Bernie Sanders

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two science policy fellows from my office, Anna Mebust and Melissa Holtmeyer, be granted floor privileges through the end of the session.

Mr. SANDERS. I also want to thank them, as well as my environmental policy adviser, Jacob Smith, for all of the hard work they have done on this important issue.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, let me reiterate my hope that the Senator from Louisiana will in fact work with us. It is my intention to see this bill gets to the floor again before Memorial Day. I think we owe it to the men and women who have put their lives on the line to defend this country to address their serious needs. The issue of these 27 medical facilities is one of those needs, but there are many more, and I look forward to working with the Senator from Louisiana and other Senators to do what the veterans communities want us to do and to go forward on what will be the most significant piece of legislation to take care of the needs of our veterans passed in several decades. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I thank very much my colleague from Louisiana for bringing forth this very important issue. Senator Mary Landrieu from Louisiana has also raised this issue, as have many colleagues. My friend from Louisiana is absolutely right; this is an important issue and this is an issue that should be passed. But I would say to my friend from Louisiana that last week we brought forth the most comprehensive piece of veterans legislation in the modern history of the United States of America, and that legislation dealt with many issues raised by veterans organizations that represent millions of men and women who have put their lives on the line to defend our country. Let me very briefly--very briefly--touch on some of those issues included in this comprehensive piece of legislation that lacked three votes. We had 56 votes. One Senator was absent and would have voted, so we need three votes to pass this. This would have addressed some of the serious problems in the claims backlog that my friend from Louisiana is more than familiar with. It would have addressed the crisis of advanced appropriations to make sure if there is ever again another government shutdown that no veteran--disabled veteran and no veteran who is on a pension--would fail to get their check. This legislation also included an enormously important provision expanding the caregivers program, so wives and sisters and brothers taking care of disabled vets finally get the attention they deserve. That legislation would have addressed a terrible problem facing some 2,300 families, where men and women who were injured in Iraq and Afghanistan and can no longer have babies receive help through in vitro fertilization or other processes or adoption, if they want the help, in order to have families. The legislation also addressed the very serious problem that many of our young men and women are not getting the education they need because States are not allowing them to get instate tuition. That legislation addressed many other crises, which is why that legislation had the support of the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Disabled American Veterans, the Vietnam Veterans of America, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, and in fact virtually every veterans organization in the country. So let me say this to my friend from Louisiana, and I say this sincerely. What I will not do is dismember this piece of legislation. What I will do is work with my colleague and other Republicans who voted against this comprehensive piece of veterans legislation so we can bring to the floor a bill that reflects the needs of millions and millions of veterans who are hurting. I look forward to working with my colleague from Louisiana on a comprehensive bill, but at this point I object to his proposal.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Alabama for accommodating my schedule. I will have more to say on this issue later this afternoon. But let me at this point simply say: Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the waiver provisions of applicable budget resolutions, I move to waive all applicable sections of that act and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of the pending bill, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SANDERS. Reserving the right to object, I do find it interesting that, in the midst of this important debate about the needs of our veterans, my Republican colleagues are on the floor of the Senate and have virtually nothing to say about veterans. This bill is not about Benghazi. This veterans bill is not about Iran sanctions, it is not about Hillary Clinton. It is about protecting the needs of our veterans. So the amendment of Senator Burr does not go anywhere near as far as we need to go in terms of veterans issues. It brings the Iran sanctions issue into a debate where it should not be brought. I object.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, this budget point of order we are now going to vote on tells us in a very significant way who we are as a people. If you vote for this budget point of order, you are saying that in this great country we do not have the resources to help our veterans with their health care, education, and to be able to deal with sexual assault. We need to help older veterans get the nursing care and build new medical facilities that they desperately need. I personally--and I have to say this honestly--have a hard time understanding how anyone can vote for tax breaks for billionaires, millionaires, and large corporations and then say we don't have the resources to protect our veterans. We should not be supporting this point of order.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, as chairman of the Senate Veterans Affairs' Committee, I want to thank many people for helping me bring forth the legislation we are going to be voting on this afternoon. I thank those people who have come down to the floor to speak on behalf of our veterans. That includes Majority Leader Reid, who has been so helpful throughout, Senators Murray, Blumenthal, Heinrich, Pryor, Durbin, Merkley, Walsh, Shaheen, and Casey. I suspect I have left out some Members. I thank my entire staff at the Veterans Affairs' Committee--Steve Robertson, Dahlia Melendrez, Travis Murphy, Kathryn Monet, Kathryn Van Haste, Elizabeth Austin, Carlos Fuentes, Ann Vallandingham, Rebecca Thoman, Jason Dean, Shannon Jackson, Shanna Lawrie, and Rafael Anderson--for their help on this effort. I thank the 28 cosponsors of this important legislation. I will not read their names. They know who they are, and I thank them very, very much. As I indicated earlier, this legislation is not Bernie Sanders' legislation. This is legislation that, by and large, comes from the hearts and souls of the veterans of this country. As chairman of the committee, I thought it was my obligation to listen to what the veterans of our country were saying about their problems and their needs and how we might go forward, and that is what I and others on the committee did. We listened. That is the reason why this legislation is being supported by virtually every veterans organization in the United States of America, representing millions and millions of veterans. I thank them for their support--and not only for their support but for their help in crafting this legislation: the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Disabled American Veterans, Jewish War Veterans, Vietnam Veterans of America, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, Wounded Warrior Project, Gold Star Wives, Student Veterans of America, Air Force Sergeants Association, American Ex-Prisoners of War, Association of the United States Navy, Commissioned Officers Association of the U.S. Public Health Service, National Guard Association of the United States, Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States, Fleet Reserve Association, Marine Corps League, Marine Corps Reserve Association, Military Officers of America Association, Military Order of the Purple Heart, National Association of Uniformed Services, Non Commissioned Officers Association, Retired Enlisted Association, American Military Retirees Association, National Coalition for Homeless Veterans, National Association of State Veterans Homes, and many other veterans organizations. Thank you very much for your support for this legislation. It is no secret that Congress today is extremely partisan and to a significant degree dysfunctional. That is why the approval rating of Congress is somewhere around 15 percent. There are problems facing the American people, and we cannot address those problems. The American people are profoundly disgusted with what we do and, in fact, with what we do not do. I had hoped from the bottom of my heart that at least on this issue-- the need to protect and defend the veterans of this country and their families, others who have given so much to us--we could rise above the day-to-day rancor and the party politics we see here on this floor almost every single day. We will, in fact, see within a short while whether we will rise to the occasion, whether we will, in fact, stand with the veterans of this country, or whether once again we are going to succumb to the same-old, same-old politics that we see almost every day. Let me very briefly touch upon some of the objections my Republican colleagues have made to this bill. Some of them--not a whole lot, by the way, but some have come to the floor and they have objected to this bill. So let me respond to some of their concerns. Some of my Republican colleagues have said they cannot vote for this bill because they could not get the opportunity to offer an amendment on the Iran sanctions situation. Mr. President, you know what. The issue of Iran sanctions is an important issue, but it has nothing to do with the needs of veterans. In case people do not understand it, this is a comprehensive veterans bill, and while Iran sanctions may be important, they have nothing to do with what we are discussing today. That is not just my opinion. Far more importantly, we have the opinion of the largest veterans organization in this country, which represents over 2 million veterans, and that is the American Legion. Here is what Daniel M. Dellinger, the national commander of the American Legion, said just yesterday on this issue: Iran is a serious issue that Congress needs to address, but it cannot be tied to S. 1982-- This veterans legislation-- which is extremely important as our nation prepares to welcome millions of U.S. military servicemen and women home from war. This comprehensive bill aims to help veterans find good jobs, get the health care they need and make in-state tuition rates applicable to all who are using their GI Bill benefits. This legislation is about supporting veterans, pure and simple. The Senate can debate various aspects of it, and that's understandable, but it cannot lose focus on the matter at hand: helping military personnel make the transition to veteran life and ensuring that those who served their nation in uniform receive the benefits they earned and deserve. We can deal with Iran--or any other issue unrelated specifically to veterans--with separate legislation. That is Mr. Dellinger, the national commander of the largest veterans organization in this country. I thank him very much because he is exactly right, and he reflects what the overwhelming majority of the American people believe: Deal with the issue at hand. But it is not just the American Legion I want to thank. The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America tweeted the other day: The Senate should not get distracted while debating & voting on the vets bill. Iran sanctions, Obamacare, etc. aren't relevant to S. 1982. They are absolutely right. Let's talk about veterans' needs. Now, some other Republican colleagues, in objecting to this bill, have said they cannot vote for it because it is not bipartisan enough and it has not been fully marked up in committee. Well, that is not quite true. Almost all of the provisions in this bill did come out of the committee. In fact, two of the major components of this bill--two separate omnibus bills--were passed by a unanimous vote. You cannot get much more bipartisan than when you have two major provisions in a bill passing with all Republicans and Democrats voting for it. That is pretty bipartisan where I come from. Furthermore, this legislation contains a number of provisions authored and supported by Republican members of the Veterans Affairs' Committee. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, there are 26 separate provisions that Republican members have authored or cosponsored. This legislation also includes two key provisions that were passed in a bipartisan way by the Republican House of Representatives. With almost unanimous votes, the House passed a provision that we have in this legislation that would authorize the VA to enter into 27 major medical facility leases in 18 States and Puerto Rico. In other words, this was a new provision that I did add to this bill, was not discussed in committee but, in fact, has overwhelming bipartisan support. The second provision we added to the bill not discussed in committee also passed the House with broad support, and that deals with the very important issue of ensuring that veterans can take full advantage of the post-9/11 GI bill and get instate tuition in the State in which they currently live. So to as great a degree as possible I have tried to make this bill a bipartisan bill. That is where we are. Now, other Republicans have come to the floor and they have objected to this bill because they argue that by expanding VA health care to veterans currently not eligible for it--veterans who in some cases are trying to get by on $28,000, $30,000 a year in this tough economy; and it is true, we do expand VA health care to those veterans who do not have a whole lot of money--the Republicans who object say, well, that would open the floodgates for millions or tens of millions--I think somebody said 22 million veterans--every veteran in America would be eligible for VA health care, that the health care system would be swamped and health care, especially for those most in need, would deteriorate because so many people came into the system. As I mentioned yesterday, this is absolutely untrue. No new veteran would be added into VA health care until the VA had the infrastructure to accommodate those new veterans. So we are not opening the door for millions of new veterans--not true--and, as currently is the case, those with service-connected disabilities would continue to get the highest priority service, as they currently do and which, in my view, should always be the case. Those who were injured in war are the top priority, and those folks must always be the top priority, and that is certainly the case in this legislation. Then last but not least there is the objection that we are going to be dealing with in about 45 minutes--the vote we will be having--and that is that some of my colleagues basically say: Senator Sanders, this bill is just too expensive and we just cannot afford to pass it. This bill costs $21 billion--that is a lot of money, I do not deny it--and that is just too much money, and we cannot afford to pass this bill, which helps millions of veterans. I want to respond to that point in two ways. First, I want to address it from an inside-the-beltway, more technical perspective, and then I want to talk to the American people about the cost of war and what we can afford and what we cannot afford. In terms of the funding of this bill, the Congressional Budget Office--the nonpartisan scorekeeper--has estimated that mandatory spending in this bill will total $2.88 billion over the next 10 years-- $2.88 billion. All of this mandatory spending is completely offset. Let me repeat that. All of this mandatory spending is completely offset, not by OCO funds, but through more than $4.2 billion in actual savings from the programs within the jurisdiction of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee. As a result, CBO has determined that overall mandatory spending in this bill will be reduced--will be reduced--by more than $1.3 billion. That is what the CBO said. In addition, this bill authorizes $18.3 billion in discretionary spending. We have 4.2 in mandatory, more than offset, and then we have 18.3 billion in discretionary spending over the next 5 years. As the Presiding Officer knows, there is no rule in the Senate that an authorization of funding has to be offset. That is what the Committee on Veterans' Affairs is. We are an authorizing committee. We are not an appropriations committee. In essence, the discretionary spending provisions in this legislation are just recommendations on how much additional funding we believe is needed for our Nation's veterans. It will be up to future legislation in the Appropriations Committee, as is always the case, to approve or disapprove of these recommendations. In other words, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, an authorizing committee, has made a recommendation. The final word, as is always the case when we spend money, rests with the Appropriations Committee. The discretionary spending authorized under this bill is, in fact, paid for by using savings from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, otherwise known as the OCO fund. Again, these are recommendations. The Appropriations Committee has the final word. CBO estimates that spending for Overseas Contingency Operations will total a little over $1 trillion over the next decade. Spending as a result of this legislation to improve the lives of millions of our veterans will be less than 2 percent of that $1 trillion. So anybody who comes down to the floor and says this bill is going to take away from the needs of our men and women in Afghanistan or elsewhere is simply inaccurate. One trillion dollars is what is in the fund for the next 10 years. We spend less than $20 billion of that fund. Some people say, well, yes, that is fine. But OCO funding has to go into ammunition, it has to go into planes, it has to go into tanks. That is where it goes. That is not quite the case. Let me give you an example of how we have spent past overseas contingency operation funds. Since 2005, the Defense Department has used OCO funding for childcare centers, for hospitals, for traumatic brain injury research, for equipment, and schools. In 2010, $50 million of OCO funds were used for the Guam Improvement Enterprise Fund. To my mind, if we can use money for the Guam Improvement Enterprise Fund--I do not know much about that--I do believe we should be able to use some of the OCO funds to protect the needs of men and women who made enormous sacrifices defending our country. Last year OCO funds were allocated to a number of countries around the world: Egypt, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Lebanon, Somalia, South Sudan, and many other countries. This year $28 million in OCO funding is being used for the TRICARE health care program. In other words, we are using a tiny percentage, less than 2 percent of the funds in the OCO fund, to protect veterans. We have seen over the years OCO funding used in a whole lot of other areas. I happen to believe that what we are trying to do with OCO funds falls well within the definition of what that fund is supposed to be used for. If we are supposed to be using that fund for military purposes, then we take care of the military personnel who served our country--totally legitimate, totally consistent. That is kind of the technical, inside-the-beltway explanation for why I think the funding mechanism we have chosen and the approach we have taken is legitimate. But let me get actually to the far more important reason as to why this bill should be passed and it should be paid for; that is, very simply, this bill in a small way attempts to pay back and help veterans and their families for the enormous sacrifices they have made for this country, sacrifices which in the deepest sense can never, ever be fully paid back. This is what this bill does. This bill helps Members of Congress, on Memorial Day or Veterans Day, when they go out and they meet with veterans and their families, that if a Member of Congress, Member of the Senate bumps into a young veteran who is in a wheelchair, who because of a war-related injury is unable to have a baby and start a family that he or she wanted, some of those injuries, maybe the spinal cord, some of them may have taken place in the genital region, but for whatever reason--we have over 2,000 veterans in this country today who are unable to naturally have babies. Many of them want families. If a Member of the Senate wants to look that veteran in the eyes and say to him or her that they think we cannot afford to help that individual who sacrificed so much for this country have a family, well go do that. Tell that individual that you think we cannot afford to help him or her, but when you do that, I hope you will also tell him why you voted to give $1 trillion in tax breaks to the top 2 percent at a time when the wealthiest people in this country are doing phenomenally well. Virtually all of my Republican colleagues thought it was appropriate to provide huge tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires. So when you speak to that young veteran who can no longer have a child and you are going to explain why we cannot afford to help that family, tell them it was OK to vote for tax breaks for the Koch brothers or the Walton family, but we do not have enough money to help them start a family. If you as a Senator see a 70-year-old woman or 75-year-old woman pushing a wheelchair for a veteran who lost his legs in Vietnam, tell that woman, have the courage, have the honesty to tell that woman we cannot extend the caregiver benefits to her that we have, quite appropriately, for the post-9/11 veterans. Tell that woman who may be taking care of that disabled vet 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, who lives under enormous stress, that we do not have the resources to help her with a modest stipend; we do not have the resources as the U.S. Government to maybe have a nurse come in once a week to relieve her. We do not have the resources to give her some technical help for herself, for her husband. Explain to her that we cannot afford to do that. But then in the same breath, if you please, explain how you can support a situation where one out of four corporations in this country does not pay a nickel in Federal income taxes. It is OK for General Electric, some of the largest corporations in the world in a given year, not to pay a penny in Federal income tax, but we somehow do not have the money to give a little bit of help to a 70-, 75-year-old wife who is working 24/7 to give support to their loved ones. I say to my follow Senators: If you happen to meet a veteran who is trying to get by on $28,000, $30,000, $35,000 a year, and you notice that the teeth in his mouth are rotting, if you notice that person may not have health insurance, one of the million veterans in this country who have no health insurance, I want you to go up to that veteran and have the courage, the honesty, to tell them that you believe the United States of America does not have the money to take care of his needs, to get him VA health care, to help him fix his teeth. But explain to him why you may have voted for more than $100 billion in tax breaks for the wealthiest three-tenths of 1 percent because you think we should repeal the estate tax that only applies to the wealthiest three- tenths of 1 percent, the wealthiest of the wealthy. You are prepared to vote, and virtually all Republicans are, to give millionaire and billionaire families, the wealthiest of the wealthy, the top three- tenths of 1 percent, $100 billion in tax breaks, but we are not prepared, we supposedly do not have the money to get VA health care for someone making $28,000, $30,000 or dental care for someone whose teeth are rotting in his mouth. You go explain that. Have the honesty, the courage, guys, to say: Yes, tax breaks for billionaires, but we do not have the resources to get you into VA health care. I want you to explain to a young woman who left the military, maybe broken in spirit because she was raped or sexually assaulted while in the military, tell her America does not have the resources to get her, through the VA, the proper care she needs to get her life back together after her sexual assault. Tell her that. If you happen to meet a young man who was eligible for the post-9/11 GI bill, who today cannot afford to go to college where he lives because he is not eligible for in-state tuition and there is a gap between what the GI education bill pays and what is required in the State he is living in of $10,000, he cannot afford it, cannot go to college, explain to him that we do not have the money to help him. If you bump into an old veteran--we have heard some discussion in the last couple of days that the VA lacks adequate health care facilities, we do not have enough around the country. This legislation that we are voting on right now, that in fact was already passed in the House, provides for the VA to enter into leases for 27 medical facilities all across this country in 18 different States. Tell him, tell that 70-year-old veteran or the 80-year-old veteran who wants access to primary health care near where he lives that we do not have the resources to provide that primary care, but we can spend billions of dollars rebuilding the infrastructure in Afghanistan, where most of that money is stolen by a corrupt leadership. Maybe, colleagues, one of you will see a young veteran, one of hundreds of thousands of veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan who are dealing with PTSD or traumatic brain injury or maybe it is a young man who has come back who just cannot find a job in this very tough economy. Go up to him and say: Yes, tax breaks for the rich are great; corporations not paying taxes, that is OK, but I do not believe we should be providing help to you. The bottom line is what we believe in. It is not just speeches we give on Memorial Day and on Veterans Day. I know my colleagues give great speeches. The question is, and the more important issue is, not your fine rhetoric, but are you prepared to vote for programs that help human beings in need. Speeches are great, but action is better and far more important. This is about who we are as a people. It is about what our priorities are. In my view, at the very top of our priority list has to be to protect and defend those people who protect and defend us, those people who have given much more than we can ever repay. There are gold star wives who want to go to college, and we allow that in this bill. They lost their husbands. They are trying to take care of their kids. They want a new shot at life. They need a college education. We say they should have that. I don't think that is asking too much. Enough of the rhetoric, enough of the speeches, enough about how everybody loves the veterans. Now is the time for action. I implore all of my colleagues to overcome this vote, to give us the votes that we need to go forward to protect those who have protected us. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 5 additional minutes.

