Sherrod Brown

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, after the election, I have heard a number of my colleagues in the House of Representatives and in the Senate say they are going to come to the floor of the Senate and to the floor of the House and again try to repeal the Affordable Care Act. I said last night on the floor that it strikes me that during an election I would think Members of Congress would hear from their constituents, whether it is in Minnesota or Ohio--the Presiding Officer's State or mine, or around the country--and once we start talking to real people--not campaign rallies, not a country club dinner, not a fundraiser, but real people--about their lives, we would understand what the Affordable Care Act has meant to a whole lot of people. In my State, there are a lot more than 500,000 people who have health insurance today who did not have it 1 year ago because of the Affordable Care Act. In addition, there are 97,000 and counting young people--18--20--25-years-olds--who are on their parents' health care plan who wouldn't have insurance without it. There are a million seniors in my State, from Gallipolis to Troy to Toledo to Zanesville, who have gotten free--meaning no copay, no deductibles--free cancer screenings, preventive care, diabetes checks--all of these kinds of preventive care, including when their doctor prescribes getting a physical for seniors that is free, all because of the Affordable Care Act. There are thousands and thousands of people in Ohio who have a child with diabetes or a son or a daughter with asthma, and that family has been denied coverage year after year, but now, because of the Affordable Care Act, they have coverage. So we know what this has meant. I heard Pope Francis say a few months ago, speaking to his parish priests--he exhorted them to go out and listen to people and understand their lives, as should others, before they come to the floor and try to repeal the Affordable Care Act. There is something a bit untoward where people of privilege--we are Senators; we have great titles, we are paid good salaries, most of us dress well, most of us have nice haircuts--we come to the floor with government-paid insurance, and we say we are going to repeal the Affordable Care Act and take insurance away from 500,000 Ohioans and tens of thousands of Minnesotans, and take away young people's and their parents' plan, and take away these benefits for seniors. I came to the floor to share a handful of letters because I want to put a face on some of these, what this actually means, if we were to-- if Congress, thinking that is what the voters want--come to this floor and say we are going to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Let's talk about what that means. Connie from Hamilton County, in Cincinnati--the Presiding Officer has been in that city a couple of times--writes: As one of your constituents, I want you to know the deleterious impacts of the DC Circuit Court's ruling on my well-being. Because of a change in both my employment status and marital status, I have looked at the Affordable Care Act as a godsend. I worked full-time in a well-paying job for more than 35 years when I was organized out of a position at the worst time during the recession. I have been able to maintain limited and temporary part-time contract work since. But the income I net is substantially reduced from what it was. She said she worked for 35 years, so I assume she is at least in her fifties. As an older worker, I'm having a difficult time securing permanent employment. I believe strongly in the importance of health care. I have recently qualified for a catastrophic health plan with tax credits on healthcare.gov. Paying for it is a stretch, but I have willingly bit the bullet. As you know, Ohio is one of those States that has opted out of establishing its own state plans. That wasn't a problem until recently. Now, facing a plan that may be ineligible for the Federal tax credit, I face a dire financial situation. If I were the only one caught in this Catch 22, I would not be writing. I understand there are approximately 5 million Americans in similar straits. Living in a State where the Governor did not want to set up an exchange, and the Supreme Court--nine privileged men and women who are lawyers, who get government health insurance--may take these benefits away from these 5 million people. That was my editorial comment. She writes: Please, please, help find a way to ameliorate the impact of this circuit court ruling. Many of us are dependent upon it so we don't become burdens on the health care system. So the question: Why do people who dress like this, who have titles such as ``Congressman'' and ``Senator, who get health insurance paid by taxpayers, why do they want to take it away from so many other people? Why do they want to take these benefits away? Why do they want to cancel these consumer protections? So when they cast these votes on repeal of the Affordable Care Act, they should be thinking about the Connies of the world. Sharon from Franklin County in the middle of State, Columbus, is a lupus patient. She writes: I urge you to maintain the health care reform that helps us afford coverage. Before Congress starts gutting the health care reform, please visit a support group for any chronic illness, and listen to the stories of people struggling to pay their medical bills, about people being denied insurance due to preexisting conditions, cutting their meds in half to try to stretch them to the end of the month. My wife was in a drugstore not too long ago. Right in front of her, somebody was trying to figure out: Can I skip, take half this number of pills so they last twice as long? That happens all the time. If more of us would get out to a drugstore, if more of us would get out and talk to people, we would learn that. Sharon