systems and water treatments systems and all of these are going to contribute to communities in terms of keeping community safe and helping with jobs and helping with the economy we do a lot of cutting of red tape and streamlining regulations and getting decisions out of washington and back to be made more at the local levels. it will allow us to do projects that are going to be done faster, better, cheaper, smarter and the vote in the committee was 21-nothing. >> as the leader said we have been working on looking at the congressional accountability act of 1985 and

our hospitals regarding payment delays, long waiting times, and

elusive runaround on the most basic services. under the choice program, our veterans did not receive the health care they deserved. however, the bipartisan mission act will follow through on the promises that were made to our veterans. rural veterans will get greater, easier, quicker access to the care they need. whether a veteran lives 20, 30, or 40 miles from a v.a. clinic, they can go elsewhere if the v.a. does provide them with the services they need. it brings v.a. care into the 21st century by encouraging telemedicine and strengthens the oversight of opioid prescriptions. veterans will have more access to doctors because there will be measures holding companies accountable, companies like healthnet for how they manage the new program.

it provides scholarships to encourage medical and dental students to serve in the v.a., and it creates a new loan repayment program for medical students who are training in specialties that are currently lacking in the v.a. this is one of the big problems we have. we can't fill the slots of medical professionals in the v.a. it's about time we take meaningful steps towards fully delivering on the promises that we have made to our veterans. on this memorial day, on this memorial day week, i'd like to share that we have passed my bill to name v.a. clinics in missoula and billings after montana veterans david thatcher, dr. joseph medicine crow and benjamin steele. my bill has been sent to president trump's desk for his signature, and with the passage of the mission act, these three

clinics will be delivering new and improved care and will also display the names of three montana world war ii heroes. i urge my colleagues in the senate to join me in supporting the v.a. mission act. i yield back my time.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i come to the floor today to bring attention to a particular provision of the bill now before the senate, a provision that would do so much to help our country fulfill its promise to our veterans, and that is to expand and strengthen the v.a.'s caregiver program.

this program may not be well known outside of military family circles, but make no mistake, the caregiver program could be a game changer for the estimated 5.5 million people across this country who have put their lives on hold to care for a loved one who returned from service with illness or injury. i met one of those caregivers not too long ago in my home state of washington. tiffany smiley wears many hats. she is a mother, a wife, a nurse, and a veteran caregiver. she and her husband scotty first met back in junior high, and years later, they were married. he signed up to serve our country, and tiffany became a military spouse. and then in 2005, she got the call every military family fears. scotty had been severely injured in a suicide bombing in iraq. he was alive, but he lost his eyesight permanently.

as tiffany described it, her world was shaken to its core, and their lives were never the same again. but tiffany, like so many military spouses, didn't think twice about whether she would care for her husband and their growing family. it was just a matter of how she could do it. to this day, tiffany is an amazing advocate for the caregiver program and what it has meant to her and to her family. she describes both the good days and the bad days so those of us not in her shoes can understand at least some of the challenges they face. she does it because she knows she is not alone, and she knows that sharing her experience is making a difference to educate the rest of the country about what it means to be a veteran's caregiver. and it's so true. i have heard from countless people who when their loved one came home from service with an injury or illness made big life changes, like quitting a job or scaling back their hours or

taking leave from college. they put big purchases and retirements and dream vacations on hold. or they took on more parenting responsibilities. you name it. they sprang into action and did what they needed to do because it's just what you do when it's someone you love. but we know the care our military caregivers provide comes at a cost. several years ago, in fact, the dole foundation commissioned the largest ever study of its kind to examine the sacrifice of military caregivers. it showed some caregivers spend more than 40 hours a week caring for veterans. that is the equivalent of a full-time job, and that takes a toll. the study showed caregivers have significantly worse health than noncaregivers, and they run a higher risk of depression because they put their own physical and mental well-being on hold.

and the stress of providing care can strain relationships and increase divorce rates, so caregivers, as they are often called, our hidden heroes don't necessarily wear a uniform or go overseas, but they sacrifice a whole lot, and they serve our country in ways most people find unimaginable. that is why expanding the caregiver program to veterans of all eras is so important, because the program provides resources and support. it includes training and counseling. it includes a stipend, access to health care, respite, and more. this bill expands the support services for caregivers to address their still-unmet needs, and that includes offering financial and legal advice to deal with the so many complex and difficult challenges that arise that are unique to being a caregiver. and not only does the caregiver program recognize the sacrifice of caregivers, it also puts decisions about care into the

hands of the veteran and their loved ones. they can decide to be at home or with on-site care or on their own terms, as independent as possible, and that is really important. the fact that we are so close to getting this program expansion across the finish line goes to show how far we have moved this conversation, but also why we have to keep pushing it forward, so veterans and military caregivers never feel like they have to face these problems alone. because the reality is if a service member is hurt while fighting for our country, the responsibility of care should never fall to only one family. it is the responsibility and the duty of our entire nation to have their backs and get them what they need, because we can't stop until we get this done. we can't stop until every veteran and military caregiver knows that their country is there for them, on their terms,

no matter what. i am so proud the caregivers program expansion is front and center in the v.a. mission act now before the senate, and on behalf of tiffany and scotty and all the other military families out there, i urge my colleagues to express your support for this critically important program. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr.sullivan: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. we're in a quorum call. mr.sullivan: mr. president, i ask permission that the quorum call be ee vitiated -- vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. cloture having been invoked, the

amendments thereto fall. mr.sullivan: thank you, mr. president. as my colleagues know one of the best times of the week is when i get to come down to the floor and talk about some of my great constituents back home in alaska. somebody, or a group of alaskans, which i refer to as the alaskan of the week. you know, mr. president, we all think we come from great states, but what i really enjoy talking about the alaskan of the week is not just talking about alaska and how beautiful, big, and majestic it is, but the people who make it such a great place. what i wanted to do in this alaskan presentation is talk not just about rich owens, who i'm going to talk about a lot this afternoon, but i'm going to also talk about small businesses in alaska, and small businesses in

my hometown. because as you know, mr. president, these businesses make a positive impact on communities on states like alaska. so, now, when you think of alaska and you think of food, particularly right now as the spring is in full swing, you think of our delicious salmon, and good news for all the salmon lovers out there. copper river salmon season just opened last week, some of the best wild salmon on the planet. you might think of the hal butt, black -- hal -- la -- halibut. what i want people to think

about, some of our food is ice cream. i know that sounds strange. ice cream in alaska, yes. in p fact it is said that alaskans consume more ice cream per capita than any other state in the country. go figure on that one. but that doesn't surprise rich owens, our alaskan of the week who is the owner of the bustling tasty freeze on the corner of jewel lake and asbury road in anchorage. that tasse -- tasty freeze that opened at a -- opened in anchorage which relocated, it sells more ice cream than any other tasty freeze in america. that's remarkable. rich also claims the largest

menu of any tasty freeze in the united states. mr. president, like so many great businesses, it is much more than just an ice cream store. for those who live in anchorage, and many who live across the state, rich's tasty freeze is an institution. it is -- he bought the business in 1994. he has made giving back to his community in so many different ways his top priority beyond running that great small business. now, rich was raised in a small town in montana. his father was a pharmacist and his parents owned a drug store, and giving back to the community was something he saw his parents do every single day. it was not the exception, rich said, it was the rule. rich came to alaska in the 1980's to work what is now the

millennium hotel, another great business in alaska, and in 1994, he bought the tasty freeze. since thap time, rich has -- since that time, rich has donated his time and energy, and importantly, his philanthropy to our great state and our community. let me provide a few examples. rich is a huge champion for our schools. that can mean to delivering up to 400sundaes to take to elementary schools when they have a family reading or math night. he helps fund school trips for students who need help. every year each elementary school that he works with stages a, quote, tastee freeze takeover. school staff members work shifts behind the counter and tastee freeze employees wear school t

shirts, that is widely advertised and popular and tastee freeze donates a portion of that day's take to the school. again, very, very focused on community. rich also formed a work study partnership with high schools. he guesses that the average age of his 28 employees is about 17 years old. about the age of our pages right here listening so intently. for so many alaskans it was their first, and some say, their best job ever, to work in that tastee freeze that rich owns. he has donated his time, energy, and talents to summer camps that teach so many young people about the great outdoors. one of his assistant managers began to work at the shop when she was 15 years old. she's 31 years olded and she met

her husband at the -- old and she met her husband at the shop. this is a great community, small business. and rich is also a huge supporter of our military, our veterans, and the national guard, and as we are approaching memorial day weekend and as we are literally debating an important veterans' affairs bill on the floor right now, it is important to remember the thousands of alaskans, literally millions of americans, who are veterans but who are like rich who are supporting our veterans day in and day out. so, for example, rich has been part of the alaska national guard operation santa claus each christmas holiday which flies santa claus and a bag of presents, toys, smies --

supplies, fresh fruit to some of the most alaska villages during the holidays, and these kids in these communities love it. of course santa and his helpers bring rich's ice cream. thanks to rich the kids get ice cream in the winter. every year he serves thousands of five-ounce sundaes to our kids in our villages, some who have never seen sprinkles or carmel toppings on their ice cream. for his efforts, rich is known in my state as the commander of the alaska national guard ice cream support squadron, with good reason. mr. president, just a few weeks ago, the tastee freeze in alaska celebrated 60 years of service to the community. you want to know there's a

popular small business in your community, over 1,000 people showed up at this celebration. they served 1,644 small ice cream cones, not including the dipped cones and sundaes that day. i was there for this great celebration, senator murkowski was there, our governor was there, the corporate officers from the lower 48 from tastee freeze flew up to alaska for this great event. they had never seen anything like it, the number one tastee freeze in the country. what most excited rich that day was all the people there who he had served throughout the years, including the hundreds of people who used to work at the shop, who met their spouses at tastee