Mr. SANDERS. My point in saying that is not to say that the VA health care system doesn't have its problems. It is to say that we have problems in every health institution in America. That is what we have. When you look at the VA--and I can go on and on--they are doing some cutting-edge work. If you look at health care technology and health care records, the VA has led the country in that direction. There was a discussion yesterday--an absolutely correct discussion-- about our concerns within the VA and outside of the VA and about overmedication of people who are dealing with pain problems. To the best of my knowledge, the VA is leading the country and doing cutting- edge work in complementary and alternative medicine with good results. They are saying that maybe we don't have to use all of this medication. Maybe we can use acupuncture, maybe we can use yoga, and maybe we can use meditation. They are doing that aggressively. By the way, this legislation expands those programs. One of the crises in American health care today is our failure in terms of developing a strong primary health care system. Guess what. The VA has 900 primary health care facilities all over this country. The VA has women's health centers which deal with the specific needs of children. I could go on and on about it. It is not fair to pick on the VA. They are vulnerable. Every problem they have is on the front pages of the newspapers. I will never forget that a good friend of mine went into a hospital and died of an infection. It didn't make the front pages of the paper. That is happening all over America. Yes, of course, we want to improve the VA health care system, but let us thank the hundreds of thousands of highly qualified and dedicated workers who are providing quality care to their patients. Lastly, I want to say a word on something I feel very strongly about. I have always believed that dental care should be an integral part of health care as a nation and within the VA, and what this bill does for a first time, through a pilot project, is begin the process of opening dental care for nonservice-connected veterans. There are a number of other provisions I will talk about later. Here is the bottom line: We owe more than we can ever pay back to people who sacrifice so much for this country. I think it is important that we pass this comprehensive legislation. I think it is terribly important that we have a serious debate about the serious issues facing the veterans community. I look forward to my colleagues--Republican, Democrat, and Independent--bringing forth their ideas and amendments, but please do not disrespect those people who have sacrificed so much by killing this bill because of the same old politics we have struggled with for years. This is a veterans bill. Let's discuss veterans issues. I yield the floor and thank my colleague for allowing me the extra 5 minutes.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I have talked to a number of my Republican colleagues, some of whom have expressed support for many of the provisions in this comprehensive veterans bill. Many of my Republican colleagues say they would like to support the bill, but they have concerns about how it is paid for and the issue of deficit-- increasing the deficit. So let me say a word about this. Unlike many expenditures, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the truth is this bill will not add one penny to the deficit. Let me repeat: This bill will not add one penny to the deficit. The Congressional Budget Office--the nonpartisan scorekeeper--has estimated that mandatory spending in this legislation will total $2.88 billion over the next decade. All of this mandatory spending is completely offset not by the overseas contingency operations--or OCO--but through more than $4.2 billion in actual savings from programs within the jurisdiction of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs. As a result, CBO has determined that overall mandatory spending--mandatory spending in this bill--will be reduced by more than $1.3 billion. In addition to the mandatory spending, this bill authorizes $18.3 billion in discretionary spending over the next 5 years to improve the lives of our Nation's veterans and their families. As we know, there is no rule in the Senate that an authorization of funding has to be offset. In essence, the discretionary spending provisions in the legislation we are debating today are just recommendations on how much additional funding we believe is needed for our Nation's veterans. It will be up to future legislation originating in the Appropriations Committee to approve or disapprove these recommendations. In other words, the Veterans' Affairs Committee is an authorizing committee; the final decisions in terms of expenditures are made by the Appropriations Committee. Many of my Republican colleagues have insisted even recommendations of new spending--spending which may never actually happen because it has to go through the Appropriations Committee--be offset. I have done my best to listen to their concerns and have come up with an offset which will not add to the deficit over the next decade. Specifically, the discretionary spending authorized under this bill is paid for by using savings from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan--otherwise known as the OCO fund. CBO estimates spending for overseas contingency operations will total $1.025 trillion over the next decade, so a little more than $1 trillion. Spending as a result of this legislation will be a tiny fraction of that amount--less than 2 percent. OCO funds are designed, very broadly, to be used to fund war-related activities. In my view, it is totally consistent with the goals of this funding source to provide support for the men and women who have defended us in those wars. In recent years OCO funds have provided assistance to Syrian refugees, and have helped the people of Haiti recover from a massive earthquake. Further, since 2005, the Defense Department has used OCO funding for childcare centers, hospitals, schools, traumatic brain injury research, and orthopedic equipment. In 2010, $50 million in OCO funds was used for the Guam Improvement Enterprise Fund. Last year, OCO funds were allocated to the following countries: Egypt, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Lebanon, Somalia, South Sudan, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Yemen. Last year, OCO funds were used to combat trafficking in persons related to labor migration in the Kyrgyz Republic, and to establish a Tunisian- American Enterprise Fund. In 2011, $89.36 million was used by the National Guard to support the southwest border of the United States. This year, $218 million in OCO funding is being used for the TRICARE health care program. These are some of the ways in the past OCO funding has been used. I am not here to argue about the wisdom of any of those expenditures. Many of them may well be valid. What I will say is the needs of our veterans are also valid. If we can spend OCO funds for the Guam Improvement Enterprise Fund, I think we can use OCO funds to protect the interests of our veterans. Again, this expenditure is less than 2 percent of the savings from ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I have heard my friends on the other side of the aisle call this a budget gimmick. I disagree. Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate have voted several times to count war-related savings as a reduction in the deficit. For example, virtually every Republican in the House of Representatives and Senate voted for the fiscal year 2012 budget resolution, introduced by Representative Paul Ryan, which counted $1 trillion in deficit reduction from ``phasing down overseas contingency operations''--not what I am saying, but what the Heritage Foundation points out. If the savings from winding down wars can be counted as deficit reduction, clearly we owe it to our Nation's veterans to use a very small percentage of this fund to make their lives a little bit better at home. To me, placing modest caps on OCO--overseas contingency operations-- funding to pay for the most comprehensive veterans legislation in a decade is a no-brainer. This money was always intended to assure the well-being and success of those brave men and women who have served our great country. Finally, I think we should be very clear: The cost of war does not end once the last shots are fired and the last battles are fought. When members of the military lose arms, legs, eyesight, come back with PTSD or TBI from fighting in wars which Congress authorized, we have a moral obligation to make sure those veterans receive all of the benefits they have earned and deserve. When American soldiers die in combat, we have a moral obligation to make sure the spouses and children they leave behind are taken care of as best as we possibly can. This speaks to the funding of this legislation, and I hope we will have strong support from all of our colleagues. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, earlier this afternoon I spoke about the many important provisions in this veterans bill that came out of the Veterans' Affairs Committee: the fact that we worked as hard as we could to make it bipartisan, the fact that there are many provisions in this bill that came from Republican Members, and the fact that some other provisions in this bill were passed unanimously by the House of Representatives, indicating very strong bipartisan support. But what I also said is that while I believe the American people understand the full cost of war and understand the sacrifices made by veterans and their families, what they also believe is that when we have a piece of legislation--an important piece of legislation--on the floor dealing with the needs of millions and millions of veterans and their families--whether it is health care; whether it is dental care; whether it is sexual assault and how we address that issue; whether it is the fact that over 2,000 veterans have lost their ability to have kids and what we can do to make it possible for them to have children; whether it is the fact that we have tens of thousands of families in this country where loved ones are taking care of disabled vets, need some support, and we have a need to expand the caregivers act; whether it is the fact that we have some young people who are eligible to use the post-9/11 GI bill but are unable to do it because they cannot get in-State tuition; whether it is the issue of advanced appropriations and making sure we never again find ourselves in the position that we did a few months ago, where the government was shut down and where disabled veterans were 1 week or 10 days away from losing the checks they are dependent upon, I think there is widespread support in America for that bill, for the understanding that we do owe the men and women who put their lives on the line to defend us a debt of gratitude that can never be fully paid. But we have to do our best. We have to make life as good as we can for those who were injured in war. We have to protect the hundreds of thousands who came back from Iraq and Afghanistan with PTSD or traumatic brain injury. But whatever one may think of the bill--whether you like the bill, don't like the bill, think it is too expensive or think we should have done more--the one thing most Americans understand is that it is totally absurd to be bringing forth extraneous issues into a debate on veterans needs in order to kill the bill. I say to my colleagues exactly what the majority leader said this morning. If you have amendments dealing with veterans issues, we welcome them. We have a number of Democrats who have come forward with amendments. We have some Republicans who have come forward with amendments. We welcome amendments that are relevant and germane to the needs of veterans. What we do not welcome are extraneous amendments that are designed only--only--for partisan, political reasons, exactly the process that the American people are disgusted with today. Interestingly enough, that is my view. I mentioned earlier today that the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America sent out a tweet yesterday, and the folks who served us in Iraq and Afghanistan said: The Senate should not get distracted while debating and voting on the veterans bill. Iran sanctions, ObamaCare, et cetera, aren't relevant to S. 1982--which is the veterans bill we are dealing with today. The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America said: Focus on veterans' issues, which is a very simple request and the one that should be heeded. But today, a little while ago, we heard from the largest veterans' association in America; that is, the American Legion, which represents 2.4 million members. The American Legion is the largest veterans' organization in this country. I suspect they have chapters. I know they are strong in Vermont. I suspect they are strong in Hawaii and strong all over this country. American Legion National Commander Daniel M. Dellinger said today: Iran is a serious issue that Congress needs to address, but it cannot be tied to S. 1982, which is extremely important as our Nation prepares to welcome millions of U.S. military service men and women home from war. This comprehensive bill aims to help veterans find good jobs, get the health care they need, and make in-State tuition rates applicable to all who use their GI bill benefits. This legislation is about supporting veterans, pure and simple. The Senate can debate various aspects of it, and that is understandable, but it cannot lose focus on the matter at hand: helping military personnel make their transition to veteran life and ensuring that those who served their Nation in uniform receive the benefits they earned and deserve. We can deal with Iran--or any other issue unrelated specifically to veterans--with separate legislation. I think Commander Dellinger hit the nail right on the head. What he is saying is, fine, we can debate Iran at some point; we can debate ObamaCare, which has been going on day after day after day. We can do anything we want to do, but this is a bill that deals with veterans' issues. I thank the American Legion not only for their support--they along with virtually every other veterans organization in this country supports this legislation: the VFW, DAV, Vietnam Vets, Iraq-Afghanistan Veterans of America, and dozens of organizations--but I thank the American Legion in particular for their statement in making it clear that our job is to debate a veterans bill, not kill this bill because of an extraneous issue such as Iran sanctions. I wish to say one other word before I proceed to my main remarks. My colleague from North Carolina quoted from a group called the Concerned Veterans of America. In support of our legislation, we have the largest veterans organization in America, the second largest, third largest, fourth largest, the fifth largest, the sixth largest, and all the way