wait a minute and as the

battle -- harm's way. and as the battle raged on that day president franklin roosevelt spoke to the nation. he did not choose to address the american people with a speech. instead he delivered words of prayer by radio address as the fate of europe and indeed the entire free world hung in the balance. it was a really powerful prayer transcending all faiths, a prayer that tells the story of why america fights and makes the sacrifices we are willing to make, to see through to victory with god's help. it speaks to the beauty of war, the hor worse of war -- the horrors of war. it captures the magnitude of what happened that day as we hit the beaches of normandy. i hope that prayer will never be forgotten. that's why senator landrieu and i believe that prayer should be added as part of the world war ii monument pursuant to bipartisan legislation we've been working on for a few years, and i cosponsored it previously with senator lieberman. now senator landrieu.

it's gone through the energy committee twice with unanimous votes. it's called the world war ii memorial prayer act of 2013. this legislation also passed the house of representatives by a significant vote, 286-26. i'd like to recite that prayer now with my colleague from louisiana if she's willing to. i'd like her to begin this prayer. after nearly 70 years, it still has this power to bring us together as a people and remind us that while we may have our differences at times, there are so many things that do unite us. i would like, mr. president, to refer to my colleague from louisiana. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: mr. president, i thank my colleague for sharing this moment with me on the senate floor and allowing me to work closely with him to present this bill to the senate today. he has worked on this for several years, and i'm really pleased to join him for any number of reasons. one that i want to mention before i share with him the

reading of this prayer that the official world war ii museum happens to be located in new orleans, louisiana. it was initiated by of course the great historian steve ambrose. it has been promoted by an extraordinarily stellar group of leaders, civic and political leaders in our nation, and the former senators, senator stevens and senator inouye, who had joined arms together as brothers here in the senate, helped us to establish this official museum. it is almost complete. and on the eve of d-day, it is particularly striking that the two of us would be here to remember this prayer, to say to the country this prayer, in our view, should be on the memorial here in d.c. i'm also hoping, just as a suggestion, that it be placed somewhere significantly in this

fabulous, extraordinary, beautifully designed and beautifully executed museum that tells the story of the war. not how it was won, but why it was fought. why it was fought is the most important lesson for our country, the people of the world to know. and some of that is expressed in this prayer. more of it is expressed in the museum itself. and right now the senator from iowa -- ohio, would want to know that hundreds of -- hundreds of citizens from new orleans and louisiana are actually on their way by boat to normandy. and of course many of our elected officials, including the president, will be celebrating the 70th anniversary. and so specifically, the reason

this museum is in new orleans, did he know, is because the higgins boats were built in new orleans, which is unusual -- it is such a small city would have contributed so much. eisenhower himself said that without these landing craft, we never could have gotten to the normandy beach. that was built by an entrepreneur, small factory at the time, then grew 43,000 people employed. men, women, african-american, disabled workers, all being paid the same. a remarkable story about the boat themselves that landed in normandy. but this effort today will put a prayer, a memorial prayer that i think we should remember and be reminded of. so let me begin by reading, reciting this prayer which was prayed by president roosevelt. and these are his exact words. and he asked the american people

on that day to join him in this prayer. he said "oh mighty god, our sons, pride of our nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity. lead them straight and true. give strength to their arms, stoutness to their hearts, steadfastness in their faith. they will need thy blessing. their road will be long and hard, for the enemy is strong. he may hurl back our forces, success may not come with rushing speed, but we shall return again and again, and we know that by thy grace and by the righteousness of our cause, our sons will triumph. they will be sore toward by night and by day without rest until the victory is won. the darkness will be rent by

swords and flames and souls will be shaken by the violences of war for these men are lately drawn from the ways of peace. they fight not for lust of conquest. they fight to end conquest. they fight to liberate. they fight to let justice arise and tolerance and goodwill among all thy people. they yearn but for the end of the battle, for their return to the haven of home. some will never return. embrace these, father, and receive them. by heroic servants into thy kingdom. a senator: and for those of us at home, fathers, mothers, children, sisters, wives and brothers of brave men and women overseas, help us, almighty god, to rededicate ourselves in renewed faith in thee in this hour of great sacrifice. many people have urged that i call the nation to a single day of special prayer but because