freeze, and who then had children, and those children now go there, and some even work there. mr. president, that's what a small business with heart can do for a community. it can provide young people for their first real job, it can bring us together, it can provide a sense of community, it can serve the community, and, of course, it can be a delicious place of memories for families. that's what the tastee freeze in anchorage has done and that's why we want to congratulate rich on being our alaskan of the week and thanking him again for all the great things he has done for our state and community. i yield the floor. and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. moran: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. moran: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. moran: mr. president, thank you. i'm pleased to be back on the senate floor this afternoon in support of the v.a. mission act. i was here last week, last thursday in which i in part paid tribute to senator mccain. we greatly miss him here on the senate floor, and i personally, and i know my colleagues wish that he was here for purposes of

helping us determine a path forward and to find the solutions to problems. one place that senator mccain is an expert is in caring for those who served us in the military, taking care of our military retirees and our veterans. so i again would use this moment on the senate floor to pay tribute to my colleague, senator mccain. i want to thank him for his service to our nation and his willingness to work side by side with me as we develop legislation that deals with the issue of community care for veterans across the country. again, i highlighted last thursday that challenges at the v.a. caused congress to respond. that response would involve choice, legislation that now exists in which veterans under certain circumstances have the ability to find and be provided care within the community. they can see their hometown physician, be admitted to their hometown hospital under certain circumstances. the choice program has worked

well for many veterans just like the v.a. itself internally works well for many veterans. but i know from my own experience as a member of the united states senate that kansans have experienced significant challenges with v.a. programs and especially with the choice program in which the bureaucracy seemed to inhibit the ability for the v.a. to provide the care that veterans across kansas were seeking. i indicated last week that currently within our office we have 80 what we call cases in which we're dealing with veterans who are facing challenges from something they need from the v.a. and are not receiving it, and that's -- i looked at the numbers prior to that since i've been a member of the united states senate, that has occurred an 2,650 occasions in which a veteran seeks help from their united states senator for something we would expect them to be entitled to based upon their service to our nation. we're grateful to those ernst

haves. -- to those veterans. we want it make sure they're honored and esteemed. but we want to make sure that the promises to those who served our nation are kept. the legislation before us that has been approved by the house of representatives and is now in front of the senate has been title the v.a. mission act. we're actually successful in honoring senator mccain by including his name in that title. and again i appreciate his willingness to help create the choice program and now to reform and extend it. one of the challenges that i have taken upon myself is to make certain that we don't simply -- nothing is simple around here -- but we don't just extend the current choice program but that we reform it, improve it and make it less likely that those 80 veterans who are seeking help from me and my staff or those 2,650 who have sought help from me and my staff, that their challenges are a lot less. so i judge the efforts in this

legislation as what are we doing reduce the problems that veterans encounter in seeking the help that they are entitled to? and i ask for -- in a conversation with my staff i said, give me the top ten reasons why this legislation is a good thing. tell me why -- what are the top ten reasons that a member of the united states senate should vote for this legislation. and incidentally when we pass it, it will be forwarded to the president, and president trump has indicated his strong support for this legislation and i guess has -- every indication is that the president, since he supports the legislation, would sign this legislation into law and would do so prior to memorial day, a time in which we again pay respect to those who served our nation. my top-ten list became 12, and i would guess that if given more time and greater ability to spend time on the floor, that list of 12 could be expanded to a much longer business. but let me share with my

colleagues reasons why i think it is important nor this legislation to be approved and sent to the president. again, i was a concept particular -- skeptic early on, wanted to make certain we did something significant and not just extended the choice program into the future, but made significant changes. and the challenge has been to make certain that the v.a. does things that we would want them to do understand that they follow the law, the letter of the law of legislation that we pass, and that they follow the intent of members of congress and in regard to the choice act that had passed now three years or so ago, it was hard sometimes to see that the v.a. was implementing that legislation the way that it was written or the that i it was intended. -- or the way that it was intended. but, number one in that regard in the reasons -- now the top 12 reasons why this legislation should be approved is that this legislation makes certain that the v.a. executes the law consistent with the intent of

congress. it mandates coordination with congress as it develops rules and regulations under this new legislation, and the goal here that i expect to be successful in achieving is to prevent the v.a.'s ability to narrow or limit the program's opportunity to serve veterans, as was intended by this law and more importantly as they deserve. number two, this legislation consolidates community care programs. there are seven different community care programs within the v.a. in which a veteran can access care away from the hospital, the big brick buildings that most of us have in our states, usually in the most populated areas of our states, and those seven community care programs are consolidated into one community care, and that will reduce the

bureaucracy at the v.a. but also will make it more understandable for our veterans and for the providers, the doctors, hospitals, and others who provide care to veterans today in that community -- in those community care programs. one program, not seven. thirdly, we want to improve care coordination. by that we mean that the relationship that a veteran has with the v.a. and what that relationship means in them accessing care today and tomorrow and care related to their circumstances. this legislation requires the v.a. to provide a coordinator of care for veterans utilizing care in the community to ensure continuity of care and service in a timely manner so that it's an easier task for a veteran to receive what they need and demon a timely way and -- and done in a timely way and prevents lapses in care by increasing the

communications between the veteran and the v.a. community provider. the fourth one is it reforms eligibility. and this is an important one. they're all important, but this is especially important to me. so, under the choice tact we operate today, the v.a. was instructed to allow a veteran who lives more than 40 miles from a v.a. facility or it takes more than 30 days for that veteran to receive his or her care at the v.a. to provide at the veteran'sy, provider provide that -- at the veteran's choice, provide that care at the veteran's facility. having said that, it was never clear whether a veteran would qualify or not. that 30-day, 40-mile criteria empowered the v.a. to make decisions that often left a veteran who seemingly should be eligible uneligible for care in the community, and this

legislation indicates that the -- it removes the 30-day, 409-mile requirement -- the 40-mile requirement and it replaces it with the criteria, the eligibility that is what's in the best interest of the veteran? that's pretty important and pretty basic. one would expect that always to be the circumstance, but the criteria is changed now to what is in the best interest of the veteran? and the v.a. must meet clearly defined, routinely reviewed records -- excuse me, criteria as to whether or not that is eligible, whether or not that veteran's desire to have community care, whether he or she is eligible. so we're reducing the discretion, the decision is still made between the veteran and the v.a., but the v.a. has -- we have narrowed the discretion the department of veterans affairs has and left the opportunity for the veteran

when it's in his or her best interest to access that care in the community. so it's clearly defined and the criteria is routinely reviewed to make sure access is available and that quality standards are met. if it turns out -- and this is number five -- that the veteran disagrees with the decision made by the department of the veterans affairs as to whether he or she is eligible for care in the community, whether or not it is in his or her best interest, then there is an appeal to the hospital director in that person's area. in our case in kansas, this would be an appeal to the hospital director at the kolmary hospital, the dwight eisenhower hospital in leavenworth or the dole v.a. hospital in wichita. today when a veteran is denied access to care in the community, their only recourse is to call

their congressman, to call their united states senator, to complain and have us go to bat. and while we are all willing and welcome to -- we welcome the opportunity to serve those who served us, the reality is that no one -- and certainly no veteran -- ought to have to call their united states senator in order to get the v.a. to provide care that's in their best interest. and so this now gives a different route and hopefully a much more convenient route for veterans. we wouldn't have the 2,of 50 cases in the -- we wouldn't have the 2,650 cases if we had the absence of this provision. the veteran could have the opportunity to have their decision about their care, what's in their best interest, determined by the v. at home -- by the v.a. at home. so there's recourse for the veteran that's dissatisfied with the outcome. this provides full access for

veterans of care. what the veterans have used in using the choice act to date is they will get a referral to a physician but then that physician decides, well, you need lab work and you need an x-ray. and, unfortunately, that meant that the veteran had to return to the v.a. to seek an additional a approval for the lab work, an additional approval for the x-ray. and so we've redefined what it is, the referral involves, which is they are referred to -- they are referred forean episode of care -- for an episode of care. and that means -- and that means that the lab work, the entire episode is treated in completion in the community. not needed is the veteran having to recall, rerequest the v.a. to give them additional authorization. pardon me. the legislation also mandates regular market assessments to determine what care is available in the community and where the department of the veterans

affairs excels. and we know the department of veterans affairs has many medical programs, care and treatment that veterans want and can need and they excel at. this gives us a better understanding. it gives the veteran, the department of the veterans affairs, and us as members of congress in our oversight responsibilities to know what is available within the v.a. and what's available within the community, and again that lends itself to a determination of what is in the best interest of the veteran. number eight of that list of 12 is something that is important to us, members of congress, who have veterans that come from rural areas. we have 127 hospitals in kansas. 88 of them are designed as critical access hospitals. it is a designation under medicare, and it provides a cost-based reimbursement for that health care provider. it means that our smallest

hospitals in our smallest communities have a medicare reimbursement rate that's designed to keep them in business, to keep their doors open. unfortunately, the choice act in its current form only requires the v.a. to reimburse at medicare rates. that rate was never interpreted by the v.a. to be the rate that that hospital received from medicare patients, only a more standard medicare rate and this legislation requires that the care be paid for at that critical-access hospital designation rate. the same is trusion i hope, for our rural health clinics so that physicians and hospitals receive the amount of money that they would receive if they were treating a medicare patient. why is this important? it's important because it encourages our hospitals to accept veterans into the community care program.