down the line--many millions of Americans. Apparently supporting his position is a group called the Concerned Veterans for America. I don't mean to be personal, but this is just a simple fact that people should understand. This organization, according to the Washington Post, is significantly supported by Charles and David Koch--the Koch brothers. We are going to be running into the Koch brothers on every piece of legislation where there is some group out there that they fund, and in this case it is the Concerned Veterans of America. I talked earlier about the many important provisions in the bill dealing with reproductive issues, the belief the Federal Government and the VA should assist those men and women who have lost their ability to have kids. We have talked about caregivers and all that, and I want to just touch on a couple more issues at this moment. I have believed for a very long time that dental care should be regarded as a part of health care. I think we make a mistake as a nation saying this is health care and this is dental care. Our legislation, for the first time, begins the process of providing dental care to nonservice- connected members through a significant pilot project. I have the feeling once we do this we will see veterans from all over the country who are dealing with long-term dental problems availing themselves of this service. It is the right thing to do and something I think we should be doing. Another provision in this bill deals with the COLA issue for military retirees. I think everybody here is familiar with the fact that in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 it reduced by 1 percent annually the cost-of-living adjustments for military retirees until age 62. The good news is the House and Senate recently passed legislation completely rescinding those cuts and the President has signed that bill. That is the good news. The bad news is those cuts continue to exist for those who join the military after January 2014, and I know the veterans organizations are concerned about that. I am concerned about that. I think that is wrong, and our legislation corrects that. So if one is talking about cuts to military retiree COLAs, we end it, pure and simple. Those COLA cuts will no longer exist if this bill is passed. As I mentioned earlier, this legislation addresses the issue of the benefits backlog. There is great concern among all Members of the Senate that veterans are forced to wait much too long to get their claims processed. What this legislation does is support VA's ongoing efforts to end the backlog and would make needed improvements to the claims system. Again, this is the result of some bipartisan efforts. Secretary Eric Shinseki of the VA, as he moves the claims system from paper into an electronic system, has advanced the very ambitious goal of making sure that every claim filed by a veteran will be processed in 125 days at 98 percent accuracy. That is a very ambitious goal, and the language we have is going to hold the VA accountable and make sure we reach this very ambitious goal. I gather there may be differences of opinion on this view, but another provision in our bill deals with the educational needs of servicemembers and making sure they get a fair shot at attaining their educational goals without incurring an additional financial burden, which is what the post-9/11 GI bill was all about. That bill has been enormously successful. There are certain problems remaining in it and we address these problems. Given the nature of our Armed Forces, servicemembers have little to no say as to where they serve and where they reside during military service. Thus, when transitioning servicemembers consider what educational institution they want to attend, many of them choose a school in a State other than their home State or the State where they previously served. I have heard from too many veterans that many of these public educational institutions consider them out-of-State students. Given that the post-9/11 GI bill only covers in-State tuition and fees for public educational institutions, these veterans are left to cover the differences in cost between the in-State tuition rate and the out-of-State tuition rate. In some States that difference can be more than $20,000 a year. That is certainly not what the purpose of the 9/11 GI bill was about. As a result, many of our Nation's veterans must use loans to cover this difference and, in the process, become indebted with large school loans that will take them years to pay off. My office has heard from a number of veterans and veterans organizations about this problem. We heard from Skye Barclay, who lived in Florida prior to joining the U.S. Marine Corps in 2006. After serving her country, Skye decided to remain with her family in North Carolina so her husband could finish serving his military obligations. Less than 1 year later, they moved to Skye's hometown in Florida to transition back to civilian life and finish their college education. Skye and her husband changed their residency, immediately started renting a home, and ensured her car registration was up-to-date. However, the school she chose to attend could not consider either of these veterans as in-State students. As a result, they were forced to pay an additional $2,000 out-of-pocket each semester. Due to the additional financial burden, Skye and her husband were unable to afford daycare for their daughter and instead have to juggle two demanding schedules, with one of them attending school in the morning and the other late afternoon. The bottom line is that we passed a post-9/11 GI bill which is working incredibly well. Over 1 million veterans and their family members have used this program. It is very important for higher education in America, and I think we should support our veterans who move to another State and make sure they get in-State tuition. Let me conclude my remarks at this point, though I will be back later to reiterate the major point I wish to make. We can play the same old politics. My Republican colleagues can defeat this bill because of some extraneous matters in it. I think that is incredibly disrespectful to the veterans community that has sacrificed so much. That is not just my view; that is what the American Legion believes and what the American Legion says: Discuss veterans issues in a veterans bill. The Iraq- Afghanistan Veterans of America say the same. So we may have disagreements on this bill. People may choose to vote against it for whatever reason. People may offer amendments that we would love to see--some of them may be good, some not so good--but let us respect those folks who have given so much to this country. Let us not demean the veterans community by killing this bill because of something to do with Iran sanctions. That has nothing to do with veterans' needs. I hope we continue to have a vigorous debate on this piece of legislation. I see my friend from Florida is on the floor. People may want to vote for it. That is good. They may want to vote against it. Fine. But let us not play the same old politics which so disgusts the American people. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, let me thank Senators Murray, Durbin, and Blumenthal for their very thoughtful and important remarks regarding the needs of veterans and why it is absolutely imperative we pass this comprehensive veterans legislation. Let me also begin by thanking all of the members of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs for their very hard work in helping to craft what is not only an enormously important piece of legislation impacting the lives of millions of our veterans but is also, to a large degree, a bipartisan piece of legislation. It is no secret that Congress today is extraordinarily partisan and, in fact, is largely dysfunctional. On major issue after major issue the American people are crying out to us and asking that we address the serious problems facing this country. Yet we are unable to do virtually anything. I hope--and I say this from the bottom of my heart, and as chairman of the Senate veterans committee--that at least on the issue of addressing their needs--the need to protect and defend those veterans who have protected and defended us, those men and women who have put their lives on the line to protect this country--we can rise above the partisan rancor that we see down here on the floor every single day. That is what the American people want us to do. Not only has the veterans community been clear on the need to pass this bill, but that is what the American people want us to do. They understand the sacrifices made by veterans and their families, and they want us to rise above the partisan acrimony the American people see every single day. Let me be very clear, and let there be no misunderstanding about this. I have tried, as chairman of the committee, to do everything I can to bring forth legislation which includes provisions from Republicans and provisions from Democrats. My view is, and has been, that if there is a good idea that improves the lives of veterans--I don't care if there is an ``R'' attached to a Senator's name, a ``D'' or an ``I,'' as in my case--let's bring forth that legislation. The reality is, to the best of my knowledge, there are 26 separate provisions that Republican Members have authored or cosponsored--that is a lot--and some of them are very significant provisions. Further, perhaps most importantly, two of the most important parts of this comprehensive legislation are omnibus bills that were passed unanimously by the committee. So what we have done is brought ideas together in two of the most important provisions in this bill, with two separate omnibus bills passed unanimously by the committee. There are other provisions in the bill that were not passed unanimously but also passed with bipartisan support. I also want to point out the two provisions that were not discussed at the committee level but have been passed almost unanimously by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, and I believe have strong bipartisan support in the Senate. With almost unanimous votes, the House passed a provision that would solve a long-standing problem and enable the VA to enter into 27 major medical facility leases in 18 States and Puerto Rico. We have virtually that same language in our bill, and that was passed almost unanimously in the House. So I think that is a nonpartisan, bipartisan provision. A second provision passed by the House with very broad support deals with ensuring that veterans can take full advantage of the post 9/11 GI bill and get in-State tuition in the State in which they currently live. That language I believe is identical in our bill. So we have major provisions passed in the Republican House with almost unanimous support that are in this bill, and there are two omnibus provisions passed with unanimous support out of our committee, and we have other provisions passed with bipartisan support. So while I am not here to say this is 100-percent bipartisan, because it is not, we have gone a very long way to do what has not been done very often here in the Senate, and that is to bring everybody's ideas together to pass something that is terribly important for our veterans. The point I am trying to make here is that I happen to believe that virtually every Member of the Senate, regardless of their political point of view, does care about veterans. I say this especially about the members of the committee--the Veterans' Affairs Committee--who would not be on the committee if they didn't care about veterans. I believe that virtually every Member of the Senate wants to do the best they can for veterans. That is why I have worked so hard to do my best to make sure this bill is as bipartisan as it can be. In my view, this is, in fact, a very good bill. But like any other piece of legislation, it can be made better. We have 50 States, we have Native American tribes, and we have all kinds of issues out there. There are 100 Senators here in this body who know their States, who know their issues. So let me be very clear in echoing what the majority leader said this morning, and that is he and I want to encourage every Member of the Senate--Democrat, Republican, and Independent--who has germane amendments dealing with veterans issues to please offer those amendments. Bring them to the floor. My understanding is a number of amendments have already been offered by Democratic Senators and we have some amendments now that have been offered by Republican Senators. I understand Senator Rubio and Senator Collins have offered amendments, as well as a number of Democrats. We look forward to more amendments coming to the floor so that we can have a serious discussion about those amendments. I hope the one thing that will not happen is that, as we discuss this legislation, instead of having an honest debate about the needs of veterans, that this legislation becomes another forum for the same old partisan politics we have seen for years--the sort of partisan politics the American people are increasingly disgusted with. The American people understand that honest people have differences of opinion on the issues, but they do not want to see serious legislation being sabotaged because of political partisanship. In my view, with regard to this veterans bill and the fact we have language in this bill which can improve the lives of millions of veterans and their families, I believe it would be extremely disrespectful to the men and women who have put their lives on the line to defend this country to use this piece of legislation dealing with veterans issues as nothing more than a political pawn for other issues that are totally extraneous to their needs. I fully understand--no great secret here--that my Republican colleagues do not like the Affordable Care Act. They are entitled to their opinion. We have discussed this issue and this law over and over. I ask my Republican colleagues: Please, do not inject ObamaCare into the veterans debate. It has nothing to do with the needs of veterans. I understand some of my Republican colleagues have strong feelings about sanctions in Iran. Clearly, this is an important issue. But it has nothing to do with the needs of veterans in this country. Please, do not inject the Iran sanctions issue into a debate on how we can improve the lives of veterans and their families. I know there are strong feelings and disagreements about the wisdom or lack of wisdom of the Keystone Pipeline. I have my views on the issue. Other people have their views on the issue. But, frankly, the Keystone Pipeline has nothing to do with the needs of our veterans. And there are many other issues out there. Let me at this point quote from a tweet that came out last night from the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America association, and this is what they say. This is the organization that represents the men and women who have fought in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is