the road is long and the desire is great, i ask that our people devote themselves in a continuous of prayer, as we rise to each new day and again when each day is spent, let words of prayer be on our lips, invoking thy help to our efforts. give us strength, too, strength in our daily tasks, to redouble the contributions we make in the physical and material support of our armed forces. mr. portman: and let our hearts be stout to wait out the long travail, to bear sorrows that may come, to impart our courage on to our sons wheresoever they may be. and, o lord, give us faith. give us faith in thee, faith in our sons, faith in each other, faith in our united crusade. let not the keenness of our spirit ever be dulled. let not the impacts of temporal events -- of temporal matters of but fleeting moment, let not she's deter us in our uncomparable purpose. with thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces

of our enemy. help us to conquer the apostles of greed and racial arrogances. lead us to the saving of our country and with our sister nations into a world unity that will spell a sure peace. a peace inas vulnerable to the schemings of unworthy men and a peace that will let all of men live in freedom, reaping the justice rewards of their honest toil. thy will be done, almighty god. amen. ms. landrieu: amen. mr. portman: that was the prayer that franklin roosevelt gave on that fateful day. of course, many of the men who fought that day have gone on to their eternal reward. some of them will mark tomorrow with quiet remembrances with families and friends. senator landrieu has noted that there will be people from louisiana going over to the d-day celebrations. sounds like some by boat. also from ohio, from all over the country. our president will be there.

some will go there to retrace their steps and to see where they were on those beaches. others will go just to see these cemeteries and remember their fallen comrades. there's a 93-year-old gentleman from ohio named jim martin. he will be there, too. he'll be jumping from an airplane at 93 years old and parachuting on to the same soil he took back from the nazis 70 years ago. on behalf of all of us, i wish jim godspeed. there's very little we can add to the legacy that they've created for themselves but we can honor it and we can remember it. and that's what this bipartisan legislation is all about. again, i crafted it originally with then-senator joe lieberman and now have joined with senator landrieu to introduce in this congress. it directs the secretary of the interior to install an area of the world war ii memorial a plaque or inscription with the prayer that we have just read. last congress the house of representatives passed this

legislation with an overwhelming vote of 386-26. and after a hearing on may 29, they are moving forward with doing so again. today, on the eve of this historic anniversary, it's time for the senate to lead the way toward enshrining this singular moment in the history of our great country. senator landrieu and i intend to call up calendar number 339 later this afternoon and we hope in doing so that we will achieve unanimous consent to be able to have the senate proceed to consideration of this legislation and then ask unanimous consent for it to be passed by this body. this is legislation that we have worked on carefully. it has gone through the process of working with the department of the interior. we have ensured that it is consistent not just with the department of interior but also specifically with the commemorative works act. it's something that, again, has been bipartisan, something that helps to bring this congress and this country together during a

critical time. i thank my colleague from louisiana for working with me on this. i think it's incredibly important opportunity for us on the eve of the 70th anniversary to pass this legislation here in the united states senate, doing something positive for the future by telling them the importance of the past. this prayer is certainly part of that. i yield to my colleague from louisiana. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: mr. president, let me just join my colleague in asking for unanimous consent for this particular and individual bill to pass by unanimous consent. it would be lovely if we could do this today because of the timing of d-day tomorrow. for information from colleagues that have other bills pending that are called lands bills, we're still working on a smaller package in addition to this. but we just felt like this was of such significant importance and so timely for today that it would really be important for us to do this. so i hope that our staffs can

clear this on both sides and we could get this done, you know, before close of business today. and thank the senator from ohio. mr. portman: i thank my colleague from louisiana. look forward to being back with her on the floor shortly to be able to ask for that unanimous consent request and pass this legislation and do so prior to this momentous 70th anniversary tomorrow. yield back my time. i note the absence of a quorum, mr. president. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

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, the quorum call is suspended. mr. sanders: mr. president, i believe every member of this senate and every american understands the very deep debt of gratitude that we owe to the men and women who put their lives on the line to defend this country. that should not be a political issue, it should not be a partisan issue, and i think all of us have been appalled by what we read about in phoenix and in other locations about people manipulating data, pretending the veterans were getting care in a timely manner when that wasn't the case. it is my strong belief as chairman of the senate veterans'

committee that every veteran in this country is entitled to high-quality medical care and that they should get that care in a timely manner. i'm going to do everything i can to make that happen. we live as everybody knows in a politically divided country and a divided congress. reaching agreements is not easy and quite frankly does not take place very often here in the senate. unfortunately, for whatever reason, without casting blame, it just doesn't happen and the american people understand that and are not happy about that. so reaching a compromise among people who look at the world very differently is not easy, but in this process, senator john mccain of arizona and i have tried our best to come forward with an agreement. it's an agreement which i am sure he is not 100% happy about and i can fully assure you i am not 100% happy about. i would have written a very,