the amount of reimbursement them receive would be the same as they would receive for for a medicare patient and our hospitals in that circumstance are honking on financially by a thread -- are hanging on financially by a thread anyway. this gives them a reimbursement rate that will cover the cost. it will encourage more hospitals to accept choice community care patients and increase the choice chances of those hospitals be alive and well into the future. number nine, this bill allows for access to walk-in care, something that is changing in our health care delivery system is the ability to go to a pharmacy and have your blood pressure taken or get an inoculation, a vaccine. so access walk-in care is becoming more common across our state. in kansas and around the country, and this allows our veterans to receive under this community care program care from local walk-in clinics,

convenient care clinics, federally funded health centers, giving veterans the same access to non-emergent convenience care that other than veterans now receive. so allowing walk-in care at your local clinic is a much more convenient and a much more cost-effective way of addressing the issue of access to care across the state of kansas and around the country. number 10 in my list of 12 is -- provides additional funds to maintain the veteran choice program during its development and implementation. one of the challenges we faced is the department of veterans affairs' inability to determine actually how much money is required to keep the choice program going. this legislation keeps the program in place while we transition. i serve as a member of the appropriations committee and have chaired the subcommittee that funds department of veterans affairs. and we've been worried that

every time there is a shortfall in the money available for choice that we will see the v.a. reduce the number of veterans that qualify for care and therefore starve the program and the networks that have been built up with health care providers in the community will disappear. this is stabilizing. it's a process issued but it's important because it allows for care to continue during the interim as we move to this new legislation. number 11, increases access to telemedicine. the v.a. is known for its telemedicine. as a high-quality provider of telemedicine, but the opportunity to expand that especially for rural veterans or specialty care where it is expensive for that care to provide and we don't have providers in every v.a. setting or where a veteran lives is so remote that getting to the department of veterans affairs hospital is a challenge.

the state of kansas has lots of rural communities, and we are long distances. it can be a four- or five-hour drive. i've been joined on the floor by the ranking member of the veterans' committee on which i serve, from montana. the senator from montana understands very well the challenges that rural veterans face in getting access to care when it is a distance away. and finally, we're going to work hard to foster innovation within the department of veterans affairs. this legislation creates the v.a. center for innovation, care, and payment allowing the v.a. to more efficiently develop and carry out pilot programs to test and check out innovative solutions, approaches to improving the care for veterans, improving the access to care, improving the cost associated with that care and trying to find ways that we can better assist our veterans at a more cost-effective way. mr. president, i again reiterate

my support for the v.a. mission act and honor center mccain, who this legislation is named for, and i look forward to its passage. i'm encouraged by the vote. i think there were 94 senators who voted in favor of it. it has broad support, and it was my pleasure to work with my colleagues on the veterans' affairs committee who i would now, in the case of senator tester, the senator from montane floor to. mr. tester: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. tester: thank you, mr. president. thank you, senator more -- moran for your kind comments. i first want to start out my comments by acknowledging the chair of the senate veterans' affairs committee. we would not be here today taking up the v.a. missions act without the leadership of senator johnny isakson from

georgia. he is a fierce advocate for veterans and has been an incredible pleasure for me to work with. the bipartisanship and the collaboration on our senate veterans' affairs committee happens because we leave politics at the door, and that is possible because of johnny's personality and johnny's leadership style, as well as his commitment to the veterans of this nation. i'd also like to thank the many veterans service organizations who have weighed in and provided positive feedback on the v.a. mission act. 38 veterans organizations representing millions of veterans and service men and women nationwide support the v.a. mission act. khefb asking for choice -- they have been asking for choice, reform and responsible investment in the v.a., and this bill gets it done. i want to thank the house

veterans' affairs committee for working with us and getting a bill drafted that we can all be proud of. at the beginning of this congress, we set out to draft a bill that strengthens the v.a. as senator moran pointed out, coming from a state like montana, a rural state, 147,000 square miles, i know you cannot have a v.a. clinic in every community. but veterans cannot always drive two hours to the nearest v.a. clinic, and they certainly can't afford to wait months for an appointment. and that is why we need private health care to fill in the gaps when the v.a. cannot deliver that health care. but i also know how much veterans need the services they get from a v.a. clinic. in my dozens and dozens and dozens of face-to-face listening sessions with veterans, they have told me that the kind of care they get from the v.a. is

important. they are surrounded by their peers, many of whom have experienced mental and physical challenges of being in combat. v.a. doctors and nurses know how to treat ptsd and other wounds. the best defense against privatizing the v.a. or sending veterans wholesale is to make sure that the v.a. is living up to our promise to the veterans. the v.a. missions act recognizes that there is a balance between the v.a. care and community care and invests in medical and clinical staff to serve veterans at the v.a. it builds the capacity within the v.a. and it uses private sector to fill in the gaps when the v.a. falls short. it takes the bill that johnny and i wrote, the caring for our veterans act, and adds a few things. with the foundation of this legislation is something that senator isakson and i have written over the course of the last year with veterans' groups.

so i'm incredibly proud to be standing here today to hopefully push this bill to the president's desk. the choice program was created with an important mission, to make it easier and faster for veterans to get health care. it hasn't worked like that for many veterans. veterans like tom, retired u.s. navy commander of the vietnam war in montana, in his 24 years as a navy pilot, tom spent a lot time yelling to be heard over the roar of an engine. it took a toll on his ability to hear. three years ago he began the process of getting hearing aids tpr-fplt -- from the v.a. he got his hearing test done but when it came time to o# 0 the hearing aids he was told he wasn't authorized. the nearest facility was almost three hours away so he and his

wife drove 45 miles away just across the line from his home in noxon, montana. here he hit another snag. after weeks of back and forth visits, the authorization was again denied because he was not a resident of idaho. so he returned to square one. he drove five hours to fort harrison, 250 miles away, and with assistance from my office, he got the authorization for those hearing aids. tom had to drive two five-hour round trips to a choice provider and a few months later he finally received his hearing aids. all in all, tom drove nearly 20 hours to get those hearing aids, and i'm here to tell you it shouldn't be that hard for a veteran to get the health care they earned from the v.a. and you know what the worst part is? there is an audiologist in tom's time that could have helped him if the v.a. would just realize how important it would have been

to access that audiologist instead of driving on the road. unfortunately tom is not the only veteran with a story like this. there is a veteran in lake county with several choices scheduled include the choice program thepbl -- then told he wasn't eligible after his appointment. he got pneumonia and my office stepped in and got him what he needed. bruce was a fellow veteran who couldn't get an appointment with the choice program after hip surgery. he was told he wouldn't wait more than five days and then couldn't get anybody on the phone. we were able to help him get the follow-up care he needed. or terry in butte who got a procedure done through the choice program, was approved, completed and then he was told he didn't qualify for the choice program. again the u.s. senator had to step in in so terry didn't have to foot the bill for his health care. i could go on and on. veterans across the state of

montana have called my office for help since the choice program was started. their frustration over issues like scheduling or reimbursement or traveling long distance for care are a sorry way to say thank you to those folks who have served this country. but, mr. president, it shouldn't take a senate office stepping in to make sure that the government lives up to its promise to america's veterans. so chairman isakson and i wrote a bill that reforms the entire system. we negotiated with the house, the white house, the veterans and advocates to move our bill forward. caring for our veterans act was a giant step forward, and thanks to the leadership of the house veterans' affairs committee and our effort, the caring for our veterans act is included in the v.a. missions act. our bill gets rid of seven different community care programs including choice and replaces them with one community health care system that streamlines a set of rules for veterans and local providers and

v.a. staff. it will be much easier to understand. under the missions act, if a veteran wants to get care in their community, they can have a discussion with their doctor and decide what's best. the v.a. doctors and nurses won't have to spend time which program to refer a veteran to. veterans won't be waiting months for payments from the v.a. a new streamlined payment system will make sure they get paid in a timely manner. and our bill holds the v.a. accountable and requires them to create a business plan to tell us exactly how the agency will spend taxpayers' dollars if and when they ask for additional funding. our bill brings more providers to work at the v.a., especially in rural and tribal areas, and vet centers. and it breaks down barriers along state lines and prevents veterans from access mental health care closer to home. the bill also expands the caregivers program to veterans

and their caregivers of all areas. this was a provision that senator murray worked on very, very hard. it was the right thing to do. senator isakson made it a priority of his. the v.a. and community care are equally important, as the v.a. health care system knows it will either starve the v.a. to death, empower the rural community hospitals, or, as this bill does, strikes a balance -- or as this bill does, strikes a balance, the right balance, between investing in the v.a.'s ability to provide the care for our veterans, cutting the bureaucracy, and when it makes sense for the veteran, for that veteran to be able to go to a local doctor. the v.a. missions act is a bold

bipartisan product of working together that puts health care decisions in the hands of the veterans. it breaks down barriers to health care wherever it makes sense for the veteran to get the care that they need. this nation owes our veterans much more than a thank you. veterans deserve a health care system that works for them regardless of where they live, what medical condition they are struggling with or whatever their means. our bill gets rid of the one size fits all system and creates a more efficient and easier to navigate system for veterans. i would urge the senate to pass the v.a. missions act, to send a message that saying thank you isn't enough for those that put their lives on the line for our nation. we're going to deliver them a health care system that's worthy of their service. mr. president, i would turn the floor over to senator johnny isakson, the chairman of the veterans' affairs committee. mr. isakson: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. isakson: mr. president, before the senator from montana

leaves, i want to thank him for three years of dedicated service to the committee. the last two in particular as we put together the pieces of the shrapnel which was the original attempts to make choice work, to be a streamlined program that's going to work for all of our veterans. and jon tester has been a magnificent ranking member, phag leader and i appreciate the kind things he had to say to me by i say ditto to you. the same to fill row in the house -- to phil roe in the house, has been a stalwart. the reason we're able to act today like the house did last week and pass a bill before memorial day is because both bodies worked together and the votes have been overwhelming. our motion to invoke cloture was 91-4. the house passed this 3-1 when they passed it from final passage. there is a lot of unanimity but that should not be disguised for the effort it took. it took a lot of effort to get where we're and a lot of people doing that effort.