what they said last night: The Senate should not get distracted while debating and voting on the vets bill. Iran sanctions, ObamaCare, et cetera, aren't relevant to S. 1982. That is the issue we are debating today, and I absolutely agree with the IAVA on this issue. They also say in another tweet: In 2013, veterans were not immune from gridlock in Washington. This year has to be different. We urge the Senate to pass this legislation. As I mentioned yesterday, this legislation, in fact, has the support of virtually every veterans organization in the country, representing millions and millions of veterans, from the American Legion to the VFW, the DAV to the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, the Vietnam Veterans of America to the Disabled American Veterans and the Paralyzed Veterans of America. We have dozens of organizations that know how important this legislation is to their members. So my plea to my colleagues is let's debate veterans' issues. If you have an idea to improve this bill, I welcome it. Let's have that debate. I do not believe this legislation is immune to improvement. We can improve it, but please do not inject extraneous issues in here for totally political reasons. I think that is unfair to the veterans of this country. As the Presiding Officer well knows, on Veterans Day and Memorial Day, I--and I suspect every Member of the Senate--go out and speak to veterans. We express our deep respect for them and their families and the appreciation for all they have done for our country. Today I hope we can keep faith with those promises. Let us focus on veterans' issues. Let us get the best bill we can. Let's not kill this bill because of the same old same old partisan situation we face. I will take a few minutes to discuss why we have brought forth this legislation, which has been described as the most comprehensive piece of veterans legislation to have come before Congress in decades. While in recent years the President and Congress have made good progress--I think the President's budgets have been good; I think Congress, in a bipartisan way, has done a good job in addressing many of the problems facing the veterans community--the truth is, and I hope everybody knows, we still have a very long way to go. Now I will discuss some of the outstanding issues this bill addresses. I think anybody who has nursed a child or a parent who is ill or injured knows how difficult and stressful this is; how sometimes you have to stay up all night, how sometimes you have to stay with your patient 24 hours a day. I would like people to be thinking about what it means day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, to be taking care of those veterans who are severely disabled in war. Think about, for a moment, what the stress is and how much of your own life you have given up to your loved ones, and there are tens of thousands of spouses who are now doing nursing and caring for veterans from World War II, from Korea, from Vietnam, from Iraq, from Afghanistan. That is what they are doing right now, and they are doing it because they love their husbands or their wives or their sons or daughters. The very good news is in 2010 Congress passed legislation to develop a caregivers program for post-9/11 disabled vets. This was a huge step forward. What it said is for those men and women who came back from Iraq and Afghanistan, perhaps without legs, perhaps blind, perhaps without arms, perhaps ill in one way or another through PTSD or TBI, we were going to make sure their wives, their mothers, their sisters, their brothers, their children had the support they need to provide the kind of inhome nursing care those veterans need. This legislation has been very successful for post-9/11 veterans. I will give one example and there are obviously many. One family who benefited from the VA's caregiver program is Ed and Karen Matayka. They live in my home State of Vermont. In 2010, Ed and Karen were deployed together as medics to Afghanistan with the Vermont Army National Guard, a National Guard of which many of us in Vermont are very proud. Just 2 days before Independence Day, the vehicle Ed was riding in was hit by an IED. The driver, Vermont's Ryan Grady, was killed. We remember that loss very well. Ed and three others were severely injured. Ed lost one leg immediately, suffered a stroke and a severe spinal cord injury. Soon thereafter his other leg was amputated above the knee and he suffered yet another stroke. After 3 years of rehabilitation, Ed was medically retired from the Army. Because of VA's caregiver program--a program we established in 2010 for post-9/11 veterans and their families--his wife Karen was able to separate from the Army as well as become her husband's full-time caregiver. Karen spends a significant amount of time every day caring for Ed. She helps Ed with personal care, fixing his meals, and all of his transportation, including to and from medical appointments. Karen has gone through the training program and receives a monthly stipend to help compensate for her loss of income. I think that is the right thing to do. I am not sure there are too many Members in the Senate who don't think that is the right thing to do. Here is a guy who suffered terrible wounds. His wife is now giving up her career to care for him. Should we not help that family? I think we should. Thanks to this program Ed and Karen are able to continue their lives together in their home. Another important point: What might the alternative be? Send Ed to a nursing home where he would be uncomfortable, not get the care of a loved one, and at great expense to the VA? So this saves us money and provides better care for our veterans. This is what we did in the post- 9/11 caregiver bill. The problem is the bill only applies to post-9/11 veterans. What I think should happen, what the veterans community thinks should happen, and what I believe the American people think should happen is we should expand that program to all veterans of all wars and their families. There are tens of thousands of family members today who are caring 24/7 for veterans wounded in World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and other wars. They deserve the same benefits the post-9/11 veterans families are now receiving. That important provision is in this legislation, and I hope my colleagues support it. There is another important provision in this legislation. This is a very important and sensitive issue. There are some 2,300 veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan who, because of a variety of injuries, are unable to start the families they have wanted to start. Some injuries are spinal cord, some may be genital injuries, some just affect the reproductive organs, and they are no longer able to have babies. Many of these young men and women want to have babies, to raise their children, and, as much as they can, to have a normal family. Right now the VA does not offer reproductive treatments to veterans, meaning the most seriously injured among them cannot access the treatment or care needed to start a family. Senator Murray, former chair of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, was on the floor yesterday speaking at great length about this important issue. I believe that if we send young people off to war and they become injured and if they want to start a family, we have to assist them in being able to do so. That provision is included in this legislation. I will talk about another issue we deal with in this bill. Unfortunately, yesterday in discussion this provision was mischaracterized by some who spoke against it. This provision deals with expanding VA health care and making sure some, including some very vulnerable veterans who are today not eligible for VA health care, in fact become eligible. Currently, VA uses an extremely complicated system to determine eligibility based on income for veterans without service-connected injuries, often what we call priority 8 veterans. The VA now determines income eligibility by looking at the income of an individual and his or her family county by county in each State. I don't know how many thousands of counties we have in the United States of America, but I will discuss what this means in the real world in terms of how the VA currently determines income eligibility. My own State of Vermont is a small State--620,000 people. We are a rural State. There are just 14 counties. In Vermont, as throughout the country, each county has its own threshold for determining eligibility for priority group 8 veterans. For a veteran living in Chittenden County, where I live, the threshold to enroll in the VA health care is less than $48,000, but for a veteran living in Windham County, in the southern part of the State, the threshold is less than $39,000. That is a difference of nearly $9,000. In the State of Georgia, there are 159 counties and nearly as many income thresholds. Imagine that. For a veteran living in Walton County, GA, the threshold is less than $41,000. But if a veteran lives in Coffee County, the threshold is just over $28,000. It may make sense to some people. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. In the State of Texas, there are 254 counties. For a veteran living in Brazoria County near Houston, the threshold is less than $48,000. For a veteran living in Bee County, the threshold is less than $31,000. That is a difference of over $17,000. Frankly, this whole process does not make a lot of sense, and I know from personal experience it is totally confusing to veterans: Am I eligible for VA health care? It depends on which county you live in. It depends on which side of the road you live. This makes no sense at all. This legislation simplifies the system. We establish a single income threshold for an entire State. So instead of having thousands of income thresholds, we have 50. It is true that the threshold we use would be the highest in each State, therefore, making more veterans eligible for VA health care. In my view, this is exactly what we should be doing. There may be some in the Senate who believe a veteran in a given State who earns all of $28,000 a year should not be eligible for VA health care because he or she is ``too rich.'' I respectfully disagree. VA provides high-quality, cost-effective health care. There are many veterans in this country struggling economically who want and need VA health care. I should also add that these newly eligible veterans will pay a copayment just like all other currently eligible priority 8 veterans. Frankly, I would prefer those veterans receive high-quality care at the VA, rather than going into an emergency room at 10 times the cost when they become ill. Let me reiterate. Unlike what some of my colleagues said yesterday, this important provision does not open VA health care to every veteran in America--and there are 22 million of them--nor does it open the floodgates, bringing in millions and millions of veterans. I cannot give an estimate, nor can anybody else, how many will take advantage of this provision, but it will be a manageable number, largely because we make very clear--and this is an important point some of my colleagues apparently did not understand. We make it very clear in this legislation that the VA has 5 full years to fully implement this provision in a way that will not negatively impact current patient needs. So anyone who says it is going to open the floodgates for every veteran is not accurate, and that because all of these veterans are coming in we are going to diminish the quality of care for current veterans is not accurate. Let me reiterate this point, which is also in the bill. We understand that the highest priority--and we have talked to disabled American veterans about this issue--for VA health care is to take care of those veterans with service-connected problems. That is the case today and that will remain the case after this bill is passed tomorrow. Those with disabilities and those with service-connected problems will remain the highest priority. This is a long discussion, and we could go on and on for hours about this. I am also on the health committee and I have studied this issue a little bit. There were some very harsh criticisms made yesterday about VA health care. The truth is that the Veterans' Administration runs 151 medical centers. They run some 900 community-based outreach clinics. They have hundreds of vet centers. The VA is the largest integrated health care system in the United States of America. It employs hundreds of thousands of workers, doctors, nurses, technicians, you name it. Obviously no one has ever suggested that VA health care is perfect or that there aren't problems within the system. I have talked to veterans in Vermont, and I have talked to veterans all over the country, and by and large there is very strong support for VA health care. These veterans understand that when they walk into a VA facility, the people who are there to treat them understand their problems, and many of the workers are veterans. I think if you talk to the veterans community, they will tell you not that the VA does not have its share of problems, it certainly does, and not that we should not focus vigorously on improving the care at VA, but they will tell you by and large the care they are getting is good care. The point I want to make is that before we eviscerate, as was the case yesterday, the Veterans Health Administration's health care system, let us remember today about what is going on in terms of health care in America. Let us understand that the VA is not the only health care system in this country which has problems. Today, as a nation, we are the only major country on Earth that doesn't guarantee health care to all of its people as a right. Today there are tens of millions of people--even after the Affordable Care Act--who lack any health insurance. Let's remember that 45,000 people--according to a Harvard study--die each year because they don't get to a doctor on time because they lack health insurance. Let us not forget that in the midst of high premiums, high copayments, and lack of insurance, the United States of America spends almost twice as much per person on health care as do the people of any other nation. Many of those other nations that spend a fraction of what we spend have better health care outcomes than we did in terms of life expectancy, infant mortality, and many other important outcomes. I will also add that before we go about attacking, in a rather vicious way, the Veterans Health Administration's health care system, we should understand that according to a recent study that appeared in the Journal of Patient Study that between 210,000 and 400,040 people each year who go to the hospital for care suffer some type of preventable harm that contributes to their death. According to that study, that number would make medical errors the third leading cause of death in America behind heart disease and cancer.