very different bill. and what i want to say now in thanking senator harry reid for his strong support for this process, chuck schumer, patty murray, dick durbin pushing this effort forward, i hope that we will be back on the floor to continue the effort to deal with the many unmet needs of veterans. but right now, we have a crisis on our hands and it's imperative that we deal with that crisis. and to my mind, the essence of the crisis is that we have learned that in many parts of this country -- not all parts but many parts of this country, veterans cannot get the timely care that they need. they cannot walk into a v.a. and within a reasonable period of time get the treatment that they need. and so this bill in a significant way begins to address that important issue. let me very briefly tell you how it does that.

for a start, there are many locations around the country where we need new facilities, we need refurbished facilities, we need expanded facilities. in fact, there are 26 locations in 18 states where that is the case. this legislation would allow the construction of 26 major medical facility leases in 18 states around the country, and i believe that will help us in many parts of the country in providing the quality, timely care that our veterans deserve. mr. president, in my view, there are areas of the country where we simply do not have the doctors, the nurses and the other staff that we need to provide the care that our veterans deserve. many primary care physicians get burned out by working 12, 14

hours a day. they quit. the turnover rate is too high. it is my view that the v.a. by and large, and this is echoed by the views that the veterans community themselves in independent studies that when people get into the v.a., the quality of care is good. but i will tell you if you don't have the primary care physicians, the other physicians, the nurses that you need to treat veterans, they are not going to get the care that they need. this legislation will target $500 million in unobligated balances for the hiring of new v.a. doctors and nurses. i see that as a significant step forward. mr. president, one of the great, i think, embarrassments or shocks that all of us feel is that within the military we have seen in recent years horrendous accounts of sexual assault.

what this legislation does is say to those women and men who are sexually assaulted in the military that when you get into the v.a., there is going to be quality care for your needs. this legislation also touches on a couple of issues that are not directly related to health care but have overwhelming support in the house and in the senate. we have heard from many young veterans who are in college as a result of the post-9/11 g.i. bill who right now can't afford to go to college because they're not getting in-state tuition. this legislation addresses that issue. i have talked, as i know senator mccain has, to gold star wives. these are the women who have lost their husbands in combat who i think for a not sensible reason are unable to take

advantage of the post-9/11 g.i. bill. they want to get their lives together, they want to be able to go to college or whatever. this bill addresses that issue. now, there was another provision which was strongly supported by senator mccain and other republican leaders, and this -- what this -- and senator mccain, i'm sure, will go into it at greater length. but essentially what this provision does is says that if you are 40 miles or further away from a v.a. health care facility, a medical center, cboc, whatever it may be, you will be able to go to the doctor of your choice under the strict supervision of the v.a. what this will do is prevent people from in some cases in very rural areas -- i think this is mostly a bill for people in very rural areas who now have to travel long distances to get their health care. this will make their lives easier. this is a two-year trial project. we will see how it turns out, but that is in the bill as well.

the last point that i want to make is i don't think there is any disagreement in the senate or among the american people that when you have incompetent people in the v.a. or worse, dishonest people in the v.a., they should be removed from their jobs immediately and that the secretary of the v.a. should have the power to get rid of them. i don't think there is any debate about that. where there has been some debate is my view is that those employees deserve due process, and i say that because i don't want to see a situation where a new president comes in and for political reasons fires 400 top executives because they're democrats or because they're republicans or whatever. i don't want to see a situation where somebody is fired because she is a woman or black or hispanic or maybe gay and maybe really that's the underlying motive and that person has no costs of appeal. so what we have done is

developed a very expedited process in terms of dismissal. we say if you are dismissed, you're off the payroll tomorrow, you're gone, but you're going to have a week to file an appeal and the appropriate body will have three weeks to rule on your appeal, and i think that makes sense. i think when you think about it, it does make sense. so, madam president, there are a few other important provisions. it is important, in my view, for the nation to take advantage of the expertise that's out there in the private sector. how do we develop information technology for people accessing the v.a. we want to do that. we have a commission that would help us do that and we have another presidential commission that will help us with construction which has been an ongoing problem in the v.a. so, madam president, that is -- mr. president, that is a brief overview of what is in the legislation.