a lot of republicans, a lot of democrats. a tremendous amount of staff time. we went from doing the art of the impossibly to making the art of the possible something with everybody working together, leaving our political weapons at the door and putting our good heads together to make the veterans administration system better for our veterans. my speech is not to be long because senator moran and senator tester covered the types of examples that the new choice program brings for all our veterans. a real choice, real opportunity to make the private sector a force multiplier for access to health care for our veterans. to also make our health care system for our veterans accountable, accountable to the most important people of all, and that's our veterans. it does a few other things too. it creates the caregiver program for the vietnam era veterans. it hasn't been talked about much on the floor but patty murray on our committee, susan collins have tried to get benefits for vietnam veterans and other veterans not covered previously. with the passage of this bill they will be covered.

for those that have the basic necessities of life as necessities to have covered for them will get it done. veterans who came home from a terrible war in vietnam with many injuries we've never seen people survive before also needed care we thought we'd never have to pay for before but we're doing it with caregivers, and for that generation which is my generation, i'm proud to say we've looked after them, seeing to it they're included and working hard on doing so. # we've also made choice accountable to our veterans at a lower cost to our taxpayer than would have been otherwise were we providing that service solely by the v.a. you get choice, you get quality, you get better service. you get a better v.a. and a better service for our veterans. there have been a lot of people that made this happen. senator john mccain, when he originally four years ago introduced the idea of choice, founded it and that's why his name is part of it. we could not have done it without john. we wish him through our prayers and our blessings today to

recover as he is in arizona. i want to thank joan carr on my staff and patrick, amanda maddox, sal ortega, christine woods. my staff has been phenomenal. they've done a great job. they have a put up with a lot, worked hard, and got here because of it. but also the unsung heroes of the veterans' affairs committee that have helped john test,myself, and all our members to see we dotted every i and crossed every t. admires who deserves a special shout-out who has done double duty and done a great job toest go us where we are today. nor republican o'neil, david sherman, camille moore, thomas coleman, mitchell service, hedger vashen and paul lean schmidt. we could not have done our job if not for those people who work long hours to see that we got it done. so here i am in the united

states senate. i am speaking with my first amendment rights. you're gathered in the galleries today and watching this on c-span because of the first amendment, gathering because the amendment that allows us to freely gather and asystemmable without fear of rett tricks by the government. our bill of rights are the rights we operate under. we wouldn't have it if not for our veterans. next monday we'll give thanks for every veteran who sacrificed their life and gave the ultimate sacrifice for you and i. that's not unreasonable to think back and say, you know, had our soldiers not done what they did in world war i and world war ii, we might be speaking german or japanese today rather than english. because they fought for us in the two great world wars, they -- and preserved our liberty and freedom, we speak today as free americans and we enjoy the freedom that only democracy could give. but that's what we owe our veterans. we owe them everything. without them, we wouldn't have the protections we have today. as memorial day approaches, i

love to tell my favorite story of the great reminder i have of what memorial day is really all about. it's all about a veteran, roy c. irwin from the state of new jersey. i never met him, i never knew him. what i was in mar gratin in the netherlands at the united states cemetery where americans are buried from the battle of the bulge. my wife and i paid tribute and respect at the graves of our veterans and soldiers. we walked down the rows to look at the stars of david and the crosses, paused for a minute at each headstone, gave a prayer of thanks to the veteran who sacrificed everything so we could be there. then something happened to me that has never happened and could happen to any one of you. i came upon a headstone, a cross, stopped and read it. it said "roy c. irwin," new jersey, private. died, killed in action, 12/28/44. i froze in my place.

you see, 12/28/44 was not just the day he died in the battle of the bulge fighting for us. it was the day i was i have goin' life by my mother in georgia. so there i was standing at the foot of a cross of somebody who died the day i was born. he gave his life so i could enjoy mine. i have had 73 1/2 years since that time that i have been able to be a free citizen of the united states of america by people like roy c. irwin who volunteered for our country, won our freedom, maintained our independence and saw to it that you and i could be here today and i've always stopped to give thanks every memorial day for all those who pledged and gave the ultimate sacrifice so that i could be here to make a sacrifice for you. so i look at our pages in the room today and i think back over my children and grandchildren. i'm so happy that they had the opportunity to grow up in the united states of america and so happy you have the ability to serve here today.

but remember this. you andry both here because of one thing -- we're a country full of brave volunteers who when the bell tolls, answer the bell and go fight for america, fight for our freedom, fight for our peace, and fight for our liberty. so strike one for liberty when we vote on the final passage on the v.a. mission act. vote for the better health care of our veterans, the choice of our veterans, caregivers for our veterans who v had it in the past, give thanks and with your vote on that bill here we'll have to pay our debt to those who sacrificed or offered to sacrifice the maximum sacrifice for us. we are a great country for lots of reasons. we don't ever find anybody trying to break out of the united states of america. you always find them trying to break in. if there's one big difference over any, it's those that have fought and died so that we could be free and american citizens forever. may god bless our soldiers and may god bless our country and may god bless the united states of america. i yield back my time.

the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, two days before the tragic shooting in santa fe that has rightly dominated the news for the last several days, texas experienced another mass shooting when a man killed his three children, his ex-wife's boyfriend and himself. mass shootings are generally characterized as incidences where four or more people are shot at one time. that is a catastrophic event for a community to have four people shot at one instance.

that shooting two days before the santa fe school shooting was the 100th mass shooting in the united states of america in 2018. we average about a mass shooting every single day in this country in three days following the santa fe high school shooting, there were around 88 gun deaths and 222 gun injuries in this country. that's a big number. it's the most in any 72-hour span so far in 2018. rightly, our attention has been directed towards the community of santa fe, as they try to recover from the unrecoverable. another targeting of children in a school in this country. but it's important to remind

ourselves that no matter whether the shooting happens on a street corner, in a school, in a movie theater, or in one's home, the devastation to those that lose their brother or their sister or their husband or their wife, it's no less or no greater. whatever the circumstances may be. and in the three days after santa fe, as the country could have been deluded into thinking that that was the only shooting of any consequence in the country, 88 people lost their lives from guns and 222 others were shot and survivedment. -- and survived. part of the 33,000 a year, 2,800 a month and the 3 on average a day. -- and 993 on average a day that are -- and 93 on average that are killed by guns in this country. it is a mix of domestic violence indenses, mass shootings and whommifieds. there is no other country in the world in which this number is

this big. there have been 5,531 deaths from gun violence in 2018 alone. that's according to gun violence archive. 1,200 kids have been killed or injured, and we're not even halfway through the year. our rate of gun violence in this country is 20 times higher than all of our other competitor oecd nations, and it is not because our schools are less safe. it is not because we have more incidences of mental illness. it is not because we have more troubled young men. it's not because we spend less money on law enforcement. you control for all the other factors that people claim to be the reasons for that's crimes, and it cannot -- it does not explain why this epidemic is happening here and nowhere else. what is different about the

united states is that we have the loosest, laxest gun laws in the nation. shooting after shooting, killing after killing, we do nothing. we do nothing of substance or significance to condemn or change this trajectory of violence. and i will argue to you that would-be shooters who are contemplating acts of mass violence, who clearly have had something go wrong in their mind to consider such a thing, see our silence as a green light. now, of course we don't mean it that way. but when we refuse to do anything other than miner tweaks to federal gun laws year after year, young men that are contemplating doing things like this, seeing no substantial condemnation or change in law, pervert that silence into permission.

i think that's what's happening today. that's why i argue that we have become complicit in these murders, whether we think we are or not. so we're grieving hard for santa fe, but we're grieving hard for all of the other victims. i sat with the president at the white house a few months ago as he told us that he was going to fix this problem. he was lying. he wasn't telling the truth. he had no intention of fixing the problem. the president had the gun lobby in the next day and all of a sudden the discussion evaporated. he talked a lot in that meeting about school safety and arming teachers, but it's important to note that santa fe high had adopted really aggressive measures to prevent a school shooting. they had resource officers, two

of them, they were armed. they had planned to arm teachers. they had started to do so. they had gone through a very successful lockdown, won ward for that response. and so this is a school that thought they were ready, and they weren't. this has got to be about a conversation rooted in data, and the data will tell you that more guns doesn't solve this problem, that for every time a gun that you own is used in self-defense, there are four times that a privately owned gun is used in an unintentional shooting, seven times that a privately owned gun is used in an assault sore a murder, and 11 times that a gun is used in a suicide. so the data just doesn't back up the fact that more guns are going to solve this problem.

but beyond the data, there are these faces, there are these people, there are these lives that were cut short, and so i want to spend the remaining few minutes telling you a few of their stories. i've tried to do that over the year, to come down and put a hole in the data and let you know who these people are that we have lost. on average, psychiatrists and mental health professionals tell us that when one person is killed by a gun, there are 20 other people who experience trauma or some level of trauma. so in santa fe, we think a lot today about cynthia tisdale. she was 63, a substitute teacher for children with special needs. she got married when she was 17 years old and she took care of her ailing husband. he was very sick for 47 years. he said she was a good woman, she watched out for me.