writes: I have got a good education, a good job, good insurance, but I know I could be wiped out in a matter of months if my job were outsourced or discontinued. Since I work at home and telecommute due to my illness, my chances at a new job and new health insurance are grim. The health care reform bill isn't perfect, but when it was passed, a collective sigh of relief went up for millions of Americans who are struggling to maintain their jobs, their families, and their lives while suffering with chronic illnesses like lupus. Please don't play politics with our lives. Please don't gut the health care bill. Again the question is, Why do my colleagues--almost all of whom have health insurance provided by taxpayers--why do they want to take these benefits away from Sharon and Connie? A couple more. Rose from Hamilton County writes: Senator Brown, please vote no to repeal the health care law. My family and friends appreciate the added benefits we are getting from the current health care law. My son's fiancee is currently finishing her graduate degree. She is 25. Thank God she is able to remain on her parents' insurance; otherwise she would not be able to afford the high cost of private insurance. This a young woman about whom Rose is writing. This is a young woman who wants to get more education, wants to do better in life, wants to further her career, but what will happen? If she cannot stay on her parents' plan, if my colleagues are successful in repealing the Affordable Care Act, what will happen to her? Why should we even be asking that question? My niece graduated last year from college and has not been able to find a full-time teaching job. She is doing what we need more of--good teachers in our country. Fortunately, she too can now stay on her parents' insurance because of the health care law. In addition-- She has an illness-- the current health care law ensures that when it's time for her to get her own health insurance, she will not be discriminated against. This woman, Rose's niece, is in this situation. She is right out of school. She wants to teach. She does not have a job yet. She is on her parents' health insurance plan. Then when she gets a job, if it were not for the Affordable Care Act, she probably would be denied coverage because she has a preexisting condition. So she is a perfect example of two things about this law that my colleagues for whatever reason want to take away. I will close with this. Chris from Fairfield County--kind of southeast of Columbus--writes: Senator, I just wanted to thank you for standing by the health care law. I now have insurance after 4 years without it. I am now receiving treatment for my knee after 3 years of pain and swelling. Turns out I have arthritis and I go to an orthopedic surgeon next week for further diagnosis and treatment. Without the insurance I purchased through the exchange, the x-ray that discovered the arthritis would have never been possible because I could not afford it. So, again, why would my colleagues--almost all of whom have health insurance--why would they want to take those benefits away? Why would they say to this person in Fairfield County--why would they say to Chris: Well, sorry, you are not going to get that x ray. In the end, what would happen? Chris would not get the x ray, would not know about the arthritis until it gets worse, and then it would cost the health insurance company more money. Part of what the Affordable Care Act does--and the Presiding Officer played a role in writing many provisions of this law--part of what it does is it encourages and gives people incentives to get preventive care. So if we repeal this law, if my colleagues--again, I know I said this over and over, but almost all of whom have health insurance provided to them by taxpayers--if they have their way, all of these people--Chris and Rose and Sharon and Connie--where do they turn? Where do they turn? Their lives end up worse. They end up being sicker. They possibly die younger. They end up costing the health care system more money. They are less productive as citizens. The niece and the son-in-law and the fiancee one of these ladies talked about would not be able to get an education, get ahead--all of the things we say we value in this country. How can any anybody think in good conscience that repealing the Affordable Care Act makes sense for our families, makes sense for our communities, makes sense for the States of Minnesota and Ohio, makes sense for our country? I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. I thank the senior Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, in the days after the election this year, I heard a number of my colleagues--many from my State--in the House of Representatives and in the Senate talk with great exuberance about repealing the Affordable Care Act. They call it ObamaCare; others call it the Affordable Care Act. I am not sure where they were over the last month or so, but I remember hearing Pope Francis I exhort his parish priests to go out and smell like the flock. Abraham Lincoln used to talk about it. He would say he needs to go outside of the White House and get his public opinion baths. I cite Pope Francis and President Lincoln because I think if my colleagues had been out talking to real people and not going to fundraisers, not meeting with rich people at country clubs, and not going to the political rallies, but out talking to real people, they would have seen what the Affordable Care Act has done. In a moment, I wish to talk about a couple of numbers, but more importantly, I want to share some stories. More than 500,000 people in Ohio--and I think New Mexico, the Presiding Officer's State, is proportionately no different--have health insurance today who did not have it 14 months--did not have it 1 year ago. An additional 97,000 young Ohioans--people