program, a clawback provision was included that basically collects the loan funds back from the institutions that loan it out, but it is actually a revolving fund which i will return to later that makes it such, i think, a fiscally responsible loan program. when i travel around my home state of wisconsin, one of the things i hear the most about these days from my constituents is the frustration that congress isn't doing enough to make higher education more affordable and more accessible. and yet today the fact that we just saw a single senator stand up and reject a bipartisan and commonsense measure to do just

that is, frankly, a perfect example about why my constituents and the american people are so upset with washington. since 1958, the federal perkins loan program has been successful in helping americans access affordable higher education with low-interest loans for students who cannot borrow or afford more expensive private student loans. in wisconsin, the program provides more than 20,000 low-income students with more than $41 million in aid. but, mr. president, the impacts of this program aren't just isolated to the badger state. in fact, the federal perkins loan program aids over half a a million students with

financial need each year and it does that across 1,500 institutions of higher education. schools originate service and collect the fixed-interest rate loans. and what's more, institutions maintain loans available for future students because it is managed within a revolving fund. since the program's creation, institutions have invested millions of their own dollars, their own funds into the program. and in addition to making higher education accessible for low-income students, the program serves as an incentive for people who wish to go into public service. by offering targeted loan cancellations for specific profession in areas of national need, such as teaching and nursing and law enforcement. mr. president, as a member of the senate health, education,

labor, and pensions committee and as a united states senator representing a state with such a rich history of higher education , it is one of my top priorities to fight to ensure that the federal perkins loan program continues for generations to come. but unfortunately, as you just saw, a single senator stood up today and said "no" to students across america who ask for nothing more than an opportunity to pursue their dreams. students like benjamin wooten, a 2004 u.w.-madison graduate and small business own from genoa city. his family fell on really hard times when he was attending school. ben told me -- and i quote -- "the fact that i didn't have to pay interest while i was in school was a huge help to me.

i was attending school full time, working and trying to live on a meager budget. and i'm grateful -- i am a grateful and successful small business owner. i made my loan off in full about a year ago with pride and excitement. i know that when i repaid my loan, it was returned to a revolving fund and will be lent back out to other students in need." today this body has stood up and said "no" to students like brittany mcadams, a medical school student with a passion for pediatrics and a passion for helping the most vulnerable among us. something that doesn't always yield a significant paycheck. i want to -- brittany said to me me -- and i quote -- "i want to be able to treat patients from

all socioeconomic levels despite their ability to pay. in other words, i want to do important work for less money than most other physicians. the perkins loan is so valuable because it does not collect interest while we are in school. to me, that says that the government believes that what i am doing with my life is important, that our country needs more doctors willing to tackle primary care. that while we need to pay our -- for our graduate degrees, that they are going to do their part to make it just a bit easier. the perkins loan makes me feel valued and respected and even more passionate about my work." and finally, i am disappointed that because of this body's inaction here today, we're letting down students like

naelli spark. naelli was raised by a single immigrant mother who worked two full-time jobs. she attended ten different schools in three different states before she finished high school. without the federal perkins loan program, naelli said her opportunity to get a college education would have been -- quote -- "an illusory dream." today naelli is the first in her family to finish college and is now in her last year of medical school and is planning to work with those in underserved urban communities. she finished by telling me -- and i quote -- "the perkins loan program helped me to reach this point and its existence is essential to provide that opportunity for other young adults wanting to believe in themselves and to empower their communities to be better.

please save it." mr. president, you don't have to look very far to find the very significant impact that this investment has on american students. there are thousands of stories like the few that i just shared representing thousands of students who are still benefiting from the opportunities provided to them by this hugely successful program. i'm disappointed that the bipartisan effort that i have led has been obstructed. mr. president, i will continue to fight to extend this support for america's students and i hope that the senator from -- the senior senator from tennessee will change his mind and that we can find a way to

show the half million students who depend on federal perkins loans that we stand with them and are committed to helping them build a stronger future for themselves and our country. thank you, mr. president. and i yield back. the presiding officer: the senator from wisconsin. mr. johnson: mr. president, i come to the floor today first to thank the senator from tennessee for taking my call last night as we discussed his objection to extending this, which, you know, from my standpoint, for many of the reasons that my colleague from wisconsin stated, i think it's a reasonable proposal to extend the perkins loans for a one-year time period. but i certainly understand some of the concerns that our colleague from tennessee has where this particular -- has with this particular loan program and, quite honestly, all the loan programs. often in terms of, you know, the affordability of college loans.

you know, we really do, as the senator from tennessee stated, we share the same goal here. everybody in this body really does want every american to have the opportunity to get a good education, to get the tools so they can lead a productive life and build a good life for themselves and their families. that's a goal we all share and we understand the importance of education and the affordability of it. making it accessible to every american. but that's -- the point i want to start making here is we held a pretty interesting hearing in our senate committee on homeland security and government affairs as we really took a look at these student loan programs and the potential effect on the affordability of college. in testimony today, we certainly found out that the student loan program hacks exploded -- program has exploded over the last 20 years from a level of about a hundred billion dollars in 1994 to now $1.3 trillion. on average, students graduating with a four-year degree are

about $29,000 in debt. that's a concern. and one of the -- one of the reasons that we are concerned about affordability is that the cost of college -- again, in testimony -- has increased somewhere between 2.5 and 2.8 times the rate of inflation over the last two decades. and i think it's a legitimate question to ask why? what is so different about what colleges and universities spend their money on that their costs would increase at 2.5 to 2.8 times the rate of inflation? well, we had some explanation on that provided to our committee today and it does involve federal government involvement, for example, in the accreditation process. we had one witness state that the supply of college since the mid-1970's has increased about 14% and yet because we want to have more access for college, the demand for college education

has increased 111%. and part of the problem in terms. the increasing costs of college is the fact that we are creating barriers to entry through the accreditation process. so i think we have to take a very serious look at that. and another -- another thing that was quite troubling during our hearing is that there have been a number of studies, one included from the federal reserve back in new york, one from northeastern university, that shows that recent college graduates are 40% to 50% of recent college graduates are either unemployed or underemployed, which means they're -- they're getting these college degrees and they're not being able to put them to good use. that's something we should really be taking a look at. so again, let me state, i think it was a reasonable proposal to extend the perkins loans for the points -- many of the reasons that my colleague from wisconsin stated. a lot of people are counting on these. but i fully respect from the senator from tennessee is trying to do to consolidate these