her son said, she loved to help children. she didn't have to do it, she did it because she loved it. cynthia tisdale is gone at 63. sabika sheikh was 17 years old and unlike the others who were killed in that school, she didn't have any family in the united states. santa fe was her adoptive community of the she was staying with a family and her family that she left behind, her adoptive family in texas said we loved her and she loved us. adding that the root of our issues is love because when people love each other, these kinds of things don't happen. sabika dreamed one day of being a diplomat and working to empower women. she died at age 17. christopher jake stone was the youngest of three siblings in santa fe. he and his siblings were known as "the three stones."

his sister said being a brother was his best job. he was always there if somebody needed someone to listen or cheering up. definitely the life of the party and one of the most understanding, open-minded kids i know. he had a lot of heart, she saida facebook message. two days later, to give you a sense of the scope of this, kimberly phillips was in a parking lot, a shell gas station in chattanooga, tennessee, when her ex-husband found her, shot her, and then killed himself afterwards. a murder-suicide, one of the thousands of domestic violence partner-on-partner incidents that happen in this country. one of her coworkers at the

senior living community where she lives said today i love one of the most caring people i had on my team. she loved the residents and took their care very seriously. she was 48 years old. the day before that, sherelle wheatley was walking home from feeding one of her neighbor's dogs in dayton, ohio. her neighbor said she did this all the time. she'd cook a lot and take all the scraps and bring it to feed the neighbors' dog. she was walking home, and she was shot. a bystander in a drive-by shooting. she was a mom, a grand mom, an aunt, an active member in her community, a volunteer at the local elementary school, a pillar of kindness. her son who is a quadriplegic, who is a quadriplegic, who relied on her care, said that was my mom helping people, even at the moment she died.

i loved her. she was my angel. she was my everything. and somebody snatched that away from me. those are just five of the victims that died over a two- or three-day period of time. 33,000 a year, 2800 a month and 93 a day and we're doing nothing. i appreciate sph-fp -- some of my colleagues working to adjust the background checks this year. i'm not saying that's not enough. what is wild is we're the only ones that think we don't need to do anything. americans have woken up to what's happening and they're desperate for us to change the laws. 97% of americans think we should pass universal background checks. by a two to one margin people think we should get these assault weapons, these military-style killing machines off the streets. people support things like we did in kentucky, requiring

people to -- did in connecticut, requiring people to get local permits before carrying a handguns. increasingly americans have come to realize that no one is safe in that heartbreaking video, a young woman just, i think, hours after the shooting was asked by a newscaster whether she found it hard to fathom that the school shooting had happened to her, at her school. and to paraphrase her answer, she said, no, i wasn't surprised. it happens everywhere and i just figured it was a matter of time before it happened here. nicole hockley, who lost her son in sandy hook, says all the time that she never ever expected to be one of these parents grieving the loss of a child. and she reminds everyone she talks to that you don't imagine that you will be in that situation either. but if you don't do something about it, if you don't stand up and speak truth to power, then

it might be you too. mr. president, i will continue to come down to the floor and tell these stories, these voices of the victims that have been silenced through gun violence. and hopefully at some point we will wake up to the need for change. i yield the floor. and i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. thune: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: madam president, is the senate in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. thune: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: madam president, tax reform is working. the results of two vais released last -- two surveys released last week is showing that tax reform is doing exactly what it should be doing for american workers. our goal for tax reform was simple, make life better for american workers so we took action to put more money in americans' pockets. we nearly doubled the standard deduction and doubled the child tax credit. americans are already seeing this relief in their paychecks.

but we knew that tax cuts, as essential as they were, were not enough. in order to make life better for american workers, we also needed to make sure that americans had access to good jobs, good wages, and good opportunities, the kinds of jobs and opportunities that would set thumb up for security -- them up for security and prosperity in the long term. since jobs and opportunities are created by businesses, that meant reforming our tax code to improve the playing field for businesses so they could improve the playing field for workers. and that's what we did, and i am proud to report that it's working. last week the national association of manufacturers released the result of its recent tax reform survey, and here's what the survey showed. 77% of manufacturers planned to increase hiring as a result of tax reform. 72% plan to increase wages or

benefits, and 86% report that they plan to increase investments, which means new jobs an opportunities for workers -- and opportunities for workers. madam president, these are tremendous results and what we were looking for with tax reform. government can make sure it isn't taking too much out of america's pockets, but it can't create the jobs and opportunities that americans need for long-term economic security and prosperity. only businesses can do that. but government can make sure that businesses are free to create jobs by making sure they are not weighed down with burdensome taxes and regulations, and that's exactly what we set out to do with tax reform. before the tax cuts and jobs act the government was not helping businesses to create jobs. in fact, it was doing the opposite, and that had real consequences for american workers. a small business owner struggling to afford the hefty

annual tax bill for her business was highly unlikely to be able to hire ha new worker -- hire a new worker or raise wages. a larger business struggling to stay competitive in the global marketplace while paying substantially higher tax rate too often did have the funds to increase in the united states. when it came time for tax reform, we set out to improve the playing field for american workers by improving the playing field for businesses as well. to accomplish that, we lowered tax rates across the board for owners of small and medium-sized businesses, farms, and ranches. we lowered our nation's massive corporate tax rate which until january 1 was the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world. we expanded a business owner's ability to free up cash that

they can reinvest in their operations and workers. and we brought the u.s. international tax system into the 21st century by replacing our outdated worldwide system with a modernized territorial tax system so americans are not operating at a disadvantage next to this their foreign competitors. and now we're seeing the results. i'll say it again. 77% of manufacturers -- 77% are planning to increase hiring. 72% are planning to increase wages or benefits, and 86% are planning to increase investments which creates new jobs and new opportunities for american workers. and i haven't even mentioned last week's other survey on small businesses. the national federation of independent business released a survey last week that shows that 75% of small business owners think that the tax cuts and jobs

act will have a positive effect on their business. the survey also showed that among small business owners who expect to pay less in taxes next year, 44% plan to increase employee compensation and more than a quarter plan to hire new employees, and those numbers may get even better. as the survey shows, small businesses are just starting to explore all the benefits of the new tax law. since small businesses, unlike large businesses, don't have full-time tax departments to plan for and take into account the new tax changes. most small businesses spend the first part of each year focused on preparing and filing their taxes from the prior year, not to mention running their businesses, which means with tax day now behind them, they are just now having the chance to explore the benefits of the tax cuts and jobs act. in addition, their tax advisors,

many of whom are often small businesses members, have also wrapped up most of their filing season responsibilities, so they now can help their small business clients with factoring the new tax changes into their business plans. madam president, american workers had a tough time during the last administration. wages stagnated and jobs and opportunities were often few and far between, but thanks to the tax cuts and jobs act and other republican initiatives, our economy is turning around. unemployment is at its lowest level in more than 17 years. economists have upped their projections for economic growth, and the good news more american workers just keeps piling up. more jobs, more opportunities, higher wages, and better benefits. madam president, the american dream is roaring back and the

future is looking bright. madam president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. manchin: madam president, i ask the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. manchin: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule 22 that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. 2906 which is at the desk, that the bill be read a third time and passed and the motion be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. tillis: reserving the right to object. i want to just thank my friend, senator manchin. he and i serve on the v.a. committee. i know he's absolutely committed to trying to do the absolute best for our veterans. we may have a disagreement on what he has in mind for this particular u.c. but i don't think there's any daylight in between us for what we're trying to do with veterans and i look forward to working with the chair to get to a good place and in the -- address in the setting of the committee some of the concerns he has. for that reason i object. mr. manchin: madam president? the presiding officer: the objection is heard. the objection is heard. mr. manchin: i would like the right to proceed if i may. first, i want to thank my good friend from north carolina, senator tillis. i always wanted to work in a bipartisan way and i appreciate

it very much because we have very much concerns about the v.a. and all our veterans. you're in a state that has a tremendous population and i have a state that has a tremendous population of veterans. i rise today to speak to my frustration that the asset and infrastructure review or the so-called era act provision is being qlud in what is otherwise a very good package. i want to thank chairman isakson, ranking member tester, senator tillis for all the hard work on the overall mission act. the mission act is going to do so many good things. it's going to streamline how we provide nonv.a. care. it is finally expanding caregivers for veterans of all eras and it will make it easier for the v.a. to hire high quality providers. i am against adding the asset and infrastructure review act or as i like to call it the v.a. brac. into this bill because it could be detrimental to veterans. it was supposedly acted by house

republicans to the mission act because the senate insisted the caregivers bill be included. i am a proud cosponsor of the caregivers bill because it does not make sense to give a benefit to one era of veterans and not give it to them all. i want to thank my colleague, senator murray, for the years they has dedicated to the caregivers issue. the act was never voted on or discussed in the senate veterans committee. it was never ever voted on or discussed in the senate veterans affairs committee. the house caregivers companion bill is bipartisan and has 90 cosponsors. we could pass this bill without the act in a heart beat. the act will not come close to paying for the bill. instead it puts rural hospitals and fate, like those in west virginia in the crosshairs of the bureaucrats and techocrats

who do not know my veterans and what they need. the cares commission was in the early 2,000's. it recommended closing the acute in-patient hospital beds in contracting for acute care in the community for the beckly v.a. medical center. only after stakeholders yelled and scream did the secretary not follow the recommendations. today those 25 acute care beds and five i.c.u. beds are vitally important not just for our southern west virginia veteran community but the entire community. administrators at the surrounding hospitals have told me they could not absorb the v.a. patients load. we're lucky then to have local stakeholders holler and scream and a secretary who listened who will be so luck any in the future. furthermore, should veterans have to endure the uncertainty that their v.a. hospital may not always be there for them. my veteran population is nearly 40% vietnam veterans. in the last ten years there was a nearly 20% decrease in my

veteran population because of our world war ii and korean veterans are dying and my vietnam veterans are not getting any younger. if we send in this commission in and they do the analysis, my fear is resources and funding will be realigned away from our patriotic west virginia veterans. phoenix gets picked over clarksburg, los angeles over beckly, washington, d.c. over martinsburg, and orlando over huntington. i feel sure the v.a. will follow the law, hold their public hearings and reach statements put in the federal register but still have the power to close or downsize west virginia facilities. just because you are a veteran living in a rural area does not mean you do not serve the same quality and access of care that you would receive in an urban area. is this truly about taking evaluation of waste or is this the slow filing away of the v.a. infrastructure as we know it. i'm sure that the mission act just passed out of the house