who are just a bit older than the pages sitting here; 18, 20, 25--are on their parents' health plans. Thousands of Ohioans have been protected as patients, as people who are insured. When they would get sick and their coverage was expensive, they would be dropped by insurance companies because they were too costly. Now they have the consumer protections and they can't be dropped from coverage. One million Ohio seniors now have gotten--with no copay and no deductible--free preventive care for osteoporosis and physician screenings. One million Ohio seniors were able to get their screenings at no cost. I have to tell a quick story. Every Thursday anybody from Ohio can come to a coffee we have in our office at 8:30 a.m. when the Senate is in session. A family came by on one of those Thursdays. They were pretty conservative. I assume they were not really voters for me, but it didn't matter. We were talking about a bunch of different issues. The mother said: Thank you for the Affordable Care Act. See my son over there? He is 15 years old. I said: Yes. He was across the room. She said that when he was 7, he was diagnosed with diabetes. She said: I have counted, since he was diagnosed, 34 times that he was turned down for insurance. My family was turned down for insurance. Last week she told me I got insurance because of the Affordable Care Act, because we don't allow under Federal law now that that be done. Let me share for a moment, if I could, a handful of letters I have received from people who have written me because of the Affordable Care Act. Rachel from Hamilton County writes that since 2008 she and her husband insured themselves through individual insurance. It had been difficult, and at times, we had to go without insurance because of the incredibly high cost. I had also been denied insurance due to a preexisting condition. All of that changed since we were able to sign up via the healthcare.gov site. But imagine my surprise when I heard the D.C. Circuit Court struck down subsidies people like myself receive. I receive a subsidy because health insurance has become so expensive that it is unaffordable for so many of us. I fear we will not be able to afford insurance if we lose our subsidy. Linda from Madison County, west of Columbus, writes: My husband and I have personally benefited from the portion of the bill that did away with lifetime maximum payments. I suspect it may have saved our retirement and kept us off welfare rolls. My colleague benefited from the portion of the bill that allowed her son, who suffers from a potentially fatal illness, to stay on her insurance through age 26, at which time he graduated with a master's degree and got a job. So this is exactly what this was written for--a 23-24-year-old graduating from college, going on to get more school, getting a master's degree, preparing himself or herself for something better in life. That young man could stay on his parents' health insurance plan until he got a job at 27, with insurance. Chandra in Summit County writes that she recently commented to some friends about the surprising benefits she was receiving under the Affordable Care Act, and one of her friends suggested she share her story with her elected officials. She says: Because of the ACA, we were able to switch to my husband's insurance without worrying that I would not be covered due to my pregnancy being a preexisting medical condition. The ACA had a very real financial impact on my family. The question is, Why do some Members of this Congress, all of whom, I believe--almost all of whom--are receiving government-sponsored health insurance benefits from a good government insurance plan--why do they want to deny it to people such as Chandra and people such as Rachel and others. Chandra says: I am not the type of individual who one would first think of when thinking of beneficiaries of the ACA. I have a master's degree, my husband and I both work full-time, and our employers also offer a full range of medical, prenatal, and optical benefits. A few years ago, my husband and I decided to begin growing our family. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, there were no copays for my prenatal care, suggested immunizations or potential well visits. When our son was born, I immediately saw the true impact of the Affordable Care Act. Babies have many well visits and the cost of copays and immunizations have been a burden to some of my friends. Thanks to the ACA, we didn't have that financial burden. Thanks to a combination of good insurance and the Affordable Care Act, I was the recipient of a very nice, double electric breast pump. I also became the first employee at my job to utilize the provisions of the ACA for nursing mothers. A few years later, 2 months before our second child was due, I had the opportunity to take a better job. She goes on. The question again is, Why do they want--why do a bunch of politicians who have good insurance, paid for by taxpayers--why do they want to take these benefits away from the 25-year-old man who now has insurance on his parents' plan before he finishes school and goes out in the workplace? Why do they want to take away the preventive care families now have so when their daughter has an earache they can actually go to a family doctor because of the insurance rather than go to the emergency room? All of those things just beg the question, Why the politics of repealing ObamaCare and repealing the Affordable Care Act and taking these benefits away from so many Americans? Five hundred thousand Ohioans have insurance, 100,000 more young people, a million Ohio seniors getting benefits with no copays and no deductibles, preventive care that helps them live longer, healthier lives. That is really the question. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I would like to follow up on the Presiding Officer's comments a moment ago about the crux of this issue--why this big money in campaigns is so bad for our country. The public does not really care who has an advantage, who has a disadvantage. They do not really care if a Republican wins or a Democrat wins. They care about what we do here and how we can help people's lives. The Presiding Officer talked about the minimum wage. In my first year in the Senate, 2007--my first speech on the Senate floor, four or five desks over from here, was about the minimum wage. It passed the Senate with a bipartisan vote. It was signed by a Republican President, increasing the minimum wage. That was then. Today we cannot even get a minimum wage out of the Senate because of a Republican filibuster. The minimum wage is worth one-third less in real dollars, in purchasing power, than it was in 1968. The subminimum wage--the tipped wage--has been stuck at $2.13 an hour for 20 years. People who push wheelchairs at airports, valets, and waiters in downtown diners can make as little as $2 or $3 an hour, and they hope to get up to $7 or $8 or $9 on tips. If it were not for the political pressure, the money that just rolls across the political landscape, that washes across the candidates for the Senate, the candidates for the House, we could pass the minimum wage. But Members of the Senate, when they think about voting on this, they think about the big money that might come in against them if they vote for the minimum wage. I am convinced that if we could pass this constitutional amendment, we could begin to address the issues of Wall Street and oil companies and Big Tobacco buying elections, spending not millions, not even tens of millions, but hundreds of millions of dollars. We could pass the minimum wage. We could pass a real jobs bill. We could reform Wall Street. We could pass consumer protection bills. We could invest in education and community colleges and federally qualified health centers and veterans' benefits the way we should. That is why this constitutional amendment is so important on campaign spending. That is why it matters. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 423, S. 1934, and Calendar No. 418, S. 898 en bloc.

Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment to S. 1934 be agreed to, the bills, as amended if amended, be read a third time and passed en bloc, and that the title amendment to S. 1934 be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 539, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, September 10, 2014; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; and that following any leader remarks, the Senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S.J. Res. 19 postcloture; further, that at 2 p.m. all postcloture time be considered expired and the Senate proceed to vote on the motion to proceed.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Madam President, we expect a voice vote on the motion to proceed to the constitutional amendment on campaign finance reform. Shortly after 2 p.m., we expect a rollcall vote relative to the paycheck fairness bill.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Madam President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the provisions of S. Res. 539, as a further mark of respect to the memory of the late Senator James M. Jeffords, former United States Senator for the State of Vermont, following the remarks of Senator Rubio. And a special mention: My chief of staff, Mark Powden, who used to be the chief of staff for Senator Jeffords, gave a eulogy at his funeral and had immense respect for the late Senator from Vermont.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 538, submitted earlier today.

Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Madam President, one man, one woman, one American, one vote--that is what the writers of our Constitution put in the Constitution--not one corporation, one vote. What I hear on the Senate floor today and yesterday from those candidates who seem to rely on corporate money, who are the beneficiaries of a showering of--not thousands, not tens of thousands, not hundreds of thousands, not millions--tens of millions of dollars, candidates who benefit from the showering of tens of millions of dollars for their campaigns, what they are saying on this Senate floor is almost laughable. It would be laughable if it weren't so serious. It would be laughable if it didn't contribute to the corruption of this institution, of this government of which we are so proud--``of the people, by the people, for the people''--one man, one American, one vote. With Citizens United, with McCutcheon the Supreme Court has effectively ruled the more money you have, the more influence you have over our democracy. When what I hear from the other side--again, those who are the beneficiaries of the millions, of the tens of millions of corporate dollars, often Wall Street, often oil companies, often big drug companies, often big tobacco companies--when they come to the floor and plead, they are pleading in many ways that the supporters of this constitutional amendment are restricting the right to free speech. I agree. Whether it is the Koch brothers, whether it is the Big Tobacco executives, they should get one vote. But when they can spend millions and millions of dollars and shower some of my colleagues with this kind of corporate money to get their way, we know what is happening in this country. We know for the richest 1 percent of this country incomes have grown and grown, gone up and up. We know for the broad middle, for the bottom 90 percent, for the middle, for the great majority of people in this country, their wages have been flat. No, they have actually been worse than flat over the past 20 years. The wealthy are getting extraordinarily wealthy, extraordinarily wealthier. The middle class, even sort