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

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jason Dean, a military fellow in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of this Congress.

Mr. SANDERS

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

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, every Veterans Day and every Memorial Day many of us, regardless of our political views, go out into our communities and we speak about our respect and admiration for the veterans of this country. As chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs for the last year, I have learned that regardless of political ideology, virtually all Members of the Congress in fact mean what they say and do understand and do appreciate the enormous sacrifices veterans and their families--and their families--have made for our Nation. Sadly, everybody in this country knows we are living at a time when the Congress is virtually dysfunctional and partisanship runs rampant. But I have found on my committee and in the Congress as a whole that Members do understand the sacrifices made by the men and women who put their lives on the line and do, although we have differences of opinion, want to do the right thing to defend those who have defended us. The good news is that President Obama and the Congress, in a bipartisan way, have made significant progress in addressing a number of the problems facing veterans in this country. The President's budgets have been generous and I think Congress has acted in a responsible way. That is the good news. But the bad news is that we still have a very long way to go if we are to keep faith with those who have put their lives on the line to defend us. We have made progress, but we still have a long way to go. I hope very much that we will go down that road together and we will tell the American people that in the midst of all of the partisanship, all of the politics, at least on this one issue we can stand together and protect the interests of those people who have sacrificed so much for our country. Congress cannot bring back to their families those who died in battle. As the Presiding Officer knows, just in the recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have lost over 6,700 troops. Congress cannot restore the legs and the arms and the eyesight that roadside explosions have taken away from brave men and women. Congress cannot simply snap its fingers and magically cure the hundreds of thousands who returned from Iraq and Afghanistan with post-traumatic stress disorder or traumatic brain injury or those who suffer from the pain and humiliation of sexual assault. As a nation, however, while we cannot magically solve those problems, we can in fact--and it is our responsibility, in fact--do everything we can to help ease and ameliorate the problems facing our veterans and their families. We can't solve it all--we know that--but we can go further in ameliorating some of the problems facing veterans and their families. I will give my colleagues a few examples. Congress can help the 2,300 men and women who were looking forward to having families but who suffered reproductive injuries in Iraq and Afghanistan. I believe Senator Murray will come to the floor. She has long been a champion of this issue, as have been others. Let me give my colleagues one case out of 2,300: Army veteran Matt Keil of Colorado was wounded by sniper fire in Iraq in 2007. The sniper's round struck Matt's neck, causing severe damage to a vital artery and his spinal cord. Through sheer determination and with the love and resolve of his wife Tracy, Matt's condition improved. He and Tracy began to consider having children. Doctors assured them that having children could be possible with the help of in vitro fertilization. The Keil family paid more than $30,000 for reproductive treatments. Congress can help the Keil family and others to ease that financial burden. That is a cost of war. We should be there for that family and for the other families who want the opportunity to have children. Congress can help the tens of thousands of family members who every single day provide loving care for those who were severely injured in World War II, in Korea, in Vietnam, and in other wars. Let me give my colleagues another example. In March of 1969, Miles Epling was on patrol in Vietnam when a booby trap detonated, killing some of his fellow marines and leaving him without legs. He returned home to West Virginia in a wheelchair. From that point on, he has required around-the-clock help from those around him. His family provided that help without receiving any training, any assistance or any financial support. Here is the very good news--and we should be very proud of this, in a bipartisan way, as a Congress: In 2010, 4 years ago, Congress passed a very strong and excellent caregivers program for post-9/11 veterans. It is a program that is working well in providing significant help to caregivers of those post-9/11 veterans. I want everybody to put themselves in the place of a wife or sister or mother or brother who around the clock--around the clock, 24/7, 365 days a year--is providing care to folks who have suffered serious injuries in one war or another. We provided support for those caregivers post-9/11, for Iraq and Afghanistan, but we did not do that for the other wars. Now is the time for us to expand the caregivers program for the families of all disabled veterans who are in the same position that Miles is in. That is the fair thing to do, that is the right thing to do, and that is included in this comprehensive piece of legislation. Because we have the moral obligation to do the very best we can for veterans, the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee has brought forth comprehensive legislation that is strongly supported by virtually every veteran and military organization in the country. Today I thank the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Disabled American Veterans, the Vietnam Veterans of America, the Military Officers Association of America, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the Gold Star Wives of America, and the dozens of other veterans organizations that are strongly supporting this comprehensive piece of legislation. In their statement of support, the DAV writes: This massive omnibus bill-- That is the bill that is going to be on the floor in a short period of time. The DAV writes: This massive omnibus bill, unprecedented in our modern experience, would create, expand, advance, and extend a number of VA benefits, services and programs that are important to DAV and to our members. For example, responding to a call from DAV as a leading veterans organization, it would create a comprehensive family caregiver support program for all generations of severely wounded, injured and ill veterans. Also, the bill would authorize advance appropriations for VA's mandatory funding accounts to ensure that in any government shutdown environment in the future, veterans benefits payments would not be delayed or put in jeopardy. This measure also would provide additional financial support to survivors of servicemembers who die in the line of duty, as well as expanded access for them to GI Bill educational benefits. A two-plus year stalemate in VA's authority to lease facilities for health care treatment and other purposes would be solved by this bill. These are but a few-- ``A few''-- of the myriad provisions of this bill that would improve the lives, health, and prospects of veterans--especially the wounded, injured and ill--and their loved ones. That is from the Disabled American Veterans. I thank them very much for their support. The truth is that we have letters of support that are similar in nature from dozens of other veterans organizations, and we thank them again for their support. Madam President, may I ask the time situation--how much time each side has and how much time is remaining?

Mr. SANDERS. I thank my colleague from North Carolina, the ranking member of the Veterans' Committee, for his remarks. I look forward to debating some of the issues the Senator raised because I think it is important for not just the veterans of this country but the tens of millions of people who support our veterans to understand what we are trying to do to improve lives for those people who have put their lives on the line to defend this country. I did find it interesting that the ranking member from North Carolina suggested in so many words, yes, this bill does have the support of the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Disabled American Veterans, the Vietnam Veterans of America, the Military Officers Association of America, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Gold Star Wives of America, and dozens of other veterans organizations, but the implication was they may be supporting this bill but veterans back home do not. I doubt that very much. In fact, I happen to believe these organizations do a very good job in representing the interests of their veterans and that they listen to the veterans. As the ranking member understands, this bill was put together not from my head, not from his head or any Member of the Senate's head. We listened to the veterans community which came forward before the Congress. In fact, today there was a joint session--which I had to miss because I was here--with the DAV, and then we are going to hear from the American Legion, from the VFW--we are going to hear from all the veterans organizations. This bill represents what those veterans organizations said the veterans community needs. I strongly disagree with the Senator from North Carolina in suggesting the veterans organizations do not do an effective job in representing their membership. The other point I will make is that I look forward to this debate. Every now and then it is a good idea to have a debate on real issues on the floor of the Senate, so I look forward to this debate. But in terms of the suggestion that this is not a bipartisan bill--I do understand absolutely not every word in here nor every source of funding is supported by our Republican colleagues, but as chairman of the Veterans' Committee, I have worked as hard as I could--and I believe the ranking member knows this--to develop as best I could a bipartisan piece of legislation. I remind all the Members of the Senate and the American people this legislation contains a significant number of provisions authored and supported by Republican members of the Veterans' Committee, including my friend from North Carolina. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, there are some 26 separate provisions which Republican Members have authored or cosponsored. That is not an insignificant number. Further, perhaps two of the most prominent provisions are the omnibus bills. That is when we collect the number of different bills and we put them into one pot. We did that on two occasions. As the ranking member knows, the vote on each of those omnibus bills was unanimous. Every Democrat, every Republican, and the Independent chairman of the committee voted for them. In truth, other important provisions were passed--not unanimously, of course, but they did pass in many cases with bipartisan support. Furthermore, this bill contains two key bipartisan provisions passed overwhelmingly by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. So let me acknowledge that not every provision in this bill was brought before the committee. That is true. But the two major provisions which were not brought before this committee are bipartisan and in fact have been passed overwhelmingly by the Republican- controlled House. With almost unanimous votes, the House passed the same provision included in the Senate bill which would solve a longstanding problem to authorize the VA to enter into 27 major medical facility leases in 18 States and Puerto Rico. My friend talks about the fact that we need more infrastructure for our veterans. He is right. This bill provides 27 major medical facility leases in 18 States and Puerto Rico, and in an absolutely overwhelmingly bipartisan vote that language was passed in the House. The second bill--not included in our discussions in the Senate committee--also passed with very broad support in the House--deals with ensuring that veterans can take full advantage of the post-9/11 GI bill and get instate tuition in the State in which they currently live. If I am not mistaken, I believe my friend supports that provision. It is fair to say not every provision was debated in the committee. He is right. But the two major provisions that were not, were passed with overwhelming support in the House and I believe will pass with overwhelming support in this body and are included in this legislation. I believe virtually every Member of the Senate, regardless of his or her ideology, cares about veterans--and I know the Senator from North Carolina does--and all of us want to do the very best we can. That is why I have worked so hard with Members of my committee, with Republicans and Democrats, to make this bill as bipartisan as it possibly could be. I am not here to say it is 100 percent bipartisan. It is not. But we worked hard, and there are significant and major provisions in this bill which come from my Republican colleagues because they were good ideas. As chairman of the committee, my view is we don't reject an idea because somebody has an ``R'' next to their name. If they have a good idea, it is in the bill. May I ask the President how much time remains.

Mr. SANDERS. I will very briefly touch on some of the other provisions in the bill. We restore full COLA for military retirees. As we all know, the House and the Senate passed and the President signed the bill to undo the provision in the Budget Act, but they did not include those members of the military who signed up after January 2014. They are still suffering from a cut in the COLA. We address that. This bill does expand VA health care and among other ways it provides dental care. I don't know about other States, but in my State--and I suspect all over this country--in talking to veterans, they think dental care is part of health care. Right now, except for service- connected situations, dental care is not provided. We have a major pilot project to say to veterans: Yes, dental care is part of VA health care and you can get that. As to advanced appropriations for the VA, not everybody knows this, but we were 7 to 10 days away from disabled veterans not getting their checks when the government was shut down. This legislation ensures veterans receive consistent access to the benefits they have earned by establishing advanced appropriations for the mandatory accounts at VA. We move forward in a bipartisan way to end the benefits backlog. My colleague from North Carolina pointed out it is a serious issue. Everybody agrees it is a serious issue. I think the VA is making some progress. This legislation has significant language to help the VA move forward in that area. This legislation would extend from 5 years to 10 years unfettered access to VA health care for recently separated veterans to address their health care needs early. This legislation renews our vow to hire veterans, making sure veterans get the employment opportunities many are now lacking when they come back from Iraq and Afghanistan. This legislation deals in a significant way with the horrendous issue of sexual assault, making sure victims of sexual assault--women and men--get the care they need at the VA. I will conclude by saying this is a serious bill which deals with a very serious issue. My hope is every Member treats the needs of veterans with the respect they deserve. I look forward to the debate which I am confident we will have. Clearly, this is not a perfect bill, and I know there are Members who have ideas as to how they can improve it. This is what the legislative process is about. My sincere hope, however, is amendments which are brought forth deal with veterans issues and not amendments which are not relevant and not germane to this discussion.

Mr. SANDERS. The ranking member and I have disagreements, and that is what the legislative process is about. Let's debate the issues on the floor. I hope we show our respect to the veterans by not getting into issues that have nothing to do with veterans' needs. I hope we are not off debating Iran or ObamaCare or gay marriage or whatever it may be. I guess those are good political issues for some people. I hope people understand how significant and important the issue itself is--the needs of our veterans--and we stay focused on that issue as we bring forth amendments. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I look forward to discussing in the next several days the issues Senator Coburn raised, but I did want to make one clarification, and I hope the Senator is listening. He repeatedly indicated this legislation opens the door to every one of the 22 million veterans in America, and then proceeded to say that once you open the door, you are going to have inadequate care because we don't have the resources to take care of 22 million veterans. That simply is inaccurate and that is not in the legislation. There is nothing in the legislation that says we open the door to every veteran in America regardless of income. So when people talk about the VA suddenly being flooded by veterans and care being diminished because of the huge increase into the system, that is just not true. What is true? What is true right now is we have an absurd and complicated income eligibility system throughout this country. What happens in the State of Vermont or the State of California--one's eligibility for the VA, if you are a priority 8--is different and dependent upon the county in which you live. So in Vermont, you can be living in a county where if your income level is $45,000 a year you are eligible for VA health care, but in a county where the line is drawn just across the street, you may not be eligible. In States such as California or Georgia, which have many, many, many counties, you have the absurd situation where a person living on one side of the street is eligible for VA health care, but the person living on the other side of the street is not eligible for VA health care. This is totally absurd, and we end up having hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of different income eligibility standards. So what this legislation does is not open the door--and I hope my Republican colleagues will not continue to say it because it is not true--but it does say that in a State where you have different income eligibility standards based on counties, what we will do is have one income eligibility standard per State, that being the highest level. So we will have 50 different standards--50 different standards for 50 different States--not have hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of different standards. In every State there will be an income eligibility level, but it will not open the door for health care to 22 million veterans. Second of all, we were very careful in this legislation to say, if a veteran who, under this bill, would be eligible for VA health care, a veteran who can newly access VA health care, we absolutely have to have the medical infrastructure available so that all veterans will get the quality care they need; so that new veterans coming in will not diminish service for other veterans. In this bill we make clear--and we made this clear in our long discussion with the Disabled American Veterans--the priority for the VA remains those veterans who are injured in action, those veterans who need that care. That is the highest priority that we establish. So when people say we are opening the door to all veterans, care is going to be diminished, that simply is not true. That is not what the bill says. Thirdly, let me reiterate some of the provisions in this bill, because before we vote on final passage--and, by the way, I want to take this opportunity to thank every Member of the Senate for voting to proceed. I think it is time we had some very serious debate about VA health care, and now is the time to do it. But let me reiterate a point I made earlier. Senator Coburn raised important issues, Senator Burr before him raised important issues, and we should debate those issues. But in all due respect for the veterans of this country, who have sacrificed so much, let us not politicize this debate on veterans issues by bringing in sanctions against Iran or let us not bring in ObamaCare, let us not bring in the dozens of other issues that are out there. Let us debate this issue on its merits. Let us bring forth amendments which deal with veterans issues. Senator Coburn and Senator Burr have amendments which deal with veterans issues. I welcome those amendments. Let us have those debates. Nobody ever suggested this bill is perfect. There are a lot of Senators out there, Democrats and Republicans, who have ideas about how we can improve the services and the programs we provide to veterans. I welcome those ideas. But do not destroy this legislation by politicizing it, by doing what we have done month after month, year after year, which is why the American people have so much contempt for what goes on in Congress. Let us focus on veterans issues. We have differences of opinion. Let us debate those issues. Let us not bring in extraneous matters, poison pills, which will give people a reason to vote against this bill. Let us debate veterans issues. Let me talk about some of the issues in this bill that my Republican colleagues did not talk about. No. 1, I am proud--I hope we are all proud--that recently we made sure the promises made to military retirees were kept, that we rescinded the 1-percent COLA decrease that was in the bipartisan budget agreement. But we did not go far enough. Men and women who are joining the military after January 2014 are still subject to that decrease in COLA. Are we in favor of keeping promises to all veterans, including the new members of the Armed Forces or are we not? Let us debate that issue. I believe that we keep our promises to all veterans. That is in the bill. If people want to oppose that, they have the right to oppose that. We have heard in several instances that the VA does not have the medical infrastructure to take care of the needs of veterans, and that is true. That is why in this bill we authorize the VA to enter into 27 major medical facility leases in 18 States and in Puerto Rico--18 States and Puerto Rico. So don't come forward and say ``gee, VA does not have the infrastructure to take care of veterans needs'' but then vote against a provision that significantly expands VA health care capabilities. I talked a moment ago about what we mean by expanding VA health care. We do away with the absurdly complicated bureaucratic situation that now exists in which there are hundreds of different income eligibility standards in the 50 States of the country. We reduce it to 50. In California or Vermont, you will know whether you are eligible for health care as a Priority 8 veteran. Does it open the opportunity for more veterans to come into VA health care? It does. The reason is because VA provides good-quality health care to our veterans, which is why the veterans throughout this country whom I have talked to and in patient satisfaction surveys approve and are supportive of VA health care. More want to come into the system. We heard just how terrible and awful VA health care is, and then we heard: We don't want to open the doors because it is going to be flooded with new people coming into VA health care. You can't have it both ways. If VA health care is so terrible, why are you afraid of new people coming into VA health care? The answer is that if you go out to the veterans community, they will tell you: Yeah, there are problems in VA. But there are problems in every health care institution in this country. Over 30,000 Americans die every single year because they don't get to the doctor when they should because they don't have health care. I don't want any veterans to be part of that number. Hospitals all over this country are struggling with an epidemic of infections. The VA has done better than many other medical institutions in addressing that. In terms of telehealth--which is so important to veterans in my rural State and in rural States all over the country--guess which medical institution is leading the country in terms of telehealth. It is the Veterans' Administration. That means a veteran can walk into a VA community-based outreach clinic in rural West Virginia and have a teleconference with a specialist in any other part of the country. VA has been cutting-edge in terms of telehealth. We talk about medical technology and medical health care records. Guess which health care institution in America has led the effort in terms of medical and health care technology. It has been the VA. So I find it interesting that on one hand some of my colleagues tell us how terrible VA health care is, and on the other hand they are nervous that hundreds of thousands of veterans may want to access VA health care because, in fact, it is one of the best health care institutions in the country. Does VA have problems? Of course it has problems. I am not aware of any health care institution in America that does not have its share of problems. The difference between the VA and many private or nonprofit hospitals is--and it should be this way--by law, every problem at the VA makes it to the front pages. My guess is that if a hospital in West Virginia or Vermont screws up, they don't necessarily make it to the front pages. Because VA is public and by law they have to be transparent, they are on the front pages. In terms of advanced appropriations for VA, my friends on the other side have a bit of a problem with that. I don't. I find it interesting that when our Republican colleagues in the House shut down the U.S. Government because they don't like and wanted to defund ObamaCare, we were 7 days to 10 days away from preventing disabled veterans from getting the checks they need in order to survive. So I believe advanced funding for the VA to make sure that they are never put in that position again, that there is money in the bank to pay the benefits we owe to our veterans in the event of another government shutdown, is good public policy. As I mentioned earlier, when we talk about health care, in my view, we have to talk about dental care as well. If people do not have adequate dental care, it impacts their employability, say if they are missing front teeth. People get sick from infections if they don't have adequate dental care. I think we owe it to our veterans to make sure they do. This legislation provides a pilot project for 30,000 veterans to begin to access dental care within the VA. We will see how that pilot goes. I suspect we are going to see a huge need out there. And if some of my colleagues think veterans are not entitled to dental care, then we have a difference of opinion. That is fine. Let's debate it. But I think dental care is an intrinsic part of health care in general. I think we have a dental care crisis in the United States of America and within the dental community. Right now dental care is available to those veterans who have suffered service-connected dental problems but not available to veterans in general. I want to change that. I have heard the discussion about the backlog. Every Member of the Senate is concerned about the backlog. We have had hearings in the Senate about the backlog. I am really glad that today people are concerned about the backlog. I just wonder where they were 5 years ago when--before Obama became President--the VA was probably the largest institution in this Nation, if not the world, that still did all of its benefits processing work on paper, not digitally. When Secretary Shinseki became Secretary of the VA, he said: We are going to bring the VA into the 21st century. We are going to go from paper to digital, to an electronic system. That is what they have been doing, and what we have seen is real progress. Is it fast enough for me? No, it is not. But Secretary Shinseki has told me personally and our committee that they are on track, so by the end of 2014 all VA claims will be processed within 120 days with 98 percent accuracy. That is pretty good. Just think for a moment what a huge task that is. Individual veteran files wider than this, with years and years of records, have to be put into a digital system. That is what they are doing, and they are making progress. In this legislation, we have brought forth Republican and Democrat ideas to make sure that they are, in fact, on target and that they reach the very ambitious goals Secretary Shinseki brought forth. So if you are interested in the claims backlog, vote for this legislation because we have bipartisan language in it to make sure veterans do not have to wait years to get their claims processed. My friend from Oklahoma said he is not sympathetic to the idea that veterans should pay instate tuition, which is essentially what we meant when we passed the post-9/11 GI educational bill. Every time we bring forth legislation, we hear all of the reasons why we should not go forward in providing services and benefits to our veterans. I would argue--and many economists would agree with me--that one of the most significant pieces of legislation passed in the modern history of the United States of America was the GI bill of World War II. That bill said to the millions of people who fought in World War II, in that terrible war: When you come home, no matter what your income is, you will be eligible to get a higher education. As a result of that legislation, millions of soldiers who returned were able to go to college. They became businessmen, they became doctors, they became lawyers. And one of the reasons the economy of the United States of America expanded significantly for the middle class was a direct result of that very important GI bill. What we said several years ago was that we should take that premise and apply it to the men and women who served post-9/11 in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was quite a political debate here. Some of my Republican friends had their doubts. We passed it, and today over 1 million veterans and their family members are now getting a college education. In my view, that was exactly the right thing to do. One of the problems is that veterans move about. So if they go from the State where they have lived their whole life--for example, they lived in Vermont and go to California--and the GI bill promises them instate tuition, it turns out the tuition in the State they are in now may be a lot higher than in their home State and sometimes makes it impossible for them to go to college. We agree with virtually all the veterans organizations that the intent of the post-9/11 GI education bill was to make sure they get instate tuition. So if somebody from California comes to Vermont, they get our instate tuition. If somebody from Vermont goes to California, they get their instate tuition. Not doing so denies many people a higher education. Previously, this Congress passed language which says that if you served in Iraq and Afghanistan, you are going to get 5 years of free health care, which was the right thing to do. It turns out not everybody learned about the benefit. Four or five years have come and gone. What we say to those veterans is, we are going to give you another 5 years to take advantage of that provision. Senator Murray from Washington--the former chair of the Veterans' Affairs Committee who preceded me--and Senator Reid earlier today talked about the employment situation for veterans. I think we all know we are in a tough economy. Real unemployment is close to 13 percent. Youth unemployment is higher. So when somebody who gets out of the service and comes home to look for a job--it is hard to do. I believe we have to do what we can to make sure that when people leave the service they can find a job. That is what this legislation does. We also want to make sure the skills acquired by the men and women of our Armed Forces while on Active Duty or in the National Guard become applicable to civilian life as well, and we have language in this bill that does that. There is another issue which I didn't hear my Republican colleagues talking about but which is a very important part of the bill. We have a situation where some 2,300 veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan have come back with a variety of wounds that make it impossible for them to have children. I will give one example. Army veteran Matt Keil of Colorado was wounded by sniper fire in Iraq in 2007. The sniper's round struck Matt's neck, causing severe damage to a vital artery and his spinal cord. Through sheer determination and with the love and resolve of his wife Tracy, Matt's condition improved. He and Tracy began to consider having children. Doctors assured them that having children could be possible with the help of in vitro fertilization. The Keil family paid more than $30,000 for reproductive treatments. In the legislation on the floor now, we say that is wrong. If a servicemember who was injured in war wants to have a family and is unable to have a family, we should make it possible for them to do so. If some of my colleagues on the other side disagree, that is fine. Let's have that debate. I think we owe it to the 2,300 men and women who were wounded in battle. They should have the opportunity to raise a family. We all know that one of the uglier aspects of military service in recent years has been the epidemic of sexual assault. When we send people into the military, we do not want to see men and women being sexually assaulted. I know the Department of Defense is working hard to address this issue, but the fact is that many veterans who came home from war were sexually assaulted. This legislation contains important provisions that would improve the delivery of care and benefits to veterans who experienced sexual trauma while serving in the military. This provision was inspired by Ruth Moore. She struggled for 23 years to receive VA disability compensation. This is a woman who was sexually assaulted and had a very difficult time proving that and getting the care she needed. We address that issue in this legislation. In 2010, the Congress took a very significant step forward in saying to family members who were caring for disabled vets that we understood how terribly difficult it is for them. There are wives, sisters, brothers, and other family members who, 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, are on call for veterans who have suffered serious injuries, and that is tough. That is very tough and stressful. There are wives and sisters and brothers out there who don't get any time off. They are on call 7 days a week. We passed a caregivers act that provides a modest stipend. It provides training and time off for people who are caring for veterans 7 days a week. It says, you can have a day off. We will send in a nurse. We did that for post-9/11 veterans. The truth is there are tens of thousands of families who are experiencing and going through the same issues and have been doing so for decades. I believe it is appropriate that we expand the caregivers act to every generation of veterans and make sure that those families get the help they need. I have heard some of my Republican colleagues say this legislation simply opens the door to every veteran in America to come in, and that when they come in, the quality of care is going to be diminished. That is simply an inaccurate statement, and I hope my colleagues read the legislation before they repeat that. It is not true. What we do is end the absurd and complicated situation of having hundreds and hundreds of different income eligibility standards. Instead of many hundreds of standards, there will be one in each State, and it will be the highest standard, which will mean that more veterans are able to come into VA health care. It does not open the door. We have been clear in saying we will not bring more veterans in until we make sure we have the infrastructure to deal with those veterans. Some people have said: Well, why do you want to bring more veterans into the VA? The answer is pretty simple. I talked to many veterans in Vermont who would like to get into VA health care because of the respect and the knowledge about the needs of veterans and the high quality of care they get, and the fact that there is a strong network of primary health care facilities all over the country which they can access. I will conclude for the moment by saying I very much appreciate the fact that every single Member of the Senate--I believe there were 99 votes--voted to proceed on this debate. I look forward to this debate. It is an important debate. I look forward to serious amendments which address the needs of veterans. I think it would be very disrespectful to the veterans community if we started injecting into this debate totally extraneous and highly political and partisan issues. The issue of sanctions in Iran is a very important issue. People have honest differences of opinion. That is not an issue regarding VA health care. It is not an issue regarding the caregivers program. It is not an issue regarding dental care for our veterans. Let's respect veterans and have this debate on veterans issues and not on extraneous political issues which will divide us. Let's try to come together and not be divided. With that, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SANDERS. Very good. What I would like to do now is yield to the former chairperson of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, somebody who has done an outstanding job for veterans. She has focused on one issue that I feel very strongly about; that is, the need to help those veterans who would like to have children but as a result of war wounds are unable to do so.