347-70, and i have a lot of good friends on both sides of the aisle who want the overall bill. it has the support of the national veterans service organizations and the effects of this bill will not likely come into being until 2025. and i will not be serving in the senate then. yet for the sake of the veteran population in west virginia, i have to say something publicly. the act a could have detrimental second or third order effects in our communities. if this bill passes with the act in it, the powers that wish to downsize the level of care that we give to veterans will should -- we'll see it as a victory but they should be prepared for robust, exhaustive oversight by me and my colleagues on the committee. if we don't have the market assessment, access to other population data and if the central office doesn't start filing some of the -- filling some of the health care provider vacancies in west virginia v.a. medical center, i will reluctantly put a hold on in nominees for this commission.

i will encourage my colleagues from rural states that represent rural areas to do the same. thank you, madam president. a senator: madam president? the presiding the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. tillis: thank you, madam president. i -- there's a million reasons why i love north carolina, but one of them is that it's a state of ten million people. about half those people live in urban areas, and the other half live in rural areas. it's also a state that one in ten people in the state are veterans and it also is the state that proudly claimed being one of the fastest growing veterans populations in the country. when i go into the v.a. committee and i look at what we've got to do, i don't look at it as coming from an urban state. i don't look at it as coming from a rural state. in many respects, i think that north carolina is a microcosm of the nation as a whole. when we look at some of the changes that we want to make, what i hope we get out of this review is what do we do with the 430 empty buildings, many of

them as much as 90 years old that are owned by the v.a.? and we may have to do basic maintenance on them but they're properties that may have historic value. maybe we can convey them to the states and sell them and use those resources to blow back into quality -- plow back into quality care for the veterans. i can tell my friend from west virginia we share a mountain range together. we share a lot of cultures out in the western part of our state and west virginia, and there's no way on earth that i would allow the v.a. to move forward on something that i felt like was going further away from providing quality care to any veteran anywhere in west virginia and north carolina or any other rural area. i do believe, though, on the one hand we continue to say we don't have enough money for veterans. on the other hand we say we've got to find some of those additional resources by taking steps to make the v.a. more efficient, shed the assets that are no longer providing value to the veterans. i for one believe we can do it on a balanced basis. but as this process goes

through, it's actually an authority that the v.a. has today. they haven't acted on it. we're trying to put more pressure on them making some concise decisions. the gentleman from west virginia has my commitment that any instance where we see a decision being made by the v.a., that something that's going to take veterans further away from care, then i'd be the first one to join him in making sure we don't allow that to happen. thank you, madam president. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. manchin: i agree with my colleague from north carolina, we don't want to continue if there's areas and assets that can be done away with for efficiencies. i understand that that can be done without this. the act -- it was never even discussed in our committee. we never had the bill in front of us at all. that's all i was saying. how all of a sudden did this get

thrown in. i understand because of what we put in, the expansion of how we were going to take care of caregivers to all populations of veterans, that they were upset on the house side. this was put in retribution to that i just objected to how it was put in, what the intent was. i believe the v.a. can dispose of excess properties that have been closed, vacant, not in utilization. i'm concerned that they're going to come back and say, okay, in the rural area, we're going to close this and consal late. we have more and more need right now and a greater need than some of our population base, especially with conflicts around the world now. i never talked to a veteran that did not want veteran care. if there was any way he could get to a veterans hospital or a clinic, that was the people that knew him best and knew how to take care of their concerns. and that's all i'm trying to preserve. i don't know what the intentions are of this. that's why i wanted to have that removed.

then we can discuss it in our senate v.a. committee and maybe make a better way of reviewing the excess properties and the properties not being utilized. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. rounds: thank you, madam president. i rise to discuss the legislation known as the mission v.a. act of 2018. a significant change for the health care delivery system at the department of veteran affairs. the v.a. mission act passed the house of representatives last week and is scheduled to be voted on in the senate in the coming days. the bill is the result of months

of negotiations and discussions between stakeholders, the administration and house and senate veterans affairs committees of which i am a member. while i appreciate the hard work of those involved, unfortunately the final legislation is not something that i am able to support. before i get into my concerns about the bill and what i believe to be its fatal flaws, i want top point out there are a host of good provisions that i do support. the one on the forefront is the caregivers expansion. the caregivers program, the program that gives support and assistance to certain veterans so they can receive home health care by a family member has always been limited to post-9/11 veterans. however, there are many pre9/11 veteran family members who do the same work as a caregiver recipient but not compensated for that work. this program is more cost

effective than an alternative long-term care accommodation. i also support section 101, paragraph a, which expands extended care services such as nursing home care through the community care program. it is similar to a bill that i introduced with the senior senator from north dakota, thes veterans access to long-term care act. this provision will allow long-term care services to more easily work with the v.a. in serving veterans. further, section 101, paragraph k of the v.a. mission act establishes in law that a veteran shall not pay a greater amount for receiving care or services outside of the v.a. compared to receiving care at a v.a. facility. it is similar to the veterans' equal cost for care act that i introduced in congress last year. this section makes certain

veterans will know that v.a. policy will not change in this regard and that the v.a. will not place additional financial barriers for veterans to access care outside of the v.a. at a private provider in an effort to incentivize in-house v.a. care. last, section 101, paragraph d-1-d of this bill, along with section 104, requires the v.a. to get appropriate access standards when seeking health care. however, i remain concerned that the v.a. will not implement it properly. if the v.a. implements access standards similar to try care -- tricare, then these sections would be et good -- would be good for veterans. now, let me get into my concerns with the bill. this bill makes significant changes to the 40-mile rule

under the choice program, and i am concerned it puts our rural veterans in jeopardy. the choice act, which congress passed in 2014, before i took office, allowed all veterans who live 40 or more miles from a v.a. facility to receive care at a local, private hospital or clinic. under the v.a. mission act, this provision will end for all veterans, except those in the top five rural states after two years. when the choice act was first enacted giving veterans the opportunity to seek treatment in their chiewnt than a -- community rather than a v.a. facility, they overwhelmingly chose to stay close to home and receive private care. they voted with their feet. many, because of the law, are getting better private local care. i believe those veterans who use this type of care successfully today ought to be able to use this program in the future no

matter which state he or she is from. in fact, these concerns were addressed when the original legislation was crafted in the senate veterans' affairs committee and all those who used veterans choice program were grandfathered in using the 40-mile rule in perpetuity. unfortunately the one in committee is not the one in front of us today. i understand the number crunchers did the math and that the one addressed in committee was too expensive and didn't want to pay this much for the care of our veterans. so the provision i offered was cut down significantly to be cut down to the top five rural states, including my home state of south dakota. while south dakota was fortunate enough to be part of the top five states, this country has many rural states and rural veterans who rely on the choice program's 40-mile eligibility to get their health care. there are roughly 750,000

eligible 40-mile veterans across the united states. of this portion a little less than half, or 330,000 veterans have used this eligibility to receive health care. in just two years, many of these veterans will no longer be eligible to receive health care outside of the system based on the 40-mile rule alone as they do today. instead, more veterans will have to work through more gatekeepers and review processes to get their community care requests granted if it is granted at all. just as important is the way 40-mile eligible veterans receive this care. currently when a veteran wants community care, they get community care. there are little, if any, barriers to access community care today. the v.a. a. can't decide for --

v.a. can't decide for the veteran where he or she should get the care. the veteran is in total control of their care. there are no reviews, gatekeepers or consultations, the veteran just goes. but under the v.a. mission act, as it stands today, a v.a. clinton -- clincian must help. v.a. must -- when consulting with a veteran on where the veteran should go for health care. consider, that's not a very tough or obligatory rule, and that doesn't leave much room to put our veterans above all else. my concern here is that when this bill is signed into law, rules will start to be written

and the number crunchers are going to influence every rule to meet the bare minimum of the required language. just in case anyone is interested in an example, let me briefly remind the chamber, that the original choice act intended to care for veterans who live 4. facility. how was that rule initially written? community care was based on 40 miles as the crow flies. that's right, as the crow flies. it took intense pressure from the veterans organizations and congress to amend that rule to be based on driving distance, or better known as the way almost every veteran travels to a v.a. facility, driving distance. why was that rule written to determine community care as the crow flies? cost -- cost, and nothing more. the v.a. wrote the rule in a manner that complied with the

bear minimum requirements of the law but not with the spirit of the law. the v.a. did not write the rule in a way that was in line with the way that a normal veteran would access community care. by writing the rule this way the v.a. was able to restrict community care access to veterans to control costs. with so much ambiguity in the language as it is currently written, my fear is that the same cost-first mental healthty -- mentality will be used once this law is signed into law. we believe veterans should be in full control of their health care, not a bureaucratic. also in the choice act, the access standards have been cleared when it comes to the 30-day rule. it states if you wait longer than 30 days, you can use a private provider, period. under the v.a. mission act, the standards are fluid and the cut and dry 30-day standard goes away. and we know this has been a