does it solve all of the problems facing our veterans? absolutely not. should we come back and continue to deal with this issue? absolutely. but i think given the crises that we have right now, this is an important step forward. i want to thank senator mccain. senator mccain's views on many issues are not my views. we look at the world differently, but that is what democracy is about, and our job is to sit down and work out the best agreement. we did, and i think from day one senator mccain showed absolute good faith in this, a desire to reach a compromise. i hope he feels that i did the same and we are where we are today. so, mr. president, with that, i would yield the floor to senator mccain and thank him very much for his efforts. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: i thank you. i'd like to say to the senator from vermont that i respect a great deal the work that he has done on this legislation. i respect his commitment and his

leadership of the veterans' affairs committee. i respect the fact that bernie sanders is known as a fighter. and it's been a pleasure to do combat with him. but i also would like to say that at the end of the day, with strongly held views on different aspects of this issue, we were able to come together i believe in a way that will help to relieve this terrible tragedy that seems to have befallen our nation's veterans. it started in phoenix, arizona, as my colleagues know, but it has spread all over the country. it begins with the terrible story of perhaps 40 veterans having literally died for lack of care. i don't need to go through all of the different problems that have surfaced in the ensuing

days since that began, but there should be no doubt in anyone's mind that we should accept the word of the inspector general who said these are systemic problems. this isn't a scheduling problem. these are systemic problems that need to be addressed. and you know our hope as we concluded this legislation is that perhaps we could put some of our other differences aside that have beset this body and move forward and address this legislation as quickly as possible and begin to repair the damage because we have for all intents and purposes in some ways betrayed the brave men and women who were willing to go out and sacrifice for the well-being and freedom of the rest of us. so again, i want to say to nor sanders, i appreciate his

leadership, i appreciate the fact that we both had to make some very tough compromises, but i have found in my experience that when tough compromises are made, usually that's a sign of bipartisanship and a sign that it's a good piece of legislation. i know that isn't the popular thing to say nowadays in today's political environment, but i don't believe if compromises hadn't been made that we would bring -- be bringing to the floor of the senate and working with the house, as chairman jeff miller over there, that we would be doing what we are introducing today. i would also like to say a word about two other individuals, and that's senator burr, the ranking member of the veterans' affairs committee, who i admire enormously. he has worked tirelessly on behalf of the veterans.

he is a most respected member of our conference. and of course our most unique treasure, dr. tom coburn, who had been my nominee to take over the veterans administration which almost destroyed a long and beautiful friendship. but dr. coburn is the conscience of our conference. he is -- he is the person that we look up to and admire the most for his integrity, for his honesty, his intelligence. and i want to thank both senator burr and dr. coburn for their enormous work. in some ways, i am sort of the spokesperson when they really did a great majority of the work. as senator sanders pointed out, i'd like to just cover several aspects of this legislation and try to explain a little bit why some of these provisions are

there. of course, a top priority for me for many years has been to give the veteran a choice. we ought to give a veteran a choice, the same choice that people who hold our medicare recipients, who have other -- have tricare -- that's the military health care program, where if they're outside of 40 miles from the nearest v.a. facility, if there is a wait time which is unacceptable, then they should be able to go to the health care provider right near their home. not have to get in a van and drive for two or three hours for routine medical care. i hope my colleagues understand that this is no way, a comment on the veterans administration. i'll leave that to others and other judgments. because there are things done in the veterans health care system that only the veterans health

care system can handle. ptsd, traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury, prostheses, war wounds -- that only the v.a. can do. and none of this that we are saying in any way denigrates or does anything that is uncomplimentary to the outstanding men and women who work in this system. we are proud of their work. it is the system that needs to be fixed. so i don't want anybody who is associated with the veterans administration to believe that we are criticizing them. we are talking about a system that must be fixed. it's urgent that it be fixed. every single day that goes birks a veteran is -- that goes by, a veteran is deprived of the service that he or she has earned sesqui this country. that's -- serving this country. that's why i urge my clerks if you have amendments, if you think that you can make this bill better, we welcome in. we'd be glad to discuss with you amendments to this legislation.