of the upper middle class--let alone those who are making minimum wage or making $15 an hour, their wages have been stagnant or worse. One reason for that is--the Presiding Officer from Massachusetts has spoken out about this nationally over and over again--one of the reasons wages have been flat in this country--and the rich are getting richer and richer--is the corruption of Big Money in our political system. I know how it works. In my race for reelection in 2012--and I am not complaining about this. As my wife's book publisher said: No whining on the yacht. If you get to be in the Senate, don't complain. But I also understand when they spent $42 million against me in my campaign--I am a big boy, I can take it--it was oil money, it was tobacco money, it was mostly out-of-State money. It was money from some of the richest people in the United States of America. What did they want? They didn't dislike me personally, I assume. Maybe they did. I don't really care. But what it was really about is they wanted--whether the person came from Troy, OH, or Troy, MI, or Troy, NY--a politician in office from Ohio, as they wanted in Massachusetts, as they want this year in New Hampshire, as they want this year in Arkansas, as they want this year in Kansas, as they want this year in North Carolina, in Louisiana, Alaska, and Colorado--they want a lap dog. They want somebody who will go to the well and vote with Big Tobacco, go to the well and vote for Wall Street, and go to the well and vote for oil companies. That is what they will get if we continue this corrupt way of campaign financing. The Presiding Officer remembers--after we passed the Dodd-Frank legislation in this Congress 4 years ago and when she was working to establish a consumer protection agency--after the vote on Dodd-Frank, do we remember what the leading financial services lobbyist in this town said? The President signed the bill--within an hour or two, or at least the same day--and the lobbyist said: Well, folks, it is half- time. What did that mean? He wasn't talking about the NFL. He was talking about: Well, we lost in Congress. They actually passed a bill that Wall Street wasn't wild about. They actually passed a bill that the largest financial institutions were not particularly happy about, but they knew they could use their lobbying, and they have thousands of lobbyists in this town. They have a number of lobbyists for every Member of Congress. They knew they could use their lobbying force. They knew they could use the politicians they had--I won't say people here were bought, but you might suggest they are on a long-term lease in some cases. They were suggesting just the threat of spending money. So if you cast a vote in this institution next week, let's say, on a controversial issue, we know a couple of things. You know you should do the right thing. You know what your constituents back in Florida, Massachusetts or Ohio are saying, but you also know one other thing. You know if you cast a vote that Wall Street might not like, if you cast a vote that Big Tobacco might not like, if you cast a vote that oil companies may not like, do you know what is going to happen? What is in your mind if they come to your State in the next election and spend $10 million or $20 million or $30 million or $40 million. I had $40 million spent against me because I don't do what Wall Street wants. I don't do what tobacco wants. I don't do what the oil industry wants. Of course, they are going to come after me. They fell short in 2012--not by much but they fell short. But we know they will do it again. We know every time we cast a vote they are keeping a scorecard and saying: Well, we like what that Senator did, we will help him or her--usually him in that case. We don't like what she did, we don't like what he did, so we may be looking out to spend that kind of money. One man, one woman, one American, one vote--not one corporation, one vote. Fortune 500 companies straddle the globe. They reap millions of dollars of profits. American corporations are at their most profitable time perhaps in their history sitting on tens, hundreds of millions of dollars in profit. It doesn't take a Ph.D. in math to understand they spent a small, small, microfraction of the money they are making to protect those profits. How do they do it? They come to Ohio, they come to Massachusetts, they come to Florida, they come anywhere in the country and they spend millions. They spend tens of millions to protect themselves on behalf of Wall Street, on behalf of Big Oil, on behalf of these big tobacco companies. It is all pretty simple: one man, one woman, one American, one vote. Citizens United and McCutcheon make clear there is now an entry fee for participating in our democracy. That is why I support the constitutional amendment proposed by Senator Udall that curbs unlimited campaign spending: one man, one woman, one American. This amendment grants Congress the authority to regulate and limit the raising and spending of money. We are not shutting anybody off. Anybody can still give fairly significant amounts of money. But we do know--do the math. After the McCutcheon decision, donors can now contribute up to $3.6 million an election cycle. I don't know for sure, because I have not met most of the 300 million people in our country, but I don't think there are all that many that have the wherewithal financially to contribute $3.6 million. But I also know--because my staff did the math on this one, I acknowledge--the average person making minimum wage at $7.25 an hour--and, parenthetically, the same people who love McCutcheon love the millions of dollars spent, showered on us from Wall Street or against us from Wall Street, from Big Tobacco or from Big Oil. Those same people are stopping the minimum wage from being increased. The minimum wage is at its lowest level