programs, to -- to make them more streamlined, to address the affordability issue, which really is something that we are really ignoring far too often in this body as -- as we take the federal government and we involve it more and more in higher education. we really have to take a serious look at what the federal government's involvement has actually had in terms. unintended consequence of making college less accessible because we've made it so much more unaffordable. so again, i just want to thank the senator from tennessee for taking my phone call and listening to my viewpoint and i certaintily appreciate his dedication -- certainly appreciate his dedication to trying to achieve the same goal that we all share, providing the accessibility for every american to have a good-quality education so they can build a good life for themselves and their families. and with that, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. ms. ayotte: thank you, mr. president. i have great respect for the senior senator from tennessee

but i disagree with him on his objection to extending the perkins loans program for a year. and this is why i disagree. i very much appreciate with the work that he has laid out and the goals he's laid out inry authorizing the higher he had -- in reauthorizing the higher education act. certainly i think we all want to make sure it's easier for students and easier for students to repay their loans. and i share the goal of also making college more affordable and more accessible for everyone. but as i look at this time frame of where we are with the work that will be done by the -- the help committee that the senator from tennessee chairs, by the end of the year, this is unfortunately what happens too often in washington. because the perkins program which in new hampshire 5,000 -- 5,000 of our students in new

hampshire receive a loan from this program. so it's important. 5,000 granite staters. and if we wait until the end of the year and let it lapse and then if the committee does its work, but there's so many other pressing things that need to be addressed in the senate. this is pressing too. and we don't -- we don't get to it, we're in the position where the perkins loans lapse. appreciate the work done by the help committee which is bipartisan to address this important, important issue of making it easier for students. but i don't think we should let this program lapse in the interim. and i think there's a very reasonable position here to say, let's extend this program and not leave people hanging out there, i mean, apparently the house of representatives agreed unanimously in extending it a year to give that breathing room and sending over here just

earlier this week the higher education extension act of 2015. and to do that so that the students who are including the perkins loan as part of their student aid package. and as i understand it, this could -- for those who are -- this loan makes sense for them, low-income students, vulnerable students, the ones that we want to fight for here, to make sure that they have access to the american dream. that's about $2,000 for students who are some of the most financially in need. so i understand that there are other loans available, but when you look at a student aid package, it's usually a combination of loans, especially if you're strun who comes from a background where you aren't able to pay for college yourself. so i think that the reasonable position here would be let's

extend this, let's provide that certainty while the help committee is doing the work that i think we all agree on needs to be done to address higher costs, to make it easier for students to give more transparency in this system for students and for parents, and to make it easier for students to repay these loans. i'm here fighting for the 5,000 students in new hampshire and for others like them. i don't want them to be a victim of washington uncertainty to those who come after them where the perkins loan makes sense to them until we get to this broader discussion, which is an important discussion. let's not let this lapse on behalf of those students. i think there was a reasonable position that allows the important work of the help committee to go forward but extends this important loan program. so with all respect that i have for the senior senator from tennessee, this is something i

agree with my colleague from wisconsin and others who have said let's not leave them hanging on this issue. so thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. alexander: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: mr. president, the senator from new hampshire is always as eloquent when she is fighting for students in new hampshire. i want to assure her if any of those 5,000 students already have a perkins loan, they're not affected by this. in fact, almost no students across the country who have a student loan or are about to have one are affected by this. this affects about -- there are $8 billion worth of outstanding student loans -- of outstanding perkins loans, out of $1.3 trillion in student loans. so we're talking about less than 1% of all the student loans. we're talking about student loans that might affect students who go a year from now to college. no one who currently has a perkins loan is affected by this. and what is our goal here? our goal is to help students

afford college. how do you help students afford college by, number one, continuing a program that has a higher interest rate than the loan they could get in a regular student loan? the perkins loan rate is higher than every single student who applies for a loan is entitled to. number two, how do you help students by continuing the perkins loan which does not have the income-based repayment program that every single student who applies for a student loan is entitled to if they will go apply for one? now, what is that income-based repayment plan? it says that you can pay your loan back over up to 20 years, not pay more than 10% to 20% of your disposable income each year. so if you're a teacher or firefighter or have a lower income position, you're not

treated the same as a broker or somebody else. you pay back less because you earn less, and when you get to the end of the 20 years and you haven't paid it back, your loan is forgiven. that's the law today. that's a loan that's available to every single student going to college. so a low-income student can take advantage of that. what we're seeking to do in our discussions -- and they are indeed bipartisan -- the proposal is to -- the proposals to change this are bipartisan, is to say instead of a combination of student loans, which is you have a whole stack of confusing student loans and you pay one to this part of the federal government, another to this part, another to this part. you'll have one student loan. at the lowest possible rate, you'll pay it to one person, and you'll have the advantage of the 20-year repayment, and if you haven't paid it off, it's forgiven. and we will simplify your application for that loan from a

108-question form which i can't hold up due to senate rules to two questions and we'll simplify the process for repaying it back. that's what we're suggesting to replace the perkins loan with. we haven't made a decision about that. we have had eight hearings. i'm working with senator murray, the senior democrat on the education committee and other members of the committee to make sure that we come to a conclusion, and i'm not sure what conclusion we'll come to, but the argument i'm making is the same argument that so many witnesses before our committee said simplify the student aid process. you're discouraging low-income kids whose parents may never have been to college because they're invited to say okay, you can go to college and we'll help you, but fill out this 108-question form. fill it out in your senior year about your taxes before you file your tax return. sorry you can't go to use your pell grant year-round.

here is your complex repayment form. it's generous but it's so complex you'll never use it. so most of these students, lower income, most of them the first in their families to go to college because of the complexity of our student aid system. so we have bipartisan proposals to simplify it, and this is part of that. this says instead of getting three federal loans, you'll get one, and you'll get more, but you'll get one at the lowest rate with the most generous income repayment. now, why wouldn't that be a better deal for the students we're trying to help? why would we extend something with a higher rate and no generous repayment program? that's the argument here. so i see no need to rush through the house and rush through the senate, a subject that we're considering in our committee and considering it well and in a bipartisan way, and we plan to mark up and have ready for the full senate our proposal by the end of the year. i see no need to rush this through so fast.