we'd be glad if you know thousand make -- know how to make it better. in the meantime, can we sort of pledge that we are committed to the seeing this thing all the way through? i would urge my colleagues to do that. and, again, i know i speak for senator sanders when i say, you got a way to make this bill better, this legislation better, come on in. but let's not get hung up on certain other aspects of our differences that have characterized what most people would view as gridlock in this body. so i urge my colleagues to look at this compromise -- and it is a compromise -- and see if you want to -- think you can make it better, we welcome your input. but also we would like to have your commitment to seeing this thing through to the president's desk. and i know that over on the other side of the capitol

they're working hard on this issue, too. so we bring up, as i mentioned, veterans should have that card. that veteran should be able to go to the facility ha of his orr choice. accountability -- senator rubio and others, congressman miller and others, have introduced legislation, senator sanders has made imaybe, i think, improved . this calls for immediate firing -- an immediate firing if there's evidence of work that is not in keeping with the standards that we expect of our employees, and during that period, under appeal, that person will not receive a salary. but that person will have some due process. seven days to appeal to the merit systems protection board. and there are 21 days for that merit systems protections board to render a final decision. yes, we should have, as many of

our colleagues want, accountability. but that accountability also in this proposal allows for due process for someone to at least hear their case heard. expedited hearing authority for v.a. doctors and nurses and additional authority to hire new providers. now, there is unobligated funds out there, and we are going to use unobligated funds to hire more doctors and nurses where they are needed. i'd also point out, in some cases doctors and nurses have to work harder where they are. also, there are now pending over the years administration requests for 26 major facility leases to be entered into. now, this has been the president's request. this has been a bipartisan agreement on the need for these facilities. and i believe that we should

proceed with it. and i would also point out to my colleagues, this legislation has some expenses, but the major expense is to move forward with the construction of these major medical facilities all over america. and in the view of all, it is necessary. this improves the access to health care for victims of military sexual assault. sexual assault is probably one of the most vexing issues that we face in the military today outside of combat. we don't know exactly what causes some of this. we do know that many times it is because of a lack of discipline. but there's no doubt that this is a problem in the military that needs to be addressed. otherwise mothers and fathers will be not agreeable -- in

fact, reluctant -- to have their sons and daughters serve in the military, unless we address this issue of sexual assaults, and there are many efforts going on in the defense authorization bill that in the military, many other areas where we're working on this issue. but i think this provision of the bill will be very helpful in attempting to address that issue. a commission needs to be appointed on school scheduling and care. -- on scheduling and care. we know the problem on scheduling and this whole issue of phantom lists and waiting lists that appear. i think the smartest people in america could help us on that. and another commission on capital planning. what are the needs of our veterans? one of the things we do know is that we have an aging veteran population from world war ii,

those that are, god bless them, still with us, korea, and vietnam. that is an aging veterans population and requires a different kind of care than those of iraq and afghanistan. and to be frank, a lot of that is geriatric care. to be frank, geriatric care is very expensive. but we've got to understand who this population is and what their needs are, just as we have to understand the iraq and afghanistan war veterans and what their needs are. and, very frankly, our planning so far has not been very impressive to me. we need to have a -- this is a pure senator sanders initiative, a g.i. bill for eligibility of survival spouses of those who die in the line of duty. it seems to me that's only fair.

and a provision that in-state tuition will be provided for all veterans at public colleges and universities. now, again, finally i want to say thank you to senator sanders. and i also want to ask my colleagues again -- this is not a perfect document. we are ready, i think, to see any changes that we would consider and perhaps germane amendments, but i would also hope that we could focus or attention on the bill and the efforts we need to help our veterans as opposed to other issues which are -- seem to be with us on a daily basis. madam president, i yield the floor. mr. sanders: madam president, i would just -- the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: i just want to thank senator mccain again, and i think that this his remarks were right on in terms of describing what is in this legislation. and i support his appeal.

look, everybody has an issue, and every time a bill comes up, i have my pet concerns and i could bring forth amendments. senator mccain has his. but what we are appealing to right now is, if you have a way to improve this bill for our veterans, bring forth that amendment. but, please, please do not bring forward extraneous amendments. let's focus on the needs of veterans. let's not make them political footballs. and i hope very much we can proceed in that direction. thank you, madam president. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. a senator: i rise to offer a few words about the colloquy that was completed. i often find when i am on the floor or presiding that i feel sorry for the specks i spectatoe chamber. they're sometimes watching a lot of silence when they're here.