widely used metric for veterans to use care outside of the v.a. since the choice act began in november of 2014, there have been roughly 1.4 million instances where a veteran was authorized for care outside of the v.a. based on the 30-day rule. under the v.a. mission act, there will be a new review option for veterans to request care outside the system based on meeting an access standard which has yet to be written. again, if the v.a. implements these access standards like tricare, this could be good for veterans, but whether that happens is sunt to -- subject is rule making and costs con strairnts. -- constraints. finally, i am concerned about title 2 of this bill which is the asset and infrastructure review provision that paves the way for what is essentially a v.a. brac that could close out

some of our most vulnerable v.a. facilities, and i know my colleague from west virginia was just expressing the same concerns. of particular concern is a provision that would neutralize appropriation language that prohibits the v.a. from integrating services from the service network 23 unless important criteria are made. for years the v.a. has incrementally sought to close the hot spring campus in my home state of south dakota. the v.a. has not conducted its due diligence in deliberating over hot springs campus, which provides veterans from three states andean country -- and indian country health care. this is a pocket of rural america where few health care options exists. this v.a. bring jobs home brac s

the v.a. facility in jeopardy yif. this has been named one of the top facilities in the united states. if we are truly putting the care of veterans above all else, we should have timely, high-quality care to our veterans. with the asset and infrastructure review provision in this bill, i worry about the future of v.a. facilities, such as hot springs. more importantly, i am concerned about our rural veterans access to adequate care, including mearnl services -- mental health should these violate facilities be closed in the future. some have been saying that even though the provision is in there, the v.a. has provided assurances that places like hot springs are not in jeopardy, despite the law allowing the agency to review, and eventually close facilities across the nation if it determines it is necessary. while the v.a. has some great

employees, including it was leadership, i am reluctant to consent to the brac process because the appropriation requirements are what i view as due diligence by the v.a. before any decision is made on closing of campuses like those in hot springs and in this particular case the asset and infrastructure review language intends to neutralize that appropriations language and i will not support that path forward. at the end of the day, all we can count on is what we've enacted through legislation and this bill clearly allows for the v.a. brac to occur. madam president, my decision to oppose the v.a. mission is not one that i have made lightly. i recognize the many good provisions in this bill that will go a long way toward improving care for our nation's veterans. i also want to recognize the hard work that went into the final package.

i particularly want to thank chairman isakson, our senate veterans' affairs committee chairman for making a truly honest effort to address the ideas and concerns of all committee members, including my concerns, which was reflected when we passed my -- when we passed the bill out of the committee, unfortunately, those provisions were not included in the final package. that said, the fight is not over. even though we expect the v.a. mission act to pass the senate and be signed into law before memorial day, there will be plenty of work to do as the law is being implemented. i will continue working with my colleagues, the administration, veterans groups across the state, and other stakeholders to keep a close watch on the v.a.'s implementation of the v.a. act to be certain that the v.a. is putting the care of our veterans above all else. and, now, this is something that you never hear in this body, but

this is an instance in which i would be happy to be wrong in my assessment. in fact, i challenge the v.a. to prove me wrong. we were close to having a really great bill with the v.a. mission act by expanding the caregivers program to pre9/11 veterans, by expanding community care to include other services and provide services to rural vets so they don't pay a greater amount for using community care than they would for using care at a v.a. facility, just to name a few. i would happily have voted for any of these provisions as separate measures, and i am grateful that our veterans will greatly benefit from them. i had hoped to get a place in the final bill where my concerns would be able to be fixed, but at the end of the day, my concerns outweighed the good and i have to vote no. i have the privilege of serving

on both the senate veterans' affairs committee and the senate armed services committee, and i cannot tell you what an honor it is to fight every day to make sure our service members and veterans receive the tools and care they so clearly deserve. they make incredible sacrifices so that we can be free. we have a responsibility to take care of them when their service is complete. i look forward to continuing to work to fulfill that responsibility. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. madam president, i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer:. clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. rubio: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. rubio: i ask that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rubio: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session for the en bloc consideration of the following nominations -- executive calendar 840, executive calendar 841, executive calendar 842 and 843. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report the nominations en bloc. the clerk: knocks, sheryl a. linden of south carolina to be united states attorney for the district of south carolina. sonia k. chavez of new mexico to be united states marshal for the district of new mexico. scott e. crackle of nebraska to be use marshal for the district of neck.

j.c.rafferty to be united states marshal for the northern district of west virginia. mr. rubio: i ask unanimous consent that the senate vote on the nominations en bloc with no intervening or action or debate, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table en bloc, the president be immediately notified of the senate's action, that no further motions be in order and that any statements relating to the nominations be printed in the record. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. rubio: madam president, i ask unanimous consent -- the presiding officer: the question occurs on the nominations en bloc. all those in favor, say aye. those opposed, say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nominations are confirmed en bloc. mr. rubio: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate resume legislative session for a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rubio: i ask that, madam president, unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule 22, following leader remarks on

wednesday, may 23, the senate proceed to executive session to consider the montgomery nomination as under the previous order and the senate vote on the nomination 359:15 p.m. further, follow disposition of the nomination, the senate resume legislative session and all postcloture time on the motion to concur on the house amendment to senate bill 2372 be considered expired. fine aolly, that following disposition of the motion to concur, the senate vote on the cloture motions in relation to the mcwilliams nominations in the order filed and that if cloture is filed, the postcloture time run concurrently. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rubio: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that action with respect to calendar number 403, h.r. 4743 be vitiated understand that the -- and the senate agree to return the papers on h.r. 4743 rand authorize the secretary of the senate to return the paper on h.r. 4743 to the house of representatives. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. rubio: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the

help committee be disarmed from further consideration and the senate now proceed to s. res. 346. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 346, recognizing the importance and effectiveness of trauma-informed care. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed. mr. rubio: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rubio: madam president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 519 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 519 to authorize testimony and representation in colorado

v.willenburg. the presiding officer: is there for proceeding to the variable? -- to the measure? without objection. mr. rubio: madam president, i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rubio: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 11:00 a.m. wednesday, may 23. following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed. finally, i ask that following leader remarks, the senate proceed to executive session and proceed to the consideration of the montgomery nomination under the previous order. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rubio: madam president, if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order following the remarks of senator whitehouse. the presiding officer: without objection.

madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. whitehouse: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, are we presently in a quorum call? the presiding officer: it is. mr. whitehouse: may i ask

unanimous consent that the present quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: thanks, mr. president. in this, my 207th speech about the climate changes and ocean changes being driven by fossil fuels, i would like to discuss america's largest oil company, exxonmobil. for decades exxonmobil did everything in its power to deceive the american public about the existence and causes of climate change. i believe that full transparency would show exxonmobil and its agents still obstructing efforts here in washington to resolve the climate crisis. but i want to focus on one particular audience i believe exxon has long misled: its shareholders. an exxon c.e.o. once went so far

as to cite a bogus scientist petition to its shareholders. yes, that infamous petition cooked up by climate deniers that included cartoon characters and spice girls among the scientists. for decades exxon investors filed resolutions at shareholder meetings starting back as far as 1990 urging exxon to address the issues. exxon succeeded in quashing every single one of them, quashing more than 40 shareholder resolutions in total, year after year, until last year. at last year's meeting. big institutional investors like black rock threw their weight behind a resolution requiring exxon to produce an annual

report explaining how it will be affected by climate change and global efforts to protect us against climate change. again, exxon fiercely opposed this resolution, but this time exxon lost. the resolution passed with 62% of the vote. that gave exxon some serious questions to answer. as the world transitions to a low-carbon economy, how much oil and gas does exxon think we will need? how might declining demand for oil and gas affect exxon's operations and bottom line? will it be economical to produce all the reserves currently listed on exxon's books? most significantly, can we burn all exxon's reserves and not damage the planet? well, exxon's inaugural climate risk report is out. i have been through it, and it

looks to me like they're still playing hide the ball. it looks to me like a report that started with the conclusion that exxon can develop all its reserves and then back calculated the assumptions necessary to get to that conclusion. so let's have a look. scientists tell us that we must limit global warming to no more than two degrees celsius if we are to avoid catastrophic changes to the planet we inhabit. many believe that to keep a margin of safety, we actually need to target 1.5 degrees. there is an article that just came out today headlined limiting warning to 1.5 degree centigrade would save majority of global species from climate change. it would, to quote the article, avoid half the risks associated with warming of two degrees

centigrade. so there is a big difference in outcomes between 2 degrees of centigrade and 1.5 degrees of centigrade and it will affect innumerable species on our planet. well, in its report exxon doesn't address the 1.5 degree scenario. it goes with 2 degrees. exxon's report goes on to say that it's roughly 20 billion oil equivalent barrel of reserves, quote, face little risk from efforts to meet the 2 degrees scenario. exxon also says it is confident, confident about roughly 71 billion not yet proven oil equivalent barrels that it reports to its shareholders as assets. it claims that no more than 5% of these unproven resources will be rendered uneconomical by measures to protect us against climate change.