every student with a perkins loan today still has one tomorrow, and those who might apply for one next year have time -- will have time to do that if for some reason the program's reinstated. and while their -- they are at it, they can apply for a federal loan that now exists with a lower interest rate and better repayment plan. so that's the reason. my reason for standing here is because we're trying to help students afford college by simplifying the process of application, they are timely in the process of paying their loan back, and you don't do that with a higher rate and a confusing bunch of loans. you can't come back and say this is an additional loan. that would be true. we haven't decided yet exactly what the total amount that the federal government would allow a full-time student to borrow is and our new reauthorization, but this could be a third loan on

top of other loans. how many senators have stood up on this floor and complained about the overborrowing of students, about how we have a trillion dollars-plus of loans outstanding, about how students can't pay back their loans. so what we're trying to do is say to students we don't want to encourage you to overborrow. we don't want you borrowing more than you can afford. what we want to offer you is a plain, clear, simple opportunity to borrow an amount of money at a lower interest rate with a generous repayment plan, and we want to give the university you're borrowing from more latitude in explaining to you whether you can pay that back or not. now they're handcuffed. and who does the handcuffs? we do the handcuffs. we have federal laws that make it hard for iewrvetion to counsel students about -- university universities to counsel students about how much to borrow. we're offering all students a

low interest rate loan. now, the last point i'd make is it is a revolving fund. it is true that the federal government probably has contributed about two-thirds of the revolving fund and that universities themselves contribute the rest. it is true also -- and i've heard from university presidents. they find this loan useful as they put together their financial aid package. i've heard all of that. but for the last number of years, the federal government hasn't been contributing to the perkins fund. for the last number of years, the congress has said it's time to sunset the perkins loan. both president bush and president obama at one time or another have recommended that we sunset the perkins loan, and many of the witnesses before our committee said the same thing. they said you're overwhelming these students and their families. give them something simple.

give them something direct. give them one grant, give them one loan. so that's our proposal. one grant, one loan, and the loan will be at the lowest possible rate, lower than the perkins loan. the most generous repayment terms that are responsible. the perkins loan doesn't have those repayment plans. and make it available to every single student, every single student, at an amount that we would agree upon, and then allow the universities and colleges and technical schools to be able to counsel these students, don't borrow too much, because a loan is not a grant, a grant you can keep. a loan you're going to have to pay back. there has even been some talk, and i support the concept, of saying to the universities and schools, they're going to have to have some skin in the game. if you're one of those schools or universities with too great a default on your student loans, then you're going to get to pay some of that because we want you

to take some responsibility for it. i actually am not one of those americans who is so concerned about the amount of student loans that we have out today. i think it's a pretty healthy indication, in many ways, and we have $1.2 trillion or $1.3 trillion in outstanding student loans. we have about $900 billion in outstanding car loans. the average student loan for a four-year graduate is about $29,000. the average car loan is about $28,000 or $29,000. now, your car will depreciate. your degree will appreciate. it will earn you some say a million dollars more in your lifetime than you would otherwise have. the unemployment rate in america today for americans with a four-year degree is 3%. average income for those americans is about -- is in the mid 40's. so i think it's a pretty good investment if we can say to americans go on to the community

colleges where the average tuition is $3,300 and the average pell grant is about $3,300 of your income. so it's for all intents and purposes free today for most low-income students. so go on and get that degree, improve your skills. that's the way you make it up the ladder in this country. and -- and then we'll loan you some money at a low rate with a generous repayment term on top of that if you need that. but we're going to take steps to make sure we don't loan you more than you can pay back. i think that's a pretty good picture of the american dream. an unemployment rate of 3%, average income that is twice what the average total student loan debt of an individual is, a chance for two years of community college or any two-year school if you're low income with the taxpayer paying the average tuition of $3,300. that's a pretty good system, and

we're trying to make it better, but -- but it doesn't -- the right way to do this is to take all this discussion that we've had -- and i say again in a bipartisan way, all these things i've talked about have been proposed by democratic senators and republican senators. finish our work in the committee. that's the way our senate is supposed to work, and then recommend to the full senate what the student loan program ought to be. and if some senators want to say we want to take $5 billion and for the next ten years authorize extending the perkins loan program, that's what it costs, according to the congressional budget office. i am probably going to stand up and say let's take that $5 billion and instead let's give a year-round pell grant to students. let's pay for the pell grants for all those students who are persuaded to go to college because we've simplified their appear -- application form and their repayment form. we'll have a lot more pell grants, a lot more students

getting degrees. and if we do, we'll have a lot more americans joining the middle class. so we're all for students, we're all for helping. we want you to succeed, but my argument is that so far i'm not persuadeed that you succeed more with a perkins loan that has a higher rate and no repayment program than you do with a student loan that i've described that is already available to you. it's already available to you with a lower rate and a generous repayment program. so this is a healthy debate, it's one we're having in our committee. i'm actually glad it's gotten the attention of enough senators. we're hearing from college presidents all over the country. soon we'll have this debate in our full committee, then on the senate floor. i look forward to it, and i think the students of america will benefit from the work that we're doing in a bipartisan way. i thank the president, i yield the floor.

mr. coats: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. coats: mr. president, as many of my colleagues know and others, i come to the senate -- i've come to the senate for 22 weeks now every time the senate has been in session during this cycle to address another "waste of the week," and that's what i'm doing here this afternoon. the amount of money that we would be able to save that has been designated as waste, fraud, and abuse and now estimates a total of nearly nearly $116 billion. and as people continue to say, we can't cut a dime because every dime of taxpayer money is used for essential function, that just simply is not true. and while we haven't been able to come forward with what i think is absolutely necessary to stop this tingdz defici continut spending and plunge into debt, the larger issues that we'll be

dealing with later in this session, we can at least hopefully stand together and support those documented spending waste, fraud, and abuse issues that have been presented to us by the various nonpartisan agencies that look at, audit, and control -- appeared look at -- and look at how we control our spending here. so today i'm going to spend some more known that amount by discussing -- more money to that amount by discussing the ntis. this is an agency within the department of commerce that was created during the truman administration to keep all the reports produced by the federal government in a central location and make them available to the american public through sale. the idea here was the various

research papers and other studies that were conducted by various agencies of the government would be centrally located in one place. the american people would have access to that research and access to that information. they had to pay for the receipt of that, and it was a modest pay-for, but the money that they paid for that was to be used to pay for the administrative costs of storing this information, of providing it, making it available for people. and, frankly, it was a good idea. it was the only way we really could access that. and there was important information that the government could access. well, times have changed. obviously, the way we store information and the way we make information available to people is entirely different than it was back during the truman administration, some 70 years ago.