first senators portman and landrieu put a bill on the floor dealing with a commemoration in connection with the 70t 70th anniversary of d-day, which is tomorrow. it is a bill they are seeking unanimous consent for. second, i know many of us -- all of us in the chamber have been very discouraged about the recent revelation of challenges in the v.a. many of us feared earlier this week that what we would get in this discussion were competing proposals or bills that the would be partisan, where we would -- each side would fall short of doing what 4 they wantd and the veterans would not see the kind of relief that they should. the what we've seen with senator sanders and senator mccain putting this bill on the floor just now is exactly thousand should work for the veterans -- expeacveteransexactly how this r the veterans. i am proud of my colleagues for

taking two different approaches and working it out so that a bipartisan bill can be ompletdz i think we owe it to the veterans and especially in light of these recent challenges to show a unified face in trying to fix these problems. i look forward to working with my colleagues to do so. thank you. mr. schumer: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: i, too, want to join my colleague from virginia in adding accolades from our senators from vermont and arizona in putting together in proposal. i'd like to make a few points here. first, the veterans should come first. these are people who we sent overseas to risk their lives for us. when they come back injured, nothing should stand in the waif us giving them the best medical care possible. and senators mccain and sanders, of different political philosophies, if they each had to write their own bill, would write different bills, came together, not for their ideology's sake, not for political advantage, but for the good of these veterans.

that is the highest duty that we have here. and the second point i'd make is this: in a body that has been wracked by partisanship, i had u. i was hoping that that would not stand in the waif us helping our veterans. because of the good work of vermont and razvermont's and ars senators, that is hasmg we are not home yet. we hope that no one will be so selfish that they feel their own amendment or amendments have to be voted on if they're extraneous because that could blow up the deal. we all know how fragile, even for our veterans that bipartisan agreements are in this body. but this is a higher calling. and i talked at length over the last cephal days with senator sanders and i know how heartfelt this is for him.

as he said, if he wrote his own bill, he would have done a lot more. but each of us writing a bill and giving a speech about it is not going to help a single veteran. the way this body works is we have to come together. there's no one on the other side of the aisle, perhaps no one in this chamber, who better respects what veterans have gone through than senator mccain, of what he went through himselfa prison of war. he was just the right person for our chairman bernie sanders to reach out to. because they both cared so much about veterans, they came together. it is now up to the 98 rest of us, the other 98 to do the same, to come together, to pass this bill quickly. this doesn't mean this will be the last thing we do for veterans. this is an issue that we'll have to revisit given the sickness that we have in the -- in parts of the veterans administration. given the long waiting lists,

given the fact that while most veterans get very good care in our v.a., not every veteran does and our goal is to have every veteran get good care in our v.a. so hopefully this bill will pass, and hopefully maybe this will set a precedent that we can work together on important issues. we can each submerge some of our heartfelt feelings that it has to be our way and reach compromise with the other side. that's what senator sanders has done. that's what senator mccain has done o i salute them for their patriotism, their good sense, and frankly their courage. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

ms. murkowski: madam president?

the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowskims. murkowski: reqt proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. i ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to kathy cahill for the remainder of the 113th congress. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: thank you, madam president. madam president, i've come this afternoon to speak about the regulation that was proposed by the administration on monday relating to the environmental protection agency. this time the agency's target is a 30% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants by the year 2030. now, the regulation that has been announced, which has been the subject of regular conversation this week, should not be confused with e.p.a. rules for cooling water intake or for proposed power plants or for cross-state air pollution or for boilers or for ozone or for

incinerators or for regional haze or for fuel economy or for the waters of the united states or for renewable fuels or for cement kilns or for coal ash or for affluent limitations -- for any other number of regulatory actions that the agency has either taken or is expected to take. this rule, and it just seems that there have been so many of them, you almost feel like this should be e.p.a.'s rule of the week or rule of the month, this is a unilateral effort to bypass congress and to force into place policies that we in congress have not approved. the goal is to push our electric supply away from coal and i think ultimately away from natural gas as soon as possible. now, as the ranking member on the energy committee, i can attest that energy is always the flip side of the environmental

debate. it just -- you've got the discussion about the energy and you've always got discussion about the environment. i believe that we should advance policies that make our energy abundant, affordable, clean, diverse, and secure. and to that end, our environmental goals must be balanced with our energy needs., i have for years expressed concern that e.p.a.'s relentless onslaught will harm the affordability and the reliability, the affordability and the reliability of our electric supply. in fact, i even released a white paper on this matter earlier this year. we still do not have an accurate accounting of the cumulative costs associated with all of these e.p.a. rules that i just kind of did the lawnd lilies -- laundry list to, but we do know not to trust their math because