in buying power since 1968. It has been stuck at $7.25 an hour. Back in the era of bipartisanship on minimum wage--we actually passed one in 2007, my first year in the Senate, signed by Republican President Bush. Those days seem to be past. Think about the math. At $7.25 an hour, people are allowed to give $3.6 million under the McCutcheon decision--pushed by corporations and handed down by the Supreme Court--that says corporations are people too, more or less. For a minimum wage worker, it would take 239 years, working full time, making $7.25 an hour, to make $3.6 million. And then they would have to give it all away in that election cycle to be able to compete with the oil companies, the drug companies, and Big Tobacco and Wall Street. This is very clear. We can change it. Again, back to the arguments on the other side. They are laughable at home. I don't think I know anybody who thinks it is OK that we are allowing somebody to come in and spend--except for colleagues whom I like. Most of the people on the other side of this issue, I like them personally, but I don't know very many people, unless they are in Washington, unless they have a stake in this system--I don't know people who think it is a great idea to let people spend $3.6 million. They are not spending it out of their charitable whims. They are spending it because they want their people, their water boys, their water girls for the drug companies, the water boys and the water girls for Wall Street, the water boys and the water girls for Big Tobacco, they want those people elected, not people who will stand up to those interest groups and do the right thing. To restore voters' faith in the political system, to ensure voters that their voices are being heard, one man, one woman, one American, one vote, that is what we stand for. Those are our values. That is why this is an important issue. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Florida for allowing me to do this before his final remarks of the evening.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I applaud Senator Sanders for his work on the veterans conference report. I spoke at a breakfast today. I was with the Presiding Officer from North Dakota at the Air Force Caucus. As important as the Air Force is in North Dakota, it is equally important at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, OH--outside of Dayton. One of the things I talked about at this breakfast is how proud I am, when it looks as if the Senate does not get as much done as we would like, that Senator Sanders and Senator McCain--with a supporting cast but principally the two of them--were able to negotiate with a sometimes reluctant, sometimes erratic House of Representatives on some of these issues. They were able to negotiate a very good veterans bill that will primarily do three things: first, make those accountable at the VA actually accountable; second, take care of those veterans who have had to wait longer than 30 days for their care in the VA, veterans who have earned this care; and third, will scale up the VA--the most important parts--so there will be enough doctors and nurses, mental health therapists and occupational therapists, and enough beds and enough capacity at the VA centers and at the community-based outpatient clinics. If you are in the system, you get good care. It is just that too many haven't been able to get into the system, partly because when we went to war a decade-plus ago, the people running the administration in those days and the Congress said: This war will be short. We don't need to bother with scaling up the VA. That was shameful. They were dead wrong. Unfortunately, far too many veterans have paid the price. That is why this legislation is so important. The timing is perfect to get this reform at the same time that we have an opportunity this week to confirm Robert McDonald, a fellow Ohioan from Cincinnati who ran a company that had more than 100,000 employees, one of the world's biggest, most prestigious consumer companies. He went to West Point. He served veterans before. He understands veterans' issues. I talked with him a number of times, as has Chairman Sanders, and Mr. McDonald, as the soon-to-be--I hope the new Secretary. I ask my colleagues to support him--new Secretary will have these new tools because of this conference report which I am hopeful we pass this week Mr. McDonald understands the importance of VA health care. He knows-- he said this to me in my office and a couple of other times--that the Veterans' Administration has a hospital system unlike any other in the country. It knows how to treat unique illnesses and unique injuries-- unique mostly to veterans--various kinds of brain trauma, various kinds of physical injuries, other kinds of treatment. That is why it makes sense for Mr. McDonald to be the new Secretary of the VA. That is why this veterans conference report is very important.

Mr. BROWN. I yield for my distinguished friend from Georgia.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 29, 2014, at 10:30 a.m. in room SR- 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Revisiting the RESTORE Act: Progress and Challenges in Gulf Restoration Post-Deepwater Horizon.''

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 29, 2014, at 3 p.m. in room SR-253 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Opportunities and Challenges for Improving Truck Safety on our Highways.''

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 29, 2014, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Breaking the Logjam at BLM: Examining Ways to More Efficiently Process Permits for Energy Production on Federal Lands.''

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 29, 2014, at 10 a.m. in room SD-215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Tobacco: Taxes Owed, Avoided, and Evaded.''