today the american people access and conduct research using a variety of tools and methods, largely online and largely for free. the abundance of free information then has obviously greatly decreased the need for the ntis. and, in fact, last year the government accountability office found that three-quarters of the documents added to the collection in the past 20 years have been found elsewhere and 95% of them can be found for free by using a basic search on google. when testifying before the senate, the government accounting agency said, "the legislation that established ntis requires it to be financially self-sustaining to the fullest extent feasible. however, the increasing availability of the information that ntis collects and disseminates, primarily through the web, has called the function

into question." this is an antiquated way of providing benefits to the american people to get these scientific papers and this research. they no longer have to go through ntis to get this. it is available for free, and the irony here is that if you do dial up ntis on their web site, they say -- a large message comes up, the first thing on the screen, saying, "before purchasing from us, you may want to check the free access opportunities" and then they list those. use our web site, ntis said, to get this information for free. use the u.s. government publishing office's federal digital system web site, the federal government internet

portal,usa gorvetio usa.gov. one of my colleagues who retired just last year actually brought to the floor, introduced an act -- "just google it" act. a clear indication that we no longer need this agency. it no longer really serve serves function. that has been introduced by senator kirk again this year, which i have cosponsored. if we could pass this legislation -- and here's an agency that says, don't use us anymore; you can get it for free and we'll even show you how to get it for free. so why are we paying this -- covering the cost of this -- of ntis at a rate of $880 million

over ten years when that savings could be applied to reducing our deficit, to giving money back, not requiring that amount of money to come from taxpayers or better used for another essential purpose of the federal government. so what we're adding to our "waste of the week" this year is another $880 million, bringing our total to nearly $117 billion of savings that has been declared through nonpartisan government agencies that oversee our spending as waste, fraud, and abuse. so members cannot come down here and simply say, where are we going to get the money to cover this or do that? they can't come down here and say it's impossible to cut anymore spending, we've done all that we can do, now we need more

revenues. that simply is not the case. and i'm going to continue each week to bring up examples that are documented by nonpartisan agencies to be totally unnecessary. this is a small step in the direction of trying to deal with a much larger problem. that much larger problem is something that i have been dealing with sundealing with sik after the election of 2010, and i'm going to continue to talk about it, even though it's not foremost on many people's minds right now given all the dysfunction and other problems that we're dealing with. we must not -- we must not ignore the fact that we are continuing to act on a deficit spending basis, meaning we spend more than we take in each year, and we have to borrow the money to cover the difns. -- to cover the difference. and our national debt has moved to a staggering level of nearly $19 trillion, almost $9 trillion

of that coming in less than a decade. it was 200 years -- more than 200 years before we first reached the $1 trillion mark. we've been on a spending binge ever since then. it has got to stop or we are going to pay a huge price. the debt collector will be at the door. we need major efforts -- and hopeful i we will take those measures this year. i am not going to support any efforts to continue spending unless we put some policy changes in to start us down the path to fiscal responsibility. i'll be outlining a number of ways in which we can do that. in the meantime, i'm saying, if you can't go big, let's at least start small. let's at least take those things that we already know have been declared waste, fraud, and abuse by nonpartisan agencies. at least we're taking steps in the right direction. mr. president, were that, i'm

going to yield back my time. i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. merkley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i rise today to with my friend and colleague, tom you udall, to talk about ho come together to fix our broken senate. specifically to invite our colleagues from both sides of the aisle to engage in a dialogue together, to address the dysfunction that we see so evident here on the floor of the senate day after day. what we have come to understand here in the course of 2015 is that the frustration with the

broken senate is a bipartisan equal opportunity frustration. in 2013 and 2014, democrats were in the majority, republicans were in the minority. the majority was frustrated. they couldn't get on to bills to start a debate and when we did imeget on to bills, we couldn't move to amendments, the time was sweefwasted. now here we're, the republicans are in the majority and the republicans are frustrated that we can't get to bills and have them on the floor and that the amendment process is broken. and on amendments it affects the minority and the majority. so here we have democrats and republicans with something deeply in common, a common interest on fixing this broken senate. the perspective i bring to this goes back to when i first came here to this chamber in the summer of 1976. i was an intern for senator

hatfield. i was assigned to work on a bill, the tax reform act of 1976 that came up on the floor of the senate. i was assigned to follow the debate because, of course, we didn't have television coverage at that point. we didn't have e-mails at that point. and then i'd meet senator hatfield out at the elevators just outside these beautiful double doors and brief him on the amendment, heed -- he'd go and vote and then an hour later we'd do it again and the debate was on amendments basically relevant to the main underlying bill, and there was no delay, wasted time between amendments. there was no agreement that had to be negotiated between the democrat and republican leaders. it was simply whoever got the attention of the presiding officer after the previous amendment was completed. in many ways it represented the way the senate had operated since our founding. but today we are in a very

different place. today we're in a place where multiple aspects of the senate are broken. we all wrestle with getting bills to the floor. we wrestle with wasting time and not being able to bring our amendments forward. we wrestle with the responsibility of the senate to execute advice and consent responsibility on nominations in a responsible fashion. so i want to talk a little bit about these three areas and again at the core of my message is an invitation to a bipartisan dialogue to try to address these issues. the senate was -- let's talk first about the motions to proceed to the floor. these motions used to be routine. this is r a chart which shows

when there was a necessity of doing a cloture motion, a motion to close debate on a motion to get to a bill. and what it shows is -- and this chart goes back to about 1915 -- from 1915 forward through 1960, no one ever contested a vote on whether to bring a bill to the floor. it just -- it was not done. that was the social contract. you either voted up or down. go to the bill or not go to the bill. starting in about 1962 -- and you can see the accelerating number of red bars, it became more and more routine through times when democrats were the majority, through times when republicans were the majority, to contest and obstruct the effort to even start debate on a bill. so this is an area we can work together to address. or let's talk about the

frustration and actually being able to debate amendments. i thought one way of con contrasting this would be to look at the number of amendments the senate has considered in different years. so back in 1993-1995 session, 2000 roughly -- 1,961 amendments debated, voted on here in the senate. the following two-year period, 1995-1997, 2,540 amendments voted on. how does that contrast with the two previous congresses? 2011-2013, we were under 1,000 -- 974. 2013-2015, just over 500 amendments, or roughly a fifth of the number that were considered 20 years earlier. and so that's the numbers. but what it really looks like on to the floor is we get on to a bill and then nothing happens. because the tree has been

filled, filled by the democratic leader when the democrats are in majority, filled by the republican leader when the republicans have been in the majority. so no one can introduce an amendment unless they have unanimous consent. and there's always someone willing to object. and, therefore, we were l paralyzed. this is an area we can address. virtually every state legislature has worked out a system where they can come to the floor on a bill and immediately start considering amendments. there are many different ways we can solve this problem, but we won't solve it unless we come together as democrats and republicans and work together to figure it out, figure out a way that would work for both. or let's turn to nominations. here again we see that before 1960, this chart goes back to, again, to about 1915. before 1960 we never had cloture motions on nomination. the nomination was proposed. it was debated.