e.p.a. has dramatically underestimated power plant retirements in the very recent past. give you some examples here. for the americacy and air toxics rules, e.p.a. estimated only 4.7 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity retirements by the year 2015. but then we see the contrast, labor unions forecast that maths alone will result in 55 gigawatts of coal-fired retirements and the loss of some 250,000 jobs. government experts have determined that approximately 10% to 20% of existing coal capacity could be retired by the middle of the next decade. this is a calculation that really dwarfs e.p.a.'s number and one that doesn't -- doesn't include the potential impacts of the latest proposal. now, madam president, i know that the e.p.a. has an important job to do, and i appreciate that, but i also recognize that

it does not and cannot regulate in a vacuum. base load coal and the ancillary services that it provides account for almost 40% of our power. in many instances, e.p.a.'s regulations will render generating units uneconomic with compliance requiring retrofitting, the use of best available technology and down time for installation. so i'm concerned, i'm greatly concerned that e.p.a.'s rules, particularly when you combine them with one another, will result in a grid that is less stable, less reliable. the cumulative effect of federal regulations on base load capacity, resources whether they are coal or nuclear which produce electricity on demand, we have to look at this cumulative effect. we have to examine and appreciate it, not discount or ignore it. now, i know that many this past

winter got a taste of what life in alaska is like in the wintertime when we experience the polar vortex here in the lower 48. the polar vortex caused 50,000 megawatts of power plant outages. for one key system, 89% of the coal capacity that is scheduled for retirement next year because of an e.p.a. rule was called upon to meet the rising demand. so again, just think about that. we had a tough winter. we had -- we had coal-producing facilities that were able to step up and provide for that increased demand. 89% of that coal capacity was utilized during this polar

vortex. so that's fine. but what's when those facilities are now offline, when they are in retirement, when you do not have that backup? the question that we really need to be asking is what happens when that capacity is gone? because hoping for a mild winter isn't a viable strategy. you can't have kind of a hope and a prayer energy policy, hoping that the weather is not going to be so bad. our nation relies on installed, dispatchable power generation during extreme weather, which is why we need to ensure grid reliability through a diversified -- diversity of base load capacity. today it's unclear how many plants will retrofit to comply with various e.p.a. regulations, including this most recent one as opposed to just making the decision to just shut it down. it's uncertain that there will be enough time, to say nothing of sufficient capital available

for investment to build these new facilities or other forms of generation needed to ensure the continued reliability of the grid. madam president, i have been talking about grid reliability for a long while now, and i think it speaks to our system that while we may have been pushed to the edge of getting nervous, we have been able to meet that -- that reliability requirement that americans have just come to expect. they want to know that when they want to have the lights on or keep cool or keep warm that there is that availability. reliability is key here. i'm even more troubled that e.p.a., which has conceded that a single rule may have what they're calling localized effects, that they have not sought from our grid regulators, ferc and nerc, animals of the

cumulative impact its rules may have. understanding, again, the impacts by checking in with our grid regulators, checking in with ferc and nerc. this is an important part of what needs to go on, and yet we're not seeing that follow-through. instead, e.p.a. appears to be morphing into this industrial planning agency for the energy sector. that's not what they are designed to do. this latest rule making makes it even more important for ferc and the department of energy to step up, to really go toe to toe here with e.p.a. to protect the reliability and the affordability of our power supply. the current chairwoman of ferc, while she has not called for a former official role for the commission, as many of us would like, is certainly up to the task, in my view, but we have got a situation at play right now within the federal energy

regulatory commission. it appears that the white house doesn't want to keep the acting chair in charge. its nominee to serve as chairman, in my view, is both short on energy experience and largely unaware of the electric reliability implications of e.p.a.'s rules. in response to a hearing question about grid reliability from senator manchin, the nominee conceded that he -- quote -- has not been following the decisional process at e.p.a. closely enough to know. well, i find that that response is not only disturbing, i think it raises the question of whether or not anyone within the administration is actually following the e.p.a. process closely enough to know what will happen to our electric grid. i can tell you that i don't think that e.p.a. knows the impacts from my state of alaska. the agency readily admits that

its proposal fails to account for the expected costs and benefits for areas outside the contiguous united states. madam president, we're 1/5 the size of the country, we are part of the country, but the e.p.a. in advancing these proposed regs admits that we don't know, we don't know the cost-benefit for alaska. we don't know the cost-benefit for hawaii. but that does not mean, that does not mean that my state is exempt from this rule, as some reports have led splans to believe. instead, without the benefit of any signals, e.p.a. has directed alaska to reduce our emissions by 26%, and this, while e.p.a. ignores, totally ignores the likely inflationary costs and increases inherent in requiring the revamping of so much power production likely within a

