[Pages S3928-S3932]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr.
Murphy, Mr. Reed, and Mrs. Boxer):
S. 1529. A bill to promote the tracing of firearms used in crimes,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 1529

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Crime Gun Tracing Act of
2015''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITION.

Section 1709 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets
Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796dd-8) is amended by--
(1) redesignating paragraphs (1) through (4) as paragraphs
(2) through (5), respectively; and
(2) inserting before paragraph (2), as redesignated, the
following:
``(1) `Bureau' means the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms, and Explosives.''.

SEC. 3. INCENTIVES FOR TRACING FIREARMS USED IN CRIMES.

Section 1701 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets
Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796dd) is amended by striking
subsection (c) and inserting the following:
``(c) Preferential Consideration of Applications for
Certain Grants.--In awarding grants under this part, the
Attorney General, where feasible--
``(1) may give preferential consideration to an application
for hiring and rehiring additional career law enforcement
officers that involves a non-Federal contribution exceeding
the 25-percent minimum under subsection (g); and
``(2) shall give preferential consideration to an
application submitted by an applicant that has reported all
firearms recovered during the previous 12 months by the
applicant at a crime scene or during the course of a criminal
investigation to the Bureau for the purpose of tracing, or to
a State agency that reports such firearms to the Bureau for
the purpose of tracing.''.

SEC. 4. REPORTING OF FIREARM TRACING BY APPLICANTS FOR
COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING SERVICES GRANTS.

Section 1702(c) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796dd-1(c)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (10), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (11), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(12) specify--
``(A) whether the applicant recovered any firearms at a
crime scene or during the course of a criminal investigation
during the 12 months before the submission of the
application;
``(B) the number of firearms described in subparagraph (A);
``(C) the number of firearms described in subparagraph (A)
that were reported to the Bureau for tracing, or to a State
agency that reports such firearms to the Bureau for tracing;
and
``(D) the reason why any firearms described under
subparagraph (A) were not reported to the Bureau for tracing,
or to a State agency that reports such firearms to the Bureau
for tracing.''.
______

By Mr. CASSIDY (for himself, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Cornyn, Ms.
Collins, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Coats, Mr. Rounds, Mr. Vitter, Mrs.
Capito, and Mr. Wicker):
S. 1531. A bill to reform the provision of health insurance coverage
by promoting health savings accounts, State-based alternatives to
coverage under the Affordable Care Act, and price transparency, in
order to promote a more market-based health care system, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, the Supreme Court is about to rule on
King v. Burwell. This decision is a question of a plain reading of the
law, which is that subsidies shall only be given to those who reside in
States which have established State exchanges. That is the plain
reading of the law. The administration maintains that, no, ``States''
doesn't mean ``States,'' but, rather, it can be an exchange set up
either by the State or the Federal Government.
Presuming the Supreme Court decides that a plain reading of the law
is correct--that for a resident of a State to receive a subsidy, they
have to reside in a State that has established an exchange--there are
37 States in which those currently receiving subsidies will lose their
subsidies. This is important because under ObamaCare we have seen a
dramatic increase in the cost of health insurance premiums. So many
people who formerly would have been able to afford an insurance premium
no longer can without the subsidy. What this means for that person in a
State such as Louisiana is there will be someone in the middle of
chemotherapy who can no longer afford their insurance without a
subsidy. The insurance has been made so high because of ObamaCare that
that patient is no longer able to afford her insurance and she is at
risk of losing her coverage because the administration illegally
implemented the law.
This is where we are going into the Supreme Court decision. Let me
kind of now start on a different tack.
The President's health care law, ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act,
has continued to be singularly unpopular. A recent ABC poll showed that
only 39 percent of Americans approved of the law. That is an alltime
low--10 percent lower than it has been.
One can ask why it would be unpopular and why it would be
particularly unpopular now. I think the reason it is unpopular in
general is that ObamaCare is a coercive Federal Government program,
that if you don't bend your will to the Federal Government, the Federal
Government will penalize you. That is not how Americans view their
relationship to the Federal Government. We don't expect the government
to tell us what to do. There might be income taxes, which we pay, and
there will be drafts in times of war, such as World War II, but in
general, aside from those two things, the Federal Government should
just stay out of our lives. In this case--ObamaCare--the Federal
Government gets right in the middle of that which is most personal, and
that is our health care.
I think the reason ObamaCare is particularly unpopular now is because
of the premium increases that have resulted because of ObamaCare. Here
are

[[Page S3929]]

some headlines: CNN, ``Obamacare sticker shock: Big rate hikes proposed
for 2016''; AP, ``Many health insurers go big with initial 2016 rate
requests''; AP again, ``8 Minnesota Health Plans Propose Big Premium
Hikes for 2016''; the New York Times, ``In Vermont, Frustrations Mount
Over Affordable Care Act''; and the Washington Post, ``Almost half of
Obamacare exchanges face financial struggles in the future.''
In my own State, insurers are asking for 20 percent increases, and
this is on top of premium increases that have resulted from the
previous few years.
Indeed, the President likes to speak about how health care costs
under ObamaCare have mitigated--health care costs. Actually, that began
in 2007 before ObamaCare passed. But since ObamaCare passed, it has
been true. Health care costs have not risen as they did in the past.
Health insurance costs have gone up dramatically. The remarkable story
of ObamaCare is that there is now no relationship between health
insurance cost and health care cost. The insurance companies, with the
regulations imposed by ObamaCare, are charging far more for insurance
than one would expect because of the health care costs. Of course, the
President chooses to speak of the cost of care, not the cost of
premiums, but for the average person, it is the cost of premiums which
is making her so frustrated with this law.
That brings us back to King v. Burwell. At this point, I am offering
today, along with several original cosponsors, what we call the Patient
Freedom Act. We give patients the power which ObamaCare took from them,
and we give them the power by lowering the cost. We lower the cost by
eliminating the mandates that are part of ObamaCare. We return power
over insurance to the States, with the rationale that she who governs
best governs closest to those who are governed. The insurance
commissioner in that State should be able to decide what the person in
their State wishes to have for their policy, not a Washington
bureaucrat. And we give patients knowledge. We give them price
transparency. They should know the cost of something that is ordered
for them before they have the procedure performed as opposed to
learning afterward. We give them portability, and we give them
protection against preexisting conditions.
I and others--I think the Presiding Officer as well--have campaigned
for several cycles that we were going to repeal and replace ObamaCare.
In this situation, the Supreme Court will repeal a portion of
ObamaCare--not all but a portion--in 37 States, and this is the plan
that will replace that portion of ObamaCare which is repealed.
We like to look at it this way. We begin to plant the seeds. Now, in
those 37 States, those 8 million people affected by the Obama
administration's illegal implementation of the subsidy law--we make it
better for them. We plant the seeds so that over time other aspects and
eventually the entirety of ObamaCare will be replaced with something
which gives the patient the power as opposed to a Washington
bureaucrat.
Let me lay out what we do. King v. Burwell goes against the
administration. The Supreme Court rules that the law has been
implemented illegally. States will then have a choice: They can either
establish a State exchange if they wish for the status quo of
ObamaCare, the State can do nothing, which means in that State all of
ObamaCare goes away for the private insurance market, or they can
choose the Patient Freedom Act, which is the market-based reform that
we think gives the patient the power and not the bureaucrat.
Now let me compare the two. I mentioned how under the Patient Freedom
Act costs are lowered by repealing mandates. For example, under
ObamaCare there is an individual mandate with a coercive penalty. The
Patient Freedom Act does not have one. There is an employer mandate
penalty. Yes, under ObamaCare the employer is penalized; under the
Patient Freedom Act, no. There is the Federal essential health benefits
mandate. Under ObamaCare, a Washington bureaucrat tells somebody that
which they must purchase. In the Patient Freedom Act, we return that to
the State insurance commissioner. We do not have these mandates. I can
go on down the list, but the reality is that ObamaCare, coercive
mandates; the Patient Freedom Act, no.
The money we make available to the States we take from the tax
credits that ObamaCare would give to those in the State--those who are
eligible and signed up--we take the Medicaid funding that would be
available in the State for Medicaid expansion, and we combine those two
for the total allocation that will go to that State.
Now, some would say: Wait a second. The Federal Government should not
be in the business of helping people with health insurance. I say the
Federal Government is deeply in that business already. If you look
under public insurance, there is Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, VA, TRICARE,
and on and on where the Federal Government is providing health care
benefits for a substantial portion--over 25 percent--of Americans.
These are those Americans who get their insurance through the employer-
sponsored insurance, where the employer and the employee can contribute
to their insurance but they get a tax break on the purchase. That tax
break averages about $1,700. We are speaking about that remaining group
who purchases their insurance for themselves. We lower their cost by
equalizing the tax treatment between the two. It is the same sort of
tax break that those with the employer-sponsored insurance receive. We
will now offer that same tax break to these folks and in so doing
achieve that conservative goal of equalizing the tax treatment of those
purchasing employer-sponsored insurance as opposed to purchasing on
their own.
The funding goes to the patient. I am a doctor. I have been working
in a public hospital system for 25 years. I learned working as a
physician in both the private setting but also principally in the
public hospital setting that whoever controls the dollar has the
power. That makes no sense whatsoever. It is one of the major flaws in
ObamaCare. Since these subsidies are based upon estimated earnings that
are later reconciled through tax returns, Americans are facing onerous
tax liabilities and penalties as a consequence.

Let me explain further how this wage-lock occurs, because
increasingly Americans are going to be running into this problem. Let
me give you an example. Last year, the least expensive premium for a
silver plan to cover a 50-year-old individual in Aroostook County, ME,
cost $6,300 through an Affordable Care Act exchange. But that,
obviously, is not what most individuals pay. Instead, they receive a
subsidy that phases out based on their estimated income. But again, the
subsidy completely disappears at a sharp cliff at 400 percent of the
Federal poverty level.
An individual whose estimated income is just less than this cliff,
say, one that is earning $46,500, will pay 9.5 percent of his or her
income, or $4,370, for insurance and the rest is covered by the Federal
tax credits. But if it turns out that this individual actually made a
bit more than 400 percent of the Federal poverty level--let's say the
individual made $47,000--then, he or she would be on the hook for the
entire $6,300 premium. In other words, a 50-year-old who makes just
$500 more than he or she estimated will have to pay $2,000 more at tax
time for health insurance in the exchange.
Think about what this means for a self-employed individual whose
income fluctuates not only from year to year but from month to month.
This is a financial nightmare to try to figure out.
This cliff does not just affect individuals who get their coverage
through the ACA. Cliffs appear over and over in the design of the
subsidies under ObamaCare, and couples and families will face them at
different levels of income as their household size changes. What will
these bait-and-switch health insurance premiums do to incentives to
work harder, to earn more, to accept promotions? If you accept a
promotion at work and then your income goes over that magic 400 percent
of poverty threshold, you are going to lose your entire subsidy. You
might well decide to turn down that raise at work or that opportunity
to be promoted to a better job. What kind of system has been designed
to discourage people from moving ahead in the workplace?

[[Page S3930]]

In the State of Maine, so far we have learned that at least 1,000
Maine families have lost their subsidies completely because they were
in that situation where their income went over that threshold. Another
1,000 Mainers are finding out that they are losing part of their
subsidy and are going to be on the hook for paying more money.
I will say to my colleagues that you are going to start hearing this
in your States, and it particularly is going to affect people who are
self-employed and who have to estimate what their income is going to
be. Through no fault of their own--unless they are going to turn down
work--they may well go over the threshold amount and lose their subsidy
altogether. Remember, it takes just $1 in additional earnings at the
400 percent of poverty level to lose your subsidy altogether.
Let me give you an example of a Maine couple who contacted my office.
They discovered to their horror that when they filed their taxes, they
had earned more than the threshold and they owed $13,000 to the IRS for
the health insurance they received through the ObamaCare exchange, on
top of the $4,000 that they had been told their exchange coverage would
cost.
Imagine finding out that because you worked a little harder, because
you earned a bit more money, you now unexpectedly owe an extra $13,000
to the IRS because you lost your subsidy. The Patient Freedom Act would
put an end to the bait-and-switch premiums that are built into the
ObamaCare exchanges.
One of the reasons I opposed the Affordable Care Act was that there
was nothing affordable about it. I predicted at the time that it would
lead to fewer choices and higher insurance costs for many middle-income
Americans and small businesses.
A ruling in favor of the plaintiffs in King v. Burwell would prompt
Congress to protect those who would lose their subsidies, but it would
also provide the opportunity to give States the option to replace the
Affordable Care Act's poorly crafted mandates with patient-directed
reforms that contain costs, provide more choices, and still provide
assistance to those who need it most.
The Patient Freedom Act does exactly that. I urge my colleagues to
support it.
Now, if it is a bureaucrat who controls that dollar, then the
bureaucrat will dictate the type of facility the patient is seen in. If
the patient controls the dollar, the hospitals are going to compete for
her business, and she dictates the type of facility in which she is
seen. So in the Patient Freedom Act, the money goes directly to the
patient. It can go through the State. The money can be granted to the
State on a per-patient enrolled grant type; and in so doing, the State
would then distribute--and there are advantages for the State to do the
distribution--or, if the State does not want that responsibility, it
can be a Federal tax credit that goes into a health savings account
that the patient controls. But either way, the patient controls the
dollar. The patient has the power, not a bureaucrat.
Here is a brief example of how it will work: Here is the health
savings deposit that goes into a health savings account. There will be
some reforms in the bill that allow the patient to either use it as her
contribution--as the employee's contribution on a employer-sponsored
plan. She can directly contract with a provider network. She can
purchase commercial insurance or, if she does nothing, the State has
the option of creating a system, where someone is enrolled unless they
choose not to be.
Again, I am going to call upon my experience as a physician. Think of
a person who might be schizophrenic, homeless, living beneath a bridge.
He is never going to do what ObamaCare mandates, which is to get on the
Internet and fill out a 16-page form. It is just not going to happen. I
have been there, I have done that. I have been in the ER in the middle
of the night when a patient has come in with some acute medical or
trauma condition. Under this system, though, the State could have this
person enrolled unless they choose not to be.
So with the health savings account, they would have first-dollar
coverage for a visit should they decide to go into an outpatient clinic
for a foot that was infected. If they have some major issue and they
are brought to the hospital, the catastrophic policy would then give
them the coverage for that hospitalization but also protect the
hospital, the doctors, and other providers from taking a total loss--
which, by the way, society ends up paying for--because they have no
coverage for that hospitalization. So with this system, we can achieve
higher enrollments than are achieved under ObamaCare.
Last, let me talk about one more way in which we think patients will
have the power. One, they will have power portability. Every year, in
an open enrollment season, if the patient wishes to change plans, she
may, without penalty. Secondly, she will be protected against
preexisting conditions. The only rating that will be required for
premiums will be for geography and age. A 57-year-old will get a bigger
credit than a 20-year-old. But aside from age and, again, geographic--
because it is more expensive to receive care in Manhattan, NY, than
Manhattan, KS--that will be the only differences allowed. Lastly, there
will be the power of price transparency.
Currently, a woman goes in with her daughter, the doctor orders a CT
scan, and the patient has no clue what the cost of that CT scan is.
Now, it can be anywhere from $250 to $2,500 or more. I pick those
numbers because the LA Times had an article a couple years ago, they
found that the difference in cash price for CT scans was $250 to
$2,500. The only way someone could know is if they were an
investigative reporter and able to find out, not if you are a mom with
a sick child who needed a CT scan. For me, it is going to be great when
the mother can take her smart phone, scan a QR code, and pull up
something which says: CT scan $250 here, $2,500 there. I am going to
make my decision based on some combination of cost, quality, and
convenience. I will pick based upon my values on where to go. It is not
a Washington bureaucrat, it is a mother who is going to make that
decision.
Again, continuous coverage protects those with preexisting
conditions, and we mentioned the price transparency. In this way,
Republicans will give States the option to choose. Again, they can stay
in ObamaCare if they want. They have that option now. They can do
nothing, and it goes away if the Supreme Court rules that the subsidies
have been implemented illegally or they can go with the Patient Freedom
Act--the Patient Freedom Act--which gives patients the power by
lowering costs, lowering the cost by eliminating mandates, returning
power over insurance back to the commissioners who govern closest to
those who actually will be using the insurance, and then giving the
patient the power of portability, protection against preexisting
conditions, and the power of price transparency.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, let me begin my remarks this evening by
commending my friend and colleague the Senator from Louisiana for
coming up with a creative and comprehensive health care bill that I am
pleased to cosponsor.
As a physician, Senator Cassidy knows far better than most of us in
this body what it is like to deliver health care and has made a real
effort to come up with a public policy response in anticipation of the
Supreme Court's decision in King v. Burwell, which is expected to be
handed down later this month. So I thank him for his work and his
creativity in tackling a very complex issue.
As I mentioned, later this month, the Court is expected to rule in
King v. Burwell, a case challenging the availability of premium tax
credits under the Affordable Care Act in the 37 States that have not
established a State-run health insurance exchange.
If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, as many
experts expect it will, 6.4 million Americans who are now receiving
premium tax credits through the federally run exchanges will lose their
subsidies, and, as a result, their health insurance may well become
unaffordable. This includes almost 61,000 people in my State of Maine.
Such a decision will place responsibility on Congress and the
President to work together to protect those individuals. Senator
Cassidy and I believe we can do this by extending the current subsidies
for a transition period, as contemplated by the sense-of-Congress

[[Page S3931]]

language included in the Patient Freedom Act that we are introducing
today.
But the Supreme Court's decision will also invite us to think anew
about how to ensure that all Americans have access to affordable, high-
quality health care. We can advance this goal by revamping and
reforming the Affordable Care Act to improve the quality and
affordability of health care while retaining the insurance market
reforms that are so important to consumers.
Senator Cassidy's Patient Freedom Act is precisely the type of new
thinking we need. As the title of this bill suggests, the Patient
Freedom Act is built on the premise that freeing people to take charge
of their health care is superior to the one-size-fits-all approach of
ObamaCare. A decision for the plaintiffs in King v. Burwell would
essentially leave States with two options, absent congressional action.
They could either set up a State-run exchange to ensure that their
residents have access to the Affordable Care Act subsidies or do
nothing and allow their residents to lose these ObamaCare subsidies.
Under Senator Cassidy's bill, however, States with federally run
exchanges would have a third option. They would have the choice of
participating in the new Patient Freedom Act.
Participating in the Patient Freedom Act would allow States to
structure their health insurance market without an individual mandate
or an employer mandate or many of the other expensive mandates under
ObamaCare. In return, States would have to offer their citizens a basic
health insurance plan that would include first-dollar coverage through
a health savings account, basic prescription drug coverage, a high-
deductible health plan to protect enrollees against medical bankruptcy,
coverage for preexisting conditions--a good provision of the current
law that we would retain--coverage through a parent's plan for children
up to age 26--another good provision of the law that we would retain--
and there could be no annual or lifetime limits on insurance claims,
again a good provision of the current law that we would retain.
Here is how it would work: The Federal Government would provide
funding directly into the health savings accounts of individuals
insured through the Patient Freedom Act. These funds would be phased
out for higher income individuals. The aggregate funding for these per-
patient, per-capita grants would be determined based on the total
amount of funding that the Federal Government would have provided in
the form of ObamaCare subsidies in each State, plus any funding each
State would have received had they chosen to expand their Medicaid
Program, even if, like the State of Maine, they had chosen not to do
so.
In addition to Federal funds, individuals and employers could make
tax-advantaged contributions to these health savings accounts. The bill
even provides for a partial tax credit for very low-income individuals
who do receive employer-based coverage, but it would help these workers
pay for their deductibles and copays.
Individuals who are insured under the Patient Freedom Act would
receive debit cards tied to their health savings accounts, which they
could use to purchase a high-deductible health plan to pay directly for
medical expenses or pay premiums for a more generous health insurance
policy. In addition, health care providers receiving payment from the
health savings accounts would be required to publish cash prices for
their services, which would add transparency that we desperately need
to move toward a more patient-directed health care future.
The promise of patient-directed health care is one of the advantages
of this approach, but it has other advantages as well. For example,
residents of States that elect this option would no longer face the
individual mandate penalty that can cost individuals 2.5 percent of
their income and the typical American family of four an estimated
$2,100 next year. It would also codify the elimination of the employer
mandate in these States, freeing these employers to add jobs and let
their full-time employees work 40 hours a week. ObamaCare has been
causing some employers to reduce hours for their employees. The result
has been smaller paychecks for those workers.
Perhaps most important, however, the Patient Freedom Act would do
away with what the superintendent of insurance in Maine refers to as
``wage lock.'' That is caused by the fact that the subsidies in the
ObamaCare exchanges phase out completely at 400 percent of the Federal
poverty level. In other words, there is a cliff there. Now, 400 percent
of the poverty level is about $47,000 for an individual and $64,000 for
a couple. Taxpayers who earn just $1 more than the threshold lose their
entire subsidy.
______

By Mr. CORNYN:
S. 1534. A bill to require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to
ensure that the medical center of the Department of Veterans Affairs
located in Harlingen, Texas, includes a full-service inpatient health
care facility, to redesignate such medical center, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 1534

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Treto Garza South Texas
Veterans Inpatient Care Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF MEDICAL CENTER OF DEPARTMENT OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS IN HARLINGEN, TEXAS, AND
INCLUSION OF INPATIENT HEALTH CARE FACILITY AT
SUCH MEDICAL CENTER.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The current and future health care needs of veterans
residing in South Texas are not being fully met by the
Department of Veterans Affairs.
(2) According to recent census data, more than 108,000
veterans reside in South Texas.
(3) Travel times for veterans from the Valley Coastal Bend
area from their homes to the nearest hospital of the
Department for acute inpatient health care can exceed six
hours.
(4) Even with the significant travel times, veterans from
South Texas demonstrate a high demand for health care
services from the Department.
(5) Ongoing overseas deployments of members of the Armed
Forces from Texas, including members of the Armed Forces on
active duty, members of the Texas National Guard, and members
of the other reserve components of the Armed Forces, will
continue to increase demand for medical services provided by
the Department in South Texas.
(6) The Department employs an annual Strategic Capital
Investment Planning process to ``enable the VA to continually
adapt to changes in demographics, medical and information
technology, and health care delivery'', which results in the
development of a multi-year investment plan that determines
where gaps in services exist or are projected and develops an
appropriate solution to meet those gaps.
(7) According to the Department, final approval of the
Strategic Capital Investment Planning priority list serves as
the ``building block'' of the annual budget request for the
Department.
(8) Arturo ``Treto'' Garza, a veteran who served in the
Marine Corps, rose to the rank of Sergeant, and served two
tours in the Vietnam War, passed away on October 3, 2012.
(9) Treto Garza, who was also a former co-chairman of the
Veterans Alliance of the Rio Grande Valley, tirelessly fought
to improve health care services for veterans in the Rio
Grande Valley, with his efforts successfully leading to the
creation of the medical center of the Department located in
Harlingen, Texas.
(b) Redesignation of Medical Center in Harlingen, Texas.--
(1) In general.--The medical center of the Department of
Veterans Affairs located in Harlingen, Texas, shall after the
date of the enactment of this Act be known and designated as
the ``Treto Garza South Texas Department of Veterans Affairs
Health Care Center''.
(2) References.--Any reference in any law, regulation, map,
document, paper, or other record of the United States to the
medical center of the Department referred to in paragraph (1)
shall be deemed to be a reference to the Treto Garza South
Texas Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care Center.
(c) Requirement of Full-service Inpatient Facility.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall
ensure that the Treto Garza South Texas Department of
Veterans Affairs Health Care Center, as designated under
subsection (b), includes a full-service inpatient health care
facility of the Department and shall modify the existing
facility as necessary to meet that requirement.
(2) Plan to expand facility capabilities.--The Secretary
shall include in the annual Strategic Capital Investment Plan
of

[[Page S3932]]

the Department for fiscal year 2016 a project to expand the
capabilities of the Treto Garza South Texas Department of
Veterans Affairs Health Care Center, as so designated, by
adding the following:
(A) Inpatient capability for 50 beds with appropriate
administrative, clinical, diagnostic, and ancillary services
needed for support.
(B) An urgent care center.
(C) The capability to provide a full range of services to
meet the health care needs of women veterans.
(d) Report to Congress.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit
to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs of the House of
Representatives a report detailing a plan to implement the
requirements in subsection (c), including an estimate of the
cost of required actions and the time necessary for the
completion of those actions.
(e) South Texas Defined.--In this section, the term ``South
Texas'' means the following counties in Texas: Aransas, Bee,
Brooks, Calhoun, Cameron, DeWitt, Dimmit, Duval, Goliad,
Hidalgo, Jackson, Jim Hogg, Jim Wells, Kenedy, Kleberg,
Nueces, Refugio, San Patricio, Starr, Victoria, Webb,
Willacy, Zapata.

____________________