and then there was an up-or-down vote. that was the social contract. there could have been an objection and necessity of an objection to closing debate, but there wasn't. people understood that the time is short and if a nominee has majority support, that nominee for a judicial position, for an executive position should be in that position, that we shouldn't allow one branch of government, the legislative branch, to systematically undermine and attack the other branches of government. now, it is true that we haven't quite reversed roles at this point in time the way we did in terms of being here on the floor of the senate simply because both last session and this session we still have the same president. we still have a democratic president. but let's turn our mind to the next election in 2016, november. not that far away. a year and a month away. and then january 2017, when that

new president is going to take office. and at that point we have no idea if that will be a democratic president or a republican president. and we have no idea of whether the control of this chamber will be in democratic hands or republican hands. but i do know that my colleagues across the aisle, my republican colleagues, if there is a republican president, they don't want this chamber to systematically obstruct the ability of that republican president to be able to put capable people into the necessary positions to operate the government. our role is to screen out terrible nominees, not to systematically undermine the ability of an administration to function. so as we look forward to 2017, not knowing who will be in charge, maybe this is a window of opportunity where we can come together and work out a plan to expedite nominations so that we can return to the traditions of the senate, serve our role of advice and consent without conducting a war on the judicial

branch or a war on the executive branch. this concept of a supermajority was not the vision of the founding fathers. and in fact, they worried about this. and madison spoke to it. so did hamilton. madison talked about the danger of a supermajority. he said -- and i quote -- "it would be no longer majority that would rule. the power would be transferred to the minority. were the defensive privilege limited to particular cases, he said, an interested minority might take advantage of it to screen themselves from equitable sacrifices to the general or in particular emergencies to extort unreasonable indulgences. and it continues to address supermajority rule and says the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. now let me translate that.

what he's saying is that the principal democracies, that their wisdom in the majority, that if the majority say this is the right decision, that's the direction you should go. but if you systematically go in the direction in which the minority says you should go, then you have chosen the less wise option, and those decisions build up over time and undermine the success of your nation. that that would be a huge mistake. and hamilton addressed this as well. he said -- and this is in federalist paper number 22, and he was speaking from painful experience as a new york representative in congress that was created under the articles of federation, he said that the supermajority rule results in -- quote -- "tedious delays, continual negotiation and intrigue, contemptible compromises of the public good." i think a lot of americans, when

they think about the way congress is operating now, would say that's what we see. we see contemptible compromises of the common good. we don't see 100 members of the senate working together for the public. and instead, we see a lot of special interest deals, contemptible compromises, really abuse of minority role in blocking. and they have seen both the democrats in minority this year, republicans in the minority before, so it's an equal opportunity critique, if you will, towards both parties. of course our national rating is very low. again, as we look towards the future and have no idea whether or not the next republican will be a democrat or republican -- whether the next president will be a democrat or republican. we don't know whether the next majority leader will be a democrat or republican. we have a chance, an

opportunity, an incentive to work together to establish new rules, rules that will make this place work again, rules that will restore the senate. now, senator udall and i have laid out ideas on how we might address these things. but those ideas, there's no one wisdom, no one silver bullet. and so let's come together in a dialogue. and there are ideas that i sliewflt love. i love the idea of a talking filibuster. that is let's get rid of the filibuster on motions to proceed. that's in simpg with the way the -- in sync with the way the senate used to operate. let's get rid of conference committees, the way the senate used to operate. on final passage, if senators want to continue to debate, let's make sure one is on the floor speaking.

it makes it visible and transparent to the american public. i love that idea but perhaps that is not an idea on which we can build a bipartisan bridge. i don't know, and i won't know unless we come together in a bipartisan way to discuss it. i love the idea of coming to the floor with a protocol for amendments since we've been so paralyzed that immediately five amendments for the minority and five for the majority that are relevant to the bill, are in order, that would be terrific, that it would be a simple majority. passage, i think if that was done, then the majority and minority leaders would hear from their members and say let's do five more on each side. but we wouldn't come to the floor and play music on c-span because we can't even start debate on an amendment. let's use the valuable time that we have on this floor to do the people's work, not to sit here in deep freeze paralysis. i love the idea of establishing a rule that creates a specific

way to discuss and debate rule changes. we don't have that right now. when we start every two-year congress, we wrestle with how can we create a conversation over rules. there is no systematic way in our rules to do that. i love the idea of us working together to lay out a way to do that. i think it would serve this body well. we need to work together to restore this body. it has often been referred to by the nickname of the world's greatest deliberative body. that certainly is not an accurate description today. but we together can restore that, and we have a responsibility to the citizens of the united states to restore that vision. let's make deliberation work and characterize this body not deep freeze. let's engage in respectful dialogue, not rigid

partisanship. let's take this moment as we plan towards january 2017 and build a vision together, dialogue together, a vision of how to make the senate work for americans. thank you, mr. president, and it's my privilege to introduce my colleague from new mexico, who has wrestled with this issue even before he came to the senate and has been engaged in it from day one and has brought so much insight and wisdom to bear on this challenge. thank you. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. mr. udall: thank you, mr. president. i would ask consent to carry on a short colloquy with senator merkley and maybe other senators that may join us in as much time as i may consume. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. udall: thank you, mr.

president. senator merkley, i've listened very carefully. you and i have worked dill gently, i think -- diligently, i think, since we got into the senate to try to make sure that the senate was functioning properly. what we want to see more than anything, i think, is bipartisanship, working together. whenever we worked on the rules, i know that one of our principles that was a good one is that draft rules so that they apply whether you're in the majority or the minority. and that's something i think we've done on a regular basis is try to look at the rules and say if we do the right set of rules, then if we're in the minority, we'll feel good about it and if we're in the majority, they'll work for us that way also. and so i'm wondering with -- i see calls of reform all around the senate right now. you see the presidential candidates that look at our senate rules. they say they ought to be reformed. there ought to be filibuster

reform. you see republicans over in the house almost every week they're raise being the issue, there should be filibuster reform. we need democracy to work. and then many of the outside scholars, people like thomas mann and norm owner -- norm orn stein write books over and over again and all of the big reform chunks go to reform of the rules. so i would ask you, do you really think we're talking about there being fertile ground right now for us to come together, that this is a time when enough people are speaking about this, that they -- we -- we should be able to come together? and we're urging, aren't we urging them to join us in some kind of format on the floor, off the floor, have a -- have a meeting with various senators that worked on this in the past. is this a -- is this a good time to do this?