so exxon's report obviously gets to the result management wants, to tell shareholders that basically all its listed assets are recoverable. but look at the assumptions required to arrive at that conclusion beyond the 2 degrees assumption. one assumption is huge amounts of carbon capture and sequestration, what's called c.c.s. c.c.s. is technology where carbon emissions are contained at the site where the fossil fuel is burned and then captured and buried far underground. this prospect exists, but barely exists now. its future development is something that is projected by the international energy agency. this is the projection by the international energy agency of the various elements that will

reduce carbon pollution in the future. this top one is efficiency gains, burning less because of better insulation and so forth. because motors become more efficient. this green one, this is all the contribution to carbon reduction of renewable energy. and this bottom dark blue segment is what the international energy agency attributes to c.c.s., carbon capture and sequestration. for its report, this, exxonmobil assumed deployment of c.c.s. technology as much as five times greater by 2040, this year right here, five times greater than

the i.e.a.'s projection. if you take this c.c.s. projection of i.e.a. and you quintuple, you get carbon savings that exceed everything that i.e.a. projects from efficiency and from renewables combined. that's quite an assumption. c.c.s. is actually very expensive, and all it produces is carbon reduction. you still have to run the fossil fuel burning power plant to make the power. and then on top of that, you add the carbon capture and sequestration technology that can add $1 billion to the price of a plant. so here is lazard's comparison of various kinds of energy

costs. this bottom one is solar per megawatt-hour it runs $46 to $61. pretty efficient. this is on-shore wind, $32 to $62 per megawatt-hour produced. this is natural gas. it runs from $48 to $78. then you add on $25 more or less per megawatt-hour for carbon capture and sequestration, and now you have a very expensive product. about $100 per megawatt-hour compared to $46 to $61, for instance, for solar. so if that's the case, it's a little surprising, because you would think that renewables

would do better than c.c.s. because they come out far more cheaply. so how do you get to a world, an assumption of a world in which c.c.s. outcompetes renewables? it seems improbable given the pricing that c.c.s. will roar ahead of renewables, let alone ahead of renewables and efficiency combined. if that were true, if that were true, what a booming market c.c.s. would be to invest in. so let's test exxon's c.c.s. assumption against exxon's own investment behavior. if exxon truly saw carbon capture and sequestration as the magic bullet to allow it to produce all its oil and gas reserves, you'd expect it would put its money where its mouth is. but exxon barely even mentioned

c.c.s. in its 2017 10-k filing for investors. one tiny mention right here under its risk factors section. risk factors. and if you look at exxon's announced investments in the u.s. this year, $50 billion worth, it makes no mention of any new investments in carbon capture and sequestration. so if exxon really believed that c.c.s. was going to boom like that, bigger than renewables, why not invest more? my hypothesis is that they don't believe that, this this was just an assumption backed into this report to make it look like exxon was going to be able to protect and use all of its

reserves to get to the foreordained conclusion. exxon's report omits another fact about c.c.s., which is that this developing technology will likely see most use with gas-fired power plants, as my previous graphic showed. it likely cannot be used to capture exxon's products emissions in the transportation and chemical sectors. well, power generation accounts for only about a seventh of total demand for oil and gas, and that share is predicted to fall. and even if it didn't fall, it still leaves six-sevenths where it's hard to staoe a carbon capture and sequestration offset. exxon's report does not describe where exactly this massive deployment of carbon capture and sequestration is going to take place. but i can assure you, it will not be on auto tailpipes. so let's move on from c.c.s. a

second odd assumption in exxon's report is the growth rate exxon predicts for renewable energy. exxon claims that renewables will only grow by 4.5% annually 2040. well, the i.e.a. rorts that in -- reports that in 2017, the year we just went through, renewable energy grew by 6.3%. 6.3% is the actual and they assume it will grow at only 4.5%. and that 6.3% occurred with massive global subsidies still giving huge advantages to fossil fuel. if you just go down the street to exxon's rival b.p., b.p.

predicts that renewables growth will average 6.5% annually through 2040, and exxon claims, although we who live here know it's not true, to support a price on carbon which would obviously lower fossil fuel's huge subsidy advantage and which would give renewables a fairer shot and which would presumably accelerate renewables growth above the 2017 rate of 6.3%. if exxon's low growth -- is exxon's low-growth assumption realistic for wind energy? wind energy is becoming more economical than existing coal plants, as we just saw in colorado. new solar and wind projects now compete on price with new

natural gas plants as a recent auction in arizona showed. the cost trajectory for renewables continues steeply downward. this downward curve is the cost of centralized solar power like those big arrays of mirrors that focus soller on a -- solar on a generator. this steeply downward care is the downward curve of foltovataic. this is the downward curve of offshore wind energy, and this is the downward curve of onshore wind energy. so all of these renewable sources are on a steep downward trajectory. so why would growth slow?

here again exxon made an assumption that does not seem plausible, but the assumption does help it arrive at its desired conclusion that it can develop essentially all of its assets. here's a third questionable exxon assumption many exxon predicts that the market for electric cars and trucks will grow slowly, if at all. exxon assumes that by 2040, only 160 million, out of roughly two billion cars, just 8% of the automobile fleet, will be electric vehicles. by contrast, the i.e.a. predicts that roughly twice that many cars will be electric by 2040. most other projections i've seen are even more bullish for electric vehicles, like this one

from bloomberg which predicts well over 400 million electric vehicles by 2040. indeed, just the new sales in these four years exceed the entire market prediction of electric vehicles for exxon mobile. stanford economist tony seba studies economic disruptions. he is fond of showing two photos of fifth avenue in new york city. in this photo, taken in 1900, you see the parade of traffic on fifth avenue, and if you look, you will see that every single one of those vehicles is pulled by a horse, except one. there is one vehicle right here with an engine in it.

1900 and the entire street is filled with horse drawn carriages and there is just one vehicle in that street scene. cut forward just to 1913, and the street, fifth avenue, is again filled with vehicles, only this time it's hard to find a horse. there's a vehicle right here that looks like it's a carriage and there may be a horse behind this vehicle, but other than that, all the vehicles that you see are gasoline powered. in just 13 years, the automotive world, the travel world changed, illustrating dr. sebis's point that this could take place in little time. think cellphone and landline if you want a modern example.

there is a lot of evidence that electric vehicles present just this sort of ecological and governmental disruptions. governments in france have announced the end of come bustian engine sales. must run on alternative fuels and it's on its way to an eventual total ban of the sale of gas cars. japan, the world's fourth largest car market now has more electric charging stations than gas stations. india announced that by 2050 all new cars sold there must be electric or hybrid. electric cars are easier to build, operate, and to prepare and they can perform supercar

performance in every day vehicles. moving on from regular automobiles and into the commercial fleet, exxon makes the further assumption that no commercial transportation, no buses, no trucks will be electrified by 2040. never mind that electric buses are already in use in china, germany, france, the u.s., and many other countries. rhode island's public transit agency is going out to bid for electric buses right now. an american manufacturer asserts that once electric buses get 10% market share, complete transition to electric becomes inevitable. just last year the -- a city in china replaced its entire fleet of more than 16,000 busses with electric ones.

already 20% of busses across china are electric. there are 400,000 electric busses on the roads worldwide. tesla announced that it will produce 100,000 electric trucks per year by 2023. well, maybe everybody else is wrong and exxon is right, but it sure looks like exxon investors aren't getting the complete story from this report. it looks like they are getting the assumptions that produce the answer that exxon wants. cars and commercial transportation account for more than 50% of the demand for oil and gas, so if exxon fudged this assumption, that has big consequences for the conclusion exxon reaches that all will be well with its reserves.

stack up all those assumptions that two degrees is the right climate threshold, that c.c.s. will boom and even impact gasoline markets, that renewable energy growth will slow rather than accelerate, and that electric vehicles will be a bust. it takes all of those assumptions piled together to get to exxon's desired result. it looks and smells bogus. if you don't believe me, let me leave you with one last chart ricestad energy is an international energy consulting firm, widely used and respected in the energy industry.

2c energy is an american firm looking at how oil companies and resources fair as we look at climate risks. ricestad and 2 pf c -- 2c worked together using, by the way, the more generous two degrees scenario for global warming. so we'll spot them the two degrees, but it would obviously be different if it were only 1.5. this is exxonmobil right here. the study shows that exxonmobil, in their best case scenario, this upper scenario, is able to extract and burn only 82% of its

oil and gas assets. the other 18% would be left unused, stranded -- stranded assets. but, wait, because if you look at this scenario where methane leakage is allowed to continue from oil and gas drilling, which, by the way, is exactly what exxon and others are encourage scott pruitt to allow, and where c.c.s. technology is not significantly deployed, then this scenario here leaves 39% of exxon's assets stranded. 39% of all assets stranded versus what exxon claims, which is that 5% of unproven resources might be. and, by the way, again, that 39%

stranding is based on two degrees of warming, not the more prudent 1.5-degrees which would require less development of those resources. while exxon's shareholders meeting comes up next week and the investors who did such a great job with last year's climate resolution should take a look at this report and not be satisfied. there's some questions that need to be answered. even a former senior exxon executive has criticized exxon's climate risk report as flawed and insufficiently detailed. in an op-ed for cnbc, the former executive bill hefker, writes that oil and gas companies must take paris climate seriously and

be dissatisfied with exxon's climate risk report because it doesn't do this. if exxon, in fact started with the answer it wanted and worked backwards to plug in whatever likely array of assumptions would get them that foreordained answer, well then black rock and other institutional investors who forced this report should demand that exxon do better. earlier this year, black rock's c.e.o. larry fink wrote to the c.e.o.'s of the companies in which black rock invests. he urged them to, quote, serve a social purpose. he urged them to, quote, make a positive contribution to society. well, where the underlying issue

is as vital as the stability of our climate and oceans, and where the company involved is as immense as exxonmobil, cooking the numbers -- cooking the numbers not only harms investors, it is a full-on hazard to human society. mr. president, i yield the floor and i note the absence -- the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands adjourned until 11:00 a.m., wednesday, may 23, 2018.