single decade here. now, the e.p.a. has recommended that states work together, work together to figure this out, how we're going to make these cuts, but again, when you're not part of the contiguous united states, it's a little more difficult for us in alaska and our neighbors to the south in hawaii. if you're not part of an interstate electric grid. alaska is really in many, many ways on its own. because of our constant need for federal approvals or at best federal cooperation that is too often slow to come, we're not even able to develop our clean hydropower, and some may ask well, i understand that you have got about 25% of your -- of your power in the state of alaska that comes from hydro. that is correct, but because of other federal policies, whether it's the roadless rule or other policies, we are -- we're truly hamstrung in our ability to build out more hydro. based on more than 50 years of delayed or broken federal

promises, there is no guarantee that we'll be able to develop fully our abundant natural gas or even our vast renewable resource potential. we have just got -- we've got challenges, and we acknowledge them, we're working on those challenges. we're working diligently because there is nobody that wants to get reliable, affordable, clean, diverse energy supplies to our state more honestly and earnestly than myself. but it is challenging, and so as we -- as we work towards that transition, we need that flexibility, we need that time. now, e.p.a. has suggested a series of strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. but of the five power plants in alaska that are directly impacted by this proposed rule, four are natural gas-fired plants and they are located near each other in anchorage.

so in the whole state of alaska, there are only five plants, madam president, that are impacted by this regulation. everything else is small enough or doesn't sell their power, so of the four -- excuse me, of the five, four of them are already natural gas. the fifth already has the clean coal technology. the proposed strategies of switching to natural gas, dispatch changes or retiring plants are really just unworkable, given the configuration that we have in my state. and given that we live in this polar vortex every winter -- every winter is polar vortex in alaska, many of our houses are already well insulated to protect from the cold, so efficiency programs will provide comparatively small gains. now, having said that, i know that we can and must do more when it comes to efficiencies, and i will continue to push on

that because that's one area that i think that we can make a difference. but trying to get to this 26% reduction is a challenge. and i'm still canvassing my state, but it will be difficult for alaska to reach our 26% emissions reduction without serious economic impacts. electricity is already more expensive in alaska than in most of the rest of the nation. we have to reduce these prices, not engage in policies that will raise those prices even higher. madam president, here in -- in the lower 48, on average, an american family spends about four -- a little over 4% of their household budget goes towards their energy, keeping the lights on and keeping that house warm or cool, depending on your season. in alaska, in many parts of my

state, i -- we have households that pay between 40% and 50% of their household budget to stay warm, to keep the lights on. so i'm looking at this very, very critically. while i want to ensure that our air is clean, that we are working to reduce health risks, we don't have any room in alaska to increase our energy costs. we have got to be working aggressively with one another to reduce those costs. i look at the proposal that has come out from e.p.a. this week, and i am very concerned about how a state like mine will achieve the level that the e.p.a. has imposed on it without extraordinary increases to

costs. now, some have labeled this recent e.p.a. proposed regulation, they have labeled it obamacare 2.0, and in many ways it is. the administration insists that there will be no cost increases associated with this rule, that all -- all we're missing here is an awful web site and a pledge that, well, if you like your current electricity bill, you can keep it. the president promises that electricity bills will shrink, but, madam president, i'm not buying that. "the wall street journal" has rightly labeled this a huge tax on the poor and the middle class, and no one understands what will happen if states perhaps refuse to move forward with their own plants. again, you have to ask the question does anybody really think that the e.p.a. has the ability to impose its federal will while simultaneously keeping the lights on and keeping power affordable to all 50 states.

madam president, despite negative economic growth last quarter and despite far better approaches pending in congress to promote energy efficiency and energy innovation, and i note that my colleague from ohio who has been working doggedly to try to advance an energy efficiency bill, a measure that i think is smart and sound and built on good policy working to not only help states like mine but all across the country, we do have some good proposals out there. we have initiatives that we can move forward, but instead the president has decided to push ahead and to propose sweeping new regulation on our still-weak economy. we must keep cost and reliability in mind as regulatory mandates push more and more baseload coal plants off-line. ferc must be the unambiguous chafn onof reliability with a formal and