mr. merkley: i think you're absolutely accurate that this is the perfect moment to do it. when you and i first engaged in this dialogue, we reached out to our republican colleagues, we held one-on-one meetings, we -- we sought champions and what we found was that the view of reform was so polarized by whether you were in the majority or the minority. and you and i said, you know, we are going to have this test for what we put forward, that what we put forward when we're in the majority is what we'll put forward when we're in the minority. if we don't think that it would work for us in the minority, then it's not a honest or fair appraisal of making the senate work. and so now that we've come to that test because here we are, we're now in the minority and we're proposing the same set of ideas. and i still absolutely believe that these ideas would make this place work better. it would enable more bills to be debated, which is to have that

value when you're in the minority, to actually put your amendments forward and have that debate is a gift. certainly it says that if you really believe -- you know, the idea that we put forward on the talking filibuster -- if you really believe that you want to block something, you have to stand on this floor and debate it. i still think that that's a way to keep the theory of the filibuster but return it to the social contract of the past where people understood this was a simple majority body, as envisioned in the constitution, as envisioned by hamilton, as envisioned by madison, that they'd had the experience and the challenge of the super majority and knew that that did deep damage. but that if you really believe something so deeply, then you're willing to spend the time and energy. so i think the things that we crafted in the the majority still hold up, but the -- the bigger point is this. now that we are -- have had a reversal, many of our colleagues are experiencing the

frustrations that the majority can inflict on them -- a majority can inflict on a minority firsthand. and i think that opens the opportunity. and i have probably a list of 20 quotes. you referred to people in the house. you're a former member of the house, saying to their senate colleagues, their senate republican colleagues, why don't you do something to fix the senate? and now we're standing here saying, join with us in a dialogue to fix the senate. mr. udall: and senator merkley, i couldn't think of this being a more appropriate time. i think it is fertile ground and i -- and i think it's great that we've come here. and the important thing i think to remember is a point that you and i both made in the past has to do with the old movie that everybody knows about "mr. smith goes to washington." people always thought the filibuster was like it was portrayed in that movie. you have mr. smith coming to washington and he's concerned

with a passion about an issue. and he thinks that -- that he -- he may be in the minority but he wants to fight it out. and he comes to the floor and he speaks about it and he rallies people outside. and now today, as we know, you don't see that very often. actually, sometimes what people are even calling filibusters are at the early stage of a motion to proceed before we even get on to the bill. but what -- what we are doing is trying to return to the "mr. smith goes to washington." what we want to see happen is a -- is a talking filibuster, where every senator gets to talk. i mean, that -- as you and i know, you have been a real scholar and a student of the senate in terms of its history. always the tradition has been, before there was even this rule in place on the filibuster is that everybody had an opportunity to speak. that was a fine senate

tradition. it was -- it was established, you didn't have to write it down, it's just everybody said, we're not going to take any action until we let every speak. and the other part of it was just what you talked about in our amendment proposal, is -- is allowing senators to offer amendments. and today we're so far away from that. we have this motion to proceed. we don't even get on to the bill that causes so much mischief because you have all these procedural things that happen in advance of even getting on the bill. you know, you were a -- you were a leader in your legislature and i want you to just reflect a little on that, because you've seen, when you get a bill on the floor, you work on it. you get to amend it, you get to debate it. and most of the time the people that are working on it, they want to get to the end game. but we're not able to do that. and hasn't that been your experience in oregon and working

with your legislature, that if you can get on to the bill, that's about half the work right there. and we are blocked here with this motion to proceed and the filibuster of the motion to proceed. mr. merkley: indeed, my experience in the oregon state legislature was dramatically different. in many ways, it was much more similar to the way i saw the senate operating when i was here in the 1970's and then working for congress in the 1980's. but when we got to a bill on the floor of the oregon house, where i served for 10 years and spent two years as speaker, every moment was utilized in debate. there was no paralysis. people knew we had limited time, we were there to hear each other, to make decisions. and certainly in a -- in a more expeditious style than is the custom in the senate. but -- but what we had in common was that the floor time, well utilized in the senate in the past, well utilized in oregon.

you know, i was thinking about how this all began, as you were -- were speaking of kind of the traditions and how the senate worked. and when we had that first u.s. senate, they had in their rulebook a motion to force a vote. and they had that rule but they never used it. and why didn't they use it? well, imagine that there are just 13 states and just 26 senators and they stand here occupying a quarter of the space that we now occupy and they say, well, we certainly can extend the courtesy of hearing each person's insight or opinion before we vote. and so after a couple years when they we wrote the rulebook, they decided to not even include the rule, they didn't need it, because they had the courtesy of hearing each other. and so suddenly there is a senate with no rule on how to close debate or force a vote. and over time that courtesy eroded. and it was after world war i that the -- the first time occurred when the senate said, well, let's enable a majority, a super majority of the senate to

close debate if -- if -- if there is too much abuse or paralysis. and -- but the point is that the filibuster is not in the constitution. and some of my colleagues have said, this is the way the founders designed the senate, to be a super majority body? that is wrong, wrong, wrong. it's not in the constitution. it was not in the early senate and it was not a major feature of the senate in terms of it being a common experience until these recent -- until these recent years. so if we can recapture the spirit of the courtesy of hearing each other's opinion but enable us to get on to a bill, to be able to debate the bill, to be able to do amendments and then if someone finds a moment of great principle, great heartfelt objection and wants to spend the time and energy to extend debate, they do so in this visible, as we talked about, the talking filibuster

fashion, i think that would be a huge improvement and well worth worth -- well worth trying. mr. udall: and senator merkley, the thing that you point out -- and it's so important, i think, for people to understand -- when we put the original bill back in there in world war i, it was put in so that a minority could not block. and we had woodrow wilson as president. he was very concerned. we were talking about national security during a war and he wanted to arm our merchant ships. and he got a bill out of the house of representatives and it was rolling towards the senate, it was near the end of a session and he took that -- that bill very seriously. he thought it -- it was vital for the national security of the country and he asked the senate to act on it. and there were about 11 senators, i believe, 11 or 12,

who had decided, you know, we're near the end of the senate -- end of the session, let's just run out the clock. and there was no procedure to be able to get to the bill before the clock was run out. and so these 11 senators took to the floor, they ran out the clock and woodrow wilson said, no way am i going to allow that to happen. he -- he got a bee in his bonnet on that one and he just -- the next congress that came in, he says, i want a rule so that that doesn't happen again. those 11 senators. and so we put in a rule which was at the time 67 votes in order to cut off debate. and -- and that rule really was turned on its head with what's happening in recent times. i mean, the rule was originally so that a small minority, you could cut off debate and you could proceed to the issue. now we have calls to the cloakroom, calls to the

leadership. you and i don't know what's going on. we don't know why we don't get on an issue. we know on a motion to proceed we have these votes and the motion to invoke cloture and all these procedural things nobody understands. but they say, why can't you get on the bill? well, because the filibuster rule has been turned on its head and so that -- that is something that people have to understand, is we are not using this filibuster rule the traditional way that we used it in the the senate for the purpose it was originally put in. and as you pointed out on the motion to proceed -- and i wanted to ask you one more thing about the motion to proceed. you've talked about how in 1962 we increasingly started to see obstruction in terms of the motion to proceed. and it would prevent bills from getting to the floor. there wasn't any -- there wasn't any way to get on these bills so it jammed things up.

but i'll never forget, the senate who i succeeded, senator pete domenici, solid republican, believed in the senate, he came out and said, we shouldn't have filibuster on motion to proceed. we should get on to the bill. i remember several senators that came in, in our class and after, republican senators, said the same thing. and so i think there's a lot of room here between -- and i'm asking you again in terms of the motion to proceed and this -- us calling for a bipartisan effort. the -- we should be able with the people that are here to either work on the motion to proceed, work on the talking filibuster, or work on a variety of other amendment issues that are crucial. don't you think this is the time? and so i just want to make sure before you leave that we make sure that there's an invitation from us to 98 other senators to

sit down in some format, whether it's a bipartisan conference or something and talk about how we make this place work better and how we make it more democratic. mr. merkley: you know, there are two members of the senate -- former members of the senate right now who are working on a book to come out in january in which they will be addressing reform of the senate. and that's trent lott and tom daschle. and they have already issued a number of ideas about how to reform this place. but the point i'm making is that when people believe the senate senate -- but the point i'm making is that when people leave the senate, they point backing and say there is a bipartisan opportunity, a bipartisan responsibility to make this chamber work. what we're saying is that this can't be accomplished through folks who have left the senate. that we must in bipartisanship here solve it ourselves. that any rule changes that are

are -- are envisioned, any agreements that are forged have to be done here on this floor and that we are extending that invasion -- invitation, as you put it, to our 98 colleagues to be part of that dialogue. we can draw on the ideas that our former members have put forward as a starting point. we can draw on the ideas that you and i have put forward. but these ideas, there is no one way to address this. we're inviting others to brainstorm together in a dialogue to try to gather a vision that perhaps we can commit ourselves to in a bipartisan fashion to enact at the start of the next legislature when we realize we may not be minority or majority, and that that becomes a magical way to escape our current status here as we're embattled and we're having deep emotional fights over foreign policy and

social policy and how to create jobs in america. but to see -- get some distance on that and see how to make this chamber work the way it was envisioned, because certainly i think 100 members could agree the senate today is broken. wouldn't it be phenomenal if in a bipartisan effort we were able to restore the u.s. senate to being a great deliberative body. mr. udall: senator merkley, you're absolutely right. i am just going to close by saying the thing that we -- and i have said this at the beginning. the thing that we have worked on and tried to achieve is to make sure that when we crafted changes to the rules, motion to proceed, talking filibuster, how we allow each side to have amendments, we have always said we could live with them if we were in the minority, and we have been in the minority now for almost a year. a couple of months and it will

be a year. and we came out right at the beginning of the congress and talked about our rules again. we have proposed the same rules in the majority. we want to be fair to both sides. but the more important thing isn't that fairness. it's the fairness to the american people to get their democracy back again so it works. and so with that, i would -- i would ask consent to insert my statement in the record as if spoken, and i don't know whether to -- and with that, i would yield the floor and note -- well, we have -- i see senator booker and senator cory gardner and others here. i am just going to yield the floor. the presiding officer: without objection, the materials will be placed in the record. mr. gardner: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. gardner: thank you, mr. president. today marks a pivotal day for veterans in the colorado and

rocky mountain region. just minutes ago, the house of representatives approved the senate bill to extend several important authorizations to coloradans, authorizations important to the health care of our country's veterans, because the bill includes authorization to complete the denver v.a. replacement medical facility. after years of persistence, years of passion, years of emotion, we have finally, finally passed a bill to finish the job at the denver v.a. replacement facility in aurora, colorado. this bill will allow us to finish the job, allowing the replacement facility to move forward that's critical for the care of veterans in colorado and the rocky mountain region, fulfill the promise that we have made to our veterans. this bill also turns the page on the gross mismanagement by the v.a. of this project and will allow the army corps of engineers to take over the management of the project to

ensure its completion without further delay. there is simply no acceptable excuse for how the project ended up in this current state. years delayed, hundreds of millions of dollars over budget. and while the bill will turn the page on this day, it will not turn our focus away from reforms at the v.a. to ensure accountability and to ensure this never happens again. i've worked with a number of my colleagues to initiate these reforms, including an amendment to the defense authorization bill that will get the v.a. out of the big construction business. i come to the floor today to say thank you, thank you to my colleagues, specifically senator isakson, senator blumenthal, senator kirk, senator tester, the majority leader and their staff, my colleague michael bennet, for their leadership on this issue and of course none of this could be possible without the incredible work of missouri

mike kaufman, congressman representing the area, the entire colorado delegation who worked so hard to make this happen. they have all provided a great service to veterans in passage of the legislation out of the house today. mr. president, years from now, when veterans go to this hospital to receive the care that we have promised, they will enter into what will be the crown jewel of the v.a. infrastructure, the crown jewel of the v.a. system. it took a lot of hard work to get here, and today i'm excited with the passage of the house bill, passage of the senate, a bill is on its way to the president to finish the job, to complete the hospital and to fulfill our promise. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

ms. klobuchar: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i rise today to express my concern and disgust about recent revelations of improper and dishonest conduct by senior executives at the department of veterans affairs, including the

director of the regional office of the veterans benefits veteras administration. according to a report released by the hav v.a.'s office of the inspector general this week, two veterans benefits administration executives used their positions to assign themselves to different jobs that involved fewer responsibilities while maintaining their high salaries. one of them was the director of the v.b.a. st. paul regional office since october of 2014. the inspector general found that the st. paul v.b.a. director used their influence as director of v.b.a.'s eastern area office to compel the relocation of the previous st. paul office director. she then proceeded to submit her own name for consideration to fill the vacancy she herself had created. taking on the job of directing the st. paul regional office was

actually a step down in responsibility for this administrator. in the inspector general's words, she went from being responsible for oversight of 16 regional offices to being responsible for only one. but she kept, mr. president -- she kept her previous senior executive service salary of $173,949 per year. she also received over $129,000 in relocation expenses. so look at this: she had a responsible job managing 1 regionamanaging 16 r. shshe took an option opening and she kept the same salary and took $100,000 not $29,000 in relocation expense.

this is the kind of action, mr. president, that has created the breach of trust between our veterans and the departments that exist to srve their needs. there are so many people of such good will that work at the veterans administration, including in minnesota, and there are so many veterans that deserve their help. but to make this truly work, we have to show that the people at the top are accountable. what this director was doing was not responsible and it was not a good use of taxpayer money, and it certainly wasn't fair to our veterans. a senior executive who is supposed to be focused on ensuring that veterans are being served the way they deserve instead used her position to push out one of her colleagues and get herself a plum assignment where she was have fewer responsibilities but at the same time keep the same salary. the this conduct is unacceptable. it erodes the public's trust in the v.a. it is commendable that the v.a.

inspector general took action by referring these two cases to the u.s. attorney for possible criminal prosecution. the v.a. needs to do right by our vrntses and our taxpayers by holding bad actors accountable and implementing reforms to prevent exploitation like this from ever happening again. mr. president, i yield the floor and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: er

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. tester: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be viscerated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. tester: thank you, mr. president. i want to talk today about the bill that we're considering currently, the milcon-v.a. bill that's before us. you know, i really do urge the

senate to take up and pass an appropriations bill that does right by our nation's veterans. i think it is very, very important. but this milcon v.a. bill before us today -- and i might add, along with the rest of the appropriations bills -- is shackled to an unwise and un unrealistic budget that locks in destructive sequestration cuts and vastly underfunds programs vital to this nation's security and prosperity and doesn't deal with the challenges that veterans of that agency has to take care of our nation's veterans. but make no mistake about it, america's veterans would be severely shortchanged by this bill as it is currently drafted. coming from the state of mt. -- montana where we have the second

highest per capita veterans population, i cannot look in the eyes of our nation's brave men and women and say that this bill will fulfill our promise to you. this bill underfunds our veterans by over $850 million, subjecting the v.a. to the across-the-board spending caps that the majority is desperate to avoid on the defense bill. that's hypocritical. because let's be honest with ourselves, caring for our veterans is a cost of war. what we know and what the majority knows is that this bill is severely limiting the v.a.'s ability to fulfill its mission, caring for those who have borne the battle. need i remind everyone that just a few weeks ago, because of a surge in demand for hep-c

treatments, hepatitis c treatments and historic increase in non-v.a. care referrals, the v.a. service medical account ran out of money. as a result we had to pass emergency legislation to allow choice act funding to be used to shore up the v.a. and prevent serious disruption for veterans across this country. the budget pressures that caused that shortfall are the result of an unprecedented demand for services in terms of both numbers and complexity. and that demand will only continue to grow. at some point during the next year nearly half the veterans will be 65 years old or older. many of these folks will be seeking treatment to deal with the effects of toxic exposure, something that we are struggling to better understand and treat, and something that could have effects on their children and grandchildren. at the same time the younger

generation of veterans is starting to cope with the unseen wounds of war. they're fighting to keep their lives and their families together, and for some of them it is a daily struggle to overcome the suicidal thoughts that claim the lives of at least 22 of their peers each and every day. those are the stakes here. they are that high. we're also talking about an unprecedented demand for expensive new treatment for diseases like hepatitis c that are shorter in duration and with fewer side effects and have cure rates approaching 100%. that is good news. but we have to have money to do that. we are talking about addressing champion nick shortages of medical professionals particularly mental health professionals in rural america which greatly hinder our ability

to provide veterans with quality and timely care. we're talking about a growing population of caregivers who have been forced to abandon their jobs and their livelihoods to care for loved ones with debilitating medical conditions. and we're talking about facilities that are literally crumbling in some cases severely impacting delivery of care. i believe we need more transparency and accountability from the v.a. to ensure they're spending taxpayer dollars in a responsible way. but let's be clear, today we're asking more and more of the v.a., and this bill gives them less than they need. now is not the time to take a step backwards. if we do that, we're never going to catch up. if we don't enact commonsense, long-term budget that better reflects our priorities, our values and provides the tools and resources required to fulfill our promises to veterans and their families, then we

should all question just what are we doing here. mr. president, there are cases when each of us has looked at a bill or an amendment and said, you know, it's not perfect but it's good enough. sometimes that's what it takes to get work done around here. but when it comes to our veterans, when it comes to restoring confidence in the v.a. after the problems that they have had in the last two years, i don't think that's the path we should take. i know our chairman, senator kirk, did his best in writing this bill to soften the blow of budget constraints that he was forced to make. i truly appreciate his efforts and his inclusiveness in working with me, but the fact is he was handed a no-win allocation by his party's budget. you can't patch the holes in the v.a. budget created by sequestration. you can't shift money from known medical care requirements, treatment for cancer, diabetes or kidney disease, to name just a few, to plug gaps in emerging

requirements such as lifesaving but costly new hepatitis-c treatments. that is why i offered an amendment in committee to restore $857 million to bring the v.a. to its requested level. unfortunately, none of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle joined me, and it failed in a party-line vote. i am at a complete loss as to why we are now being asked to move to a bill that we all know underfunds the v.a. by almost $1 billion. for what? so that we can send this bill to conference with the house, whose own v.a. bill p underfunds the v.a. by $1.4 billion. $600 million more than the senate. that will not improve the quality or the timeliness of veterans' health care. nor will giving the v.a. authority to fire more doctors and nurses without due process.

it's time to stop the political games and maneuvering, to serve our veterans, to serve this country, to serve all americans, congress must establish funding levels driven by what the v.a. actually needs, not by some arbitrary mathematical formula. we need rational, realistic, bipartisan budget agreement to replace the draconian sequestration funding levels entrenched in the majority's fiscal year 2016 budget. i've been calling on senate leaders for months to sit down and hash out a long-term budget agreement. the majority leader's response was to wait until the day before the government is scheduled to shut down and to pass a short-term c.r. as early as tomorrow we expected to vote on an appropriations bill that will drastically underfund the v.a. for the next fiscal year. this is clearly an attempt to paint those of us who think this

bill as insufficient as voting against veterans. but i know that plan won't work because i'm here to tell you, veterans are well aware of the funding shortfall. it's one of the cleave -- chief problems currently plaguing the v.a. and i will continue to provide adequate funding to support america's veterans. while i am disappointed the majority wouldn't work with us on a broader budget deal this summer, the c.r. that we passed today gives us just over two months to reach a reasonable budget agreement, and an agreement which will support our veterans, an agreement that members on both sides of the aisle agree that we need. that is the job that we're elected to do. but make no mistake, if we're having this same conversation on december 10, we have failed. failed our veterans, failed the american people. i urge my colleagues to oppose the motion to proceed to this

bill so that we can finally negotiate a bipartisan budget agreement that will do away with the devastating impacts of sequestration and will instead provide a responsible way forward to fund our government, to protect our national security, and to care for this nation's veterans. mr. president, i yield the floor and request the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: