[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 116 (Thursday, July 23, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5478-S5486]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            HIRE MORE HEROES ACT OF 2015--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of the motion to proceed to H.R. 22, which the 
clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 19, H.R. 22, a bill to 
     amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt employees 
     with health coverage under TRICARE or the Veterans 
     Administration from being taken into account for purposes of 
     determining the employers to which the employer mandate 
     applies under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, first let me say it is important that we 
fund the highway trust fund and that we have a long-term commitment to 
the infrastructure of our country--the jobs, the economy, the 
neighborhoods.
  I see the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma coming to the floor. He 
leads the committee that oversees transportation. He and my friend from 
California have put forward a 6-year authorization on policy that I 
think we should commend them for. I am proud to be a part of the group. 
Certainly Democrats have been united in saying we need a sense of 
urgency, we need to get beyond month-to-month highway trust fund 
renewals, and we need to make a commitment to a long-term approach, 
just as every other country has done in a global economy, so that we 
can continue to compete and win as it relates to our roads, bridges, 
ports, rails, and all of the other parts of our infrastructure.
  What concerns me about the bill in front of us, though, is that, 
while we are on the one hand wanting to make sure we have good 
infrastructure for our communities, including safe roads, safe bridges, 
and other investments, one of the ways it is funded in this bill--and I 
believe strongly that we need to fix this before it moves forward, and 
I will do whatever I can to make sure we do, along with colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle who care about this--is a small provision that 
actually takes money away from communities and neighborhoods working 
very hard to come back from blight.
  We have communities all across Michigan--this is called the Hardest 
Hit Fund. There are communities all across Michigan. I don't have the 
full list in front of me right now, but I will do this off the top of 
my head. We have Detroit, Pontiac, Flint, Saginaw, Lansing, and Grand 
Rapids. Here is the list: Highland Park, Jackson, Inkster, Ecorse, 
Muskegon Heights, River Rouge, Port Huron, Hamtramck, Ironwood, and 
Adrian. These are all communities that are working very hard, through 
public sector and private sector efforts, to rebuild neighborhoods, to 
take down drug houses on a block where children are walking by on the 
way to school, and to rebuild with a new park or new housing.
  This is a program that has worked. In one of America's great cities 
that have gone through a lot of challenges called the city of Detroit, 
there is a huge effort going on right now, including public sector and 
private sector foundations. We have CEOs running towards the city of 
Detroit. It is really an amazing thing to see, what the private sector 
is doing. They are engaged in an effort to save and rebuild 
neighborhoods that can be saved by going into neighborhoods where the 
majority of houses are where senior citizens have lived for 
generations. Young couples have bought a house, but maybe there are two 
or three houses on a block that are empty and that are places where 
crime is occurring, such as drug houses. We take those down. What is 
happening in the city of Detroit is that home values are going up and 
things are beginning to turn around because of this strategy.
  Unfortunately, in this bill, monies that have been allocated to 
cities across the country in States across the country--I believe we 
have a list of States. States across the country have been allocated 
funds to fix issues, to fix houses, to rebuild neighborhoods. In this 
bill, money we are counting on, money that has been allocated for this 
purpose will be taken back. Can my colleagues imagine that?
  Here is the way this works. We have construction going on. Let's say 
they are removing asbestos from a home or taking houses down. The 
contractor does the work, and the city pays the contractor and then 
turns the bill in to the U.S. Department of the Treasury. They are 
counting on the fact that

[[Page S5479]]

they will be paid because we, the Federal Government, have given them 
in writing our word that they have a certain amount of dollars 
allocated.
  This bill, unfortunately--and I am hopeful that this was not done on 
purpose and that we will be able to fix this--actually says that you 
incur that bill from the private contractor, but we are not going to 
pay it anymore. It is one thing if we want to debate whether this 
program makes sense going forward, but for allocations that have 
already been made for South Carolina, Illinois, and Ohio--and my good 
friend, Rob Portman----
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Ms. STABENOW. I will be happy to yield to the distinguished chairman.
  Mr. INHOFE. I have been listening. I say to my good friend that I am 
concerned about that.
  As the Senator from Michigan knows, there are several titles in this 
bill. I chair the Environment and Public Works Committee, which is 
about 90 percent of the bill. But what the Senator is referring to here 
is in the banking title of the bill.
  I understand--and I can't say this for certain--that there are a 
couple of amendments that address this. One amendment may be that of 
the Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I say to the chairman that Senator 
Portman and I will have an amendment.
  Mr. INHOFE. OK, it was my understanding that was the case. I have 
checked with the leaders of the banking committee, and I think they are 
anticipating that could happen. So I appreciate it, and I just wanted 
that clarification as to where that problem that you point out does 
exist in the bill.
  Ms. STABENOW. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for that 
clarification.
  I do want to indicate very clearly that for communities around this 
country, this is a big deal. This is certainly a big deal for Michigan, 
and I can't in any way support any effort going forward unless this is 
fixed. It is a small amount of dollars in the larger scheme of funding 
this bill, and if it means that we fund the highway bill one less month 
rather than devastating communities such as Cleveland, Detroit, Flint, 
and cities in Illinois and South Carolina, Nevada, California, 
Kentucky, and across the country, then so be it. But I can't be any 
part of something that takes a huge effort and stops it in its tracks 
when it is so important to rebuild.
  I just want to share one example of why this is so important. I know 
the chairman is waiting to speak, so I won't be long. But I do want to 
show that in every rebuild community--let me just give you one story.
  In Detroit in October of 2009--this was in the paper--a 14-year-old 
girl on her way to high school was pulled behind a garage in a blighted 
neighborhood. In 2012, Detroit neighbors organized to try to protect 
schoolgirls from being assaulted on their way to school. One volunteer 
told the Detroit Free Press of rescuing a 13-year-old girl who was 
attacked in an abandoned garage. In 2012, a man who lived near Detroit 
looks for girls who are walking alone--girls walking to school, doing 
the right thing. We want them to go to school. We want them to get an 
education. The man abducted them at gunpoint and took them to vacant 
buildings and assaulted them. One man was accused of assaulting seven 
women. In 2012, a young woman was pulled into an abandoned house just 
two blocks from Denby High School and sexually assaulted--two blocks 
from school. She was trying to go to school when she was sexually 
assaulted. The Detroit Free Press interviewed an 18-year-old young 
woman who walked every day to school. She said she passed 88 vacant 
homes, and she knew other girls her age had been attacked in the 
neighborhood. This is getting fixed. This is getting fixed. Those 
buildings are coming down and in some cases what we have are landlords 
fixing them up. They are going in and taking back the house and 
rebuilding the house. People are buying homes. They are coming back 
into the neighborhoods. In some cases small businesses are buying these 
homes.
  We have rejuvenation going on like I have never seen before. It is 
dependent on the blight funds that we, through the Department of 
Treasury, have made available. I am not debating whether we should add 
more. I would love to add more. We need more funds. We need a more 
robust program. What I am saying is that it is outrageous if we are in 
a situation where there is money that cities are already counting on 
and spending with the private sector, with neighborhoods, with church 
groups--everybody is involved in this--and they are in the middle of a 
project and they are told: You know what; the good news is we are going 
to fix the road in front of your house. The bad news is your 
neighborhood is going to fall apart because we are not keeping our 
commitments as it relates to blight.
  I will be speaking more as we go. I want to certainly yield to our 
distinguished chairman. I appreciate the work of EPW, as I said 
earlier, in the policy. But this is critical to get done. This 
absolutely has to be out of this bill, and I hope it will be. I hope it 
will be.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the Senator 
from Indiana, Mr. Coats, is going to want some time to speak, and I am 
very flexible today. I just want to visit about the bill. We have so 
many parts of this, and I think that people have not really had a 
chance, and a lot of Members have not really gotten into the bill to 
see how far it goes and what it does.
  This is the sixth one of these that I have had since I have been here 
in the House and the Senate. We had one in the House first. This bill, 
I think, is really good.
  People forget that the last big bill we had was in 2005. It was a 5-
year bill and it is very similar to the bill before us today. There 
were projects that took place that were in that bill that are now 
complete. In my State of Oklahoma, we had a bridge in terrible 
condition in Oklahoma City. In fact, we had a terrible accident. A lady 
with her three small children was driving under the bridge and concrete 
dropped and killed her. This has happened. I spoke yesterday about all 
the bridges and the problems that exist around this country with all of 
our deficient bridges. So it is serious.
  Since 2009 we have not had a long-term bill. This is it. We have been 
operating on short-term extensions. There have been a total of 33 
short-term extensions. On short-term extensions you can't get anything 
done. You cannot have any major reforms.
  In this bill we have reforms in the NEPA system, the environmental 
system. We are giving latitude for road construction in terms of 
endangered species. There might be some little critter 6 feet down that 
some people don't want to disturb. Anyway, we are making exceptions. So 
we are really going to be able to get these projects going, and this is 
the first time since 2009 that we are doing it the right way.
  Yesterday there were some provisions about which what we have tried 
to do is take them one at a time to show how much daylight is in this 
bill so that people know how their money is being spent. Every project 
that is out there can now be monitored.
  What I would like to do is talk about the background of this. People 
don't realize that this was started in 1956 by the great General Dwight 
D. Eisenhower, who became the President of the United States. This 
Senator can say, as one of the most conservative Members of the Senate, 
I believe the Federal Government has grown larger and more invasive 
than our Founding Fathers ever envisioned, and our country could 
benefit from a smaller and more efficient government. I have observed 
that in government, if there is a problem out there, the government 
comes along and starts some kind of agency to deal with the problem and 
then the problem goes away, but the agency continues. In fact, they 
become part of the problem. Right now I am having a problem with one of 
the big bureaucracies, the FAA, on legislation that I proposed and that 
we passed 2 years ago, and now we have an extension of that.
  When looking at the budgets of the various bureaucracies--and in that 
case I don't have the exact figures--it has almost doubled what it was 
in 1986, yet the workload is less. We have to keep in mind this is 
going on. This is what people are complaining about.

[[Page S5480]]

What they are not complaining about is what the Constitution says we 
are supposed to be doing.
  The Constitution is very clear. It says in article I, section 8 what 
we are supposed to be doing as Members of the Senate and the House--No. 
1, defending America, and No. 2, building and maintaining roads and 
bridges. Sometimes we need to get out that old worn out document and 
reread it and find out that this is what this bill is all about. No one 
else is doing it for us.
  There are a lot of ideas that people have, and there are a lot of 
conservative groups, for example, that are saying we need devolution.
  I will tell the Presiding Officer something that in all his infinite 
wisdom he doesn't know, and that is that 20 years ago I was the father 
of devolution. It is more fun to stand on the steps and say all we have 
to do is do away with all the Federal gas taxes and move them to the 
States and let the States take care of these. I would suggest that some 
people are in States such as South Dakota where there is a lot of land 
and not a whole lot of people, and that just wouldn't work. Here is the 
problem with that issue. In order to make devolution work--and, again, 
this Senator was the guy that as beautiful as it was on the stump, it 
was fun to talk about until I found out it was wrong. First of all, it 
is easy to repeal all the Federal taxes, but then you have to assume 
that all 48 States will agree to pass a tax increase, and that isn't 
going to happen. I think we all know that.
  I want to mention something that is important, and that is to give 
the history of this. There are two areas where I believe the Federal 
Government has to be involved, as I mentioned, and that are consistent 
with the Constitution. This is both a conservative and constitutional 
understanding of the role of the Federal Government. President 
Eisenhower's Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 authorized construction of 
a 41,000-mile national system of interstate and defense highways. This 
chart I have in the Chamber shows the blue lines as the original 
highways, and the red came along later, which is the National Highway 
System. So you have the Interstate Highway System and the National 
Highway System. The blue is the Interstate Highway System, consisting 
of 41,000 miles of highways. This is actually a map of Eisenhower's 
Interstate Highway System back in 1956.
  In order to finance this massive undertaking and to fund the 
remainder of the Federal-Aid Highway Program, the Highway Revenue Act 
of 1956 created the highway trust fund. That is what we have been 
talking about for a long period of time now. It provided that revenues 
from certain highway user groups be credited to the highway trust fund.
  Interestingly, I can remember when the biggest problem with the 
highway trust fund was that it had too big a surplus. It was huge. I 
remember the Clinton administration tried to take $12 billion out of 
the highway trust fund for another program, and they were successful. 
It took me 3 years to get it back. That is because it was a target that 
had a lot of money in it. Well, the dedicated funding mechanism 
provided certainty for the Federal highway program. The 13-year 
authorization of the Highway Revenue Act gave the States the necessary 
certainty to plan and construct highway projects.
  Since 1956, Congress has regularly reauthorized the Federal-Aid 
Highway Program. Eisenhower's highway act of 1956 was implemented to 
solve many problems we are experiencing now as our infrastructure 
deteriorates.
  Keep in mind that it was all built on a 50-year basis and that it 
would last 50 years. Well, that was about 70 years ago. It is beyond 
its maintenance period now, and that is why it is so critical today.
  The act originally in 1956 was implemented to solve the problems that 
we are experiencing now as our infrastructure deteriorates. Most 
notably, billions of dollars have been wasted on detours, traffic jams, 
and inefficiency in the transport of goods.
  Not only did Eisenhower understand the constitutional order as 
intended by the Framers, but he demonstrated the terms and conditions 
of the Constitution in the implemented Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956. 
The original principles of the Constitution and the Federal-State 
relationship exist to ensure liberty while maintaining security. 
Eisenhower was the President, but he was also a general. He was a star. 
He knew about the military. His original concern was not with the 
economy as much as it was with the military. This was following World 
War II, and he was anticipating that something else could happen. He 
wanted to make sure that we could move our goods and services around 
for military defense purposes. The principles were made operational via 
the interstate highway act of 1956, and this chart has the stated 
purpose of the act by the President. He said: ``The obsolescence of the 
Nation's highways presents an appalling problem of waste, danger and 
death.''

  This is a statement he made at that time. Unfortunately, Congress has 
forgotten that passing fully funded, long-term transportation 
legislation is one of the unique responsibilities and has instead 
fallen into a pattern of passing short-term extensions. Now, I have 
already talked about how many extensions have been passed since 2009--
33 of them. In those extensions, you don't get any of the reforms, you 
don't have any of the opportunities to build roads cheaper and repair 
the bridges much cheaper. Now we can do that.
  So he said: ``Adequate financing there must be, but contention over 
the method should not be permitted to deny our people these critically 
needed roads.'' The need for a Federal investment is dire. Just look at 
the current condition of our roads and bridges. What was once the best 
transportation system in the world is now rapidly deteriorating as we 
struggle to maintain the existing condition of our infrastructure. Our 
global competitors are outpacing us in their infrastructure investment. 
I think we have another chart on that.
  The interstate system is just as much about defense as it is 
interstate commerce: ``The obsolescence of the nation's highways 
presents an appalling problem of waste, danger and death.''
  This was what the President said at that time. He is right. The 
condition of our roads currently has impacted the quality of life for 
all Americans. Fifty-four percent of America's major roads are rated 
poor or mediocre, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation.
  This has become a matter of life and death: 32,700 Americans died in 
traffic crashes in 2013, with 1 of 3 fatalities related to poor road 
conditions, according to the Federal Highway Administration. We all 
remember back in 2007, up in Minnesota--it got a lot of attention up 
there at that time when they had the bridge collapse, the people who 
died, the people who were injured. It is something that could have been 
avoided if we had kept up-to-date on all of our bridges.
  As I said yesterday, I talked about all of the bridges we have--not 
all of them, just some of the ones that are used more than any others. 
This shows the structurally deficient bridges. The darker the color the 
worse the bridges. There is my State of Oklahoma. You can see the 
entire northeast quarter of the State has a lot of the deficient 
bridges.
  I was talking to the Senator from Missouri, Mr. Blunt, yesterday. He 
talked about in Missouri--the problems we have in Missouri and 
Oklahoma. There are a lot of structurally deficient bridges in both 
states. The DRIVE Act is addressing that but also the very large 
bridges that are causing unnecessary deaths. Our national interstate 
system needs to be completely reconstructed. Right now, the 47,000--
this is critical here. The 47,000-mile interstate system is about 60 
years old. Many of the first segments, including segments in Oklahoma 
and Missouri and Kentucky, are now well beyond their 50-year design 
life.
  When Eisenhower successfully passed the Federal-Aid Highway Act in 
1956, both the House and the Senate were controlled by Democrats, while 
he was a Republican. The measure was met with widespread bipartisan 
support. There is no such thing as a Republican bridge or a Democratic 
road. This is something that should be blind to partisan politics, but 
nonetheless he was very active and he considered that one of his top 
priorities.
  In fact, during the debates in Congress in 1955 and 1956, there had 
been no

[[Page S5481]]

opposition to the interstate system. The DRIVE Act,that is what we are 
going to be voting on--we have already voted on a motion to proceed to 
it, so we have crossed that bridge. We are now going to be considering 
amendments. The DRIVE Act is a long-term investment vision with new 
reforms that will provide States with certainty and flexibility needed 
to revamp our National Highway System.

  We are going to--this is the only opportunity we are going to have to 
get this done. We are going to try to finish this bill by the end of 
next week. So that will be quite an undertaking. I would invite and 
hope that all of our Members will bring their amendments down. We will 
be considering amendments. We can't consider them unless they come 
down. What I don't want to happen is to be standing here begging for 
amendments to come down, and then 2 weeks from now, right before it 
comes time, find that we have to pass a procedure not to allow 
amendments.
  We don't want that to happen. So we are saying get your amendments 
down here early. We know there are some of them--there has been a lot 
of publicity on this--that are not germane. Yet we are going to go 
ahead and consider them. We are going to open the amendment process. 
That is one thing I think the Republicans do better than Democrats 
because during the years the Democrats controlled this Chamber, we just 
had a handful of amendments at that time. We passed that 8-year record 
in the first month by encouraging people to bring down amendments. So I 
am asking the Democratic and Republican Senators to do that.
  This is going to be the most significant bill--now that we have 
passed the Defense authorization bill. That is not all behind us yet. 
We are still meeting on that. In fact, we had a meeting this morning, 
but nonetheless it was passed from the committee and from the floor. 
Now the most important legislation that is left for the rest of the 
year is this bill we are talking about now. There is going to be a lot 
of legislation that is going to be introduced.
  In my committee, the Environment and Public Works Committee, a lot of 
people think of that, and I know the Presiding Officer is an active 
member of that committee. It is not just public works. It is not just 
roads and highways and bridges. The other part of it, the environment 
and public works, includes all of the overregulation.
  Right now, if you go back to your States--I don't care what State it 
is--and you talk to people on the streets who are in business, they 
will tell you the greatest problem we are having right now is 
overregulation by the EPA. The Environmental Protection Agency is 
passing regulations right now. I mean, look at the cap-and-trade 
legislation. That would constitute the greatest tax increase in 
history. Yet they tried to pass it as legislation. Now they are trying 
to do it as regulations.
  The waters of the United States. That is an issue that if you talk to 
your farmers--I don't care if it is in South Dakota, Oklahoma, Missouri 
or any of the rest of the country--and you ask what is the biggest 
problem you are facing right now, it is nothing that is found in the 
farm bill. It is the overregulation by the EPA. They will single out 
the waters of the United States bill or rule that they are trying to 
put through. I recall so vividly, just a few years ago, when two 
Members authored bills to take the word ``navigable'' out. I am sure 
there are some who have forgotten the fact that the regulation of water 
in the United States has always been left to the States, except for 
navigable waters. I understand that. Even being a conservative, I 
understand the Federal Government needs to be regulating those.
  What the liberals tried to do is take the word ``navigable'' out so 
the States would have no say in the regulation that is out there. So 
not only did we defeat the legislation, but both Senator Feingold and 
Congressman Oberstar, who were the sponsors of the bill, were defeated 
in the next election too. We have all these things. We have endangered 
species. These are all part of this committee. So it is overregulation 
that is consuming most of our time.
  Repairing our roads and bridges is an area where everyone agrees. You 
have to keep in mind, this bill passed--our bipartisan bill--
unanimously out of committee, not one vote against.
  I am prepared to yield the floor because I understand the Senator 
from Indiana is here.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague from Oklahoma 
for his recent statement. I also understand he is willing to help 
relieve me a little bit, as I am the next Presiding Officer. I 
appreciate that. I will relieve him of that responsibility as soon as I 
finish my remarks.


                           Wasteful Spending

  As many know, I have, since February, been coming to the Senate 
floor--now 18 different times--to highlight waste, fraud, and abuse 
within the Federal Government. The Senator from Oklahoma was talking 
about his committee, which he runs in such an efficient and effective 
way--I am particularly taken with the overregulation under this 
administration. It resonates with me. It is killing our farmers. It is 
killing our small businesses.
  We are all for safe, sound, cost-effective regulations that address 
safety and health. No one is trying to undo those, but we have an 
agency that is running amuck with ideological determinations on the 
basis of what ``they think is best'' for the country, regardless of 
what numbers come up, what impact they have--what negative impacts. No 
one has better led this effort than the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. 
Inhofe. I thank him for that.
  But today I have come to talk about waste, abuse, and fraud. I have 
been down here 18 times since February, once a week. I could be down 
here every day. I could be down here every hour. It is astounding the 
amount of taxpayers' hard-earned dollars that has to pay for what has 
been categorized by neutral agencies--not on a partisan basis at all--
as total waste, total fraud, and total abuse.
  So here I am again, trying to do the best we can to make this 
government more effective, more efficient, and more focused on the 
essential things it needs to do--wiping out, eliminating the abusive 
use, the wasteful use, and the fraudulent use of hard-earned tax 
dollars.
  Today, what I would like to speak about relates to the so-called 
Affordable Care Act. I think we found that a better title would have 
been the ``Unaffordable Care Act.'' But last week in the Senate Finance 
Committee, we had the Director from GAO--a member from GAO, Mr. 
Bagdoyan. He is the Director of Audit Services at the Government 
Accountability Office.
  It was a fascinating hearing, but he came to report to us about 
abuses that are taking place or could take place with the Affordable 
Care Act enrollment. It is amazing. I would like to go over that. His 
audit team--this is his job. His job is to audit the spending of 
taxpayer dollars. In this case, they looked at the Affordable Care Act 
enrollment process. They wanted to see whether the procedures that had 
been agreed to, to prevent people from abusing this in a fraudulent 
way--if they had been implemented at the Centers for Medicare and 
Medicaid, CMS.
  So what they did is run an undercover so-called secret shopper 
investigation to test the internal controls of healthcare.gov to review 
how the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services handle this new 
program. Particularly, this investigation was designed to determine how 
effective the administration's Federal health insurance exchange is 
protecting against fraudulent applications. So it is a very narrowly 
focused test and a very legitimate test to see if the agreed-upon 
measures and criteria for qualifying to enroll in health care, the 
ObamaCare bill, have been put in place.
  There are millions of people who have selected ObamaCare plans 
through healthcare.gov. Eight million Americans in 34 States have 
selected plans, and 87 percent of those have qualified for premium 
subsidies. That alone adds up to tens of billions in subsidies each 
year, all coming through healthcare.gov. That is an issue in and of 
itself. I am not here necessarily to address that. We can address that 
at another time.
  But the key question was, if applicants misrepresent themselves with 
fake facts in order to receive those subsidies, would the folks at 
healthcare.gov find those, catch them, and keep them from qualifying. 
Unfortunately, the answer is a resounding

[[Page S5482]]

no. The GAO, the Government Accountability Office, found that 11 out of 
12 fake applications received approval. For this investigation, GAO 
created false identities and used them to apply for premium tax 
subsidies through the Federal health insurance exchange. They used fake 
documents or, in several cases, no documents at all. It was just a 
test. So they would learn that either those applications would be 
turned down or that those restrictions which were designated--that 
those running healthcare.gov knew what they needed to do and did what 
they needed to do.

  The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services accepted 11 out of the 
12, accepted the fake documents, for some didn't even attempt to verify 
their authenticity, and as a result they enrolled those applicants. 
They granted them thousands of dollars in premium tax subsidies. 
Specifically, CMS awarded $30,000 in advanced premium tax credits to 11 
of those 12 fraudulent applicants in 2014 alone.
  As 2015 began, CMS then terminated coverage for 6 of those 11 fake 
individuals, noting that they had not properly registered or provided 
necessary documents. So it seemed then that, OK, the program turned out 
to work and CMS finally caught on to the fact that they were issuing 
subsidies for fraudulent applications. Well, that optimism was very 
short-lived because GAO then called CMS pretending to be those 
individuals who had been turned down, and in five of the six cases, 
they were able to get their coverage and subsidies restored without 
submitting any paperwork.
  The system handles millions of applications with billions of dollars 
of subsidies, and they did not design a mechanism to identify fraud 
even though they had been told they were not identifying the fraud and 
not putting the measures in place to do so.
  Part of the problem is that the law is so gargantuan, it is nearly 
unworkable. But there is no excuse for these compliance numbers when 
billions of taxpayer dollars are at stake.
  Unfortunately, the administration continues to measure success by the 
number of people who have signed up for ObamaCare. Last year, the 
administration rejoiced when reaching its enrollment goal and lauded it 
as proof the exchanges were working just fine. However, given the 
results of this investigation, I wonder what percentage of those 
enrollees were real people providing real information and how many were 
people providing no information or false information.
  When the test revealed that 11 out of 12--that is a pretty high 
percentage. You can multiply that out over what you think might be 
happening in the enrollment process, and there could be very 
substantial amounts of taxpayer money being paid in subsidies to people 
who do not qualify.
  Careful oversight of these programs for Federal benefits is of utmost 
importance, whether it is CMS on ObamaCare or whether it is any other 
agency in government that is providing benefits to individuals. I have 
listed many of those in my ``Waste of the Week'' speeches.
  This government needs to--must and Congress must do better in terms 
of oversight to make sure taxpayer dollars are spent effectively and 
efficiently, and if not, returned to the taxpayers so they don't have 
to send them here to be wasted in the first place.
  Clearly GAO used only a small number of claims, but imagine what 
hasn't been looked at or identified and what those numbers would be. 
This is a canary in a coal mine. If this isn't an alarm bell of 
dysfunction, I don't know what it is.
  Today I am not going to speculate on how much money has been wasted 
because of the acceptance of false applications, but I will put $30,000 
of documented abuse of subsidies that were paid for under the GAO 
investigation. So it is just a little bump on our gauge as we head 
toward $100 billion, and I have been told that next week's waste of the 
week will take us to our goal of $100 billion. We had hoped to reach 
that goal by the end of this year. We are way ahead of time. And, as I 
said, I could come down here every day or maybe every hour, given the 
waste we are finding in this misuse of taxpayer money.
  I thank the Chair again for helping me out on the time situation. I 
look forward to relieving the Presiding Officer in the chair.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coats). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, we have so many elements of the bill that 
is under consideration now, the DRIVE Act. It is enjoyable to talk 
about it. Yesterday we talked about the transparency, the fact that we 
have a way that the public can know every dime.
  I was watching as the Presiding Officer was giving a presentation on 
waste in government. That is not the case here. If all government 
agencies had the transparency we are going to have with the DRIVE Act, 
where everyone is going to know on a day-to-day basis the progress of 
every bridge, every highway that is being done, the renovations, then 
we wouldn't be having that problem. We are doing it right.
  You know, I look at these different parts of the bill. It is so big, 
you can talk about it for a long period of time. Yesterday we went over 
not all of the deficient bridges in the country but quite a few of 
them, and when people stop and realize that people die unnecessarily 
because of deficiencies in our bridges--it is a serious thing.
  But one of the parts of this bill that people are not aware of as 
much as they should be is the freight section of the bill, transporting 
freight around. We talked about the history. We talked about the fact 
that the first bill that came along for a transportation 
reauthorization bill back in 1956 was primarily for military purposes. 
Now we realize the deficiency--we are compared to China, compared to 
other countries in not keeping up our highway system.
  Today the National Highway System carries more than 55 percent of the 
Nation's highway traffic and 97 percent of the truck freight traffic. 
Of the 4 million miles of public roads, the National Highway System 
represents 5.5 percent of the Nation's most heavily traveled miles of 
road. That 5.5 percent carries 97 percent of the freight.
  Americans depend on a well-maintained National Highway System that 
provides critical connections between urban and rural communities. 
American businesses pay an estimated $27 billion a year in extra 
freight transportation costs due to the poor condition of public roads, 
which increases shipping delays and raises prices on everyday 
products. Recognizing that it is the foundation of the Nation's economy 
and the key to the Nation's ability to compete in the global economy, 
it is essential that we focus efforts to improve freight movement on 
the National Highway System.

  You know, in all the bills--and I have been involved in six of these 
over the years--we have never really singled out freight to be 
addressed. Yet there is no one in here who hasn't gone down our roads 
and highways and seen the congestion and the traffic and trucks idling 
here and there and everyone being late, and there is a tremendous cost 
to that.
  The DRIVE Act includes two new programs to help States deliver 
projects that promote the safe, efficient, and reliable transportation 
of consumer goods and products. The first new program is the National 
Freight Program. The National Freight Program is distributed by a 
formula that will provide funds to all States to enhance the movement 
of goods, reduce costs, and improve the performance for businesses.
  It is kind of interesting because one of the good features about a 
transportation system and the way we have been doing it with our 
Transportation reauthorization bill is that we rely on the States to 
decide what their priorities are. This infinite wisdom in Washington 
where they think they know more than we know in the States is not true 
at all. So this is one of the rare areas where we go to States and say: 
Look, you guys, you decide what you think your priorities are in 
Indiana or in Oklahoma. So we have a formula to address that.
  The problem with that is when you get to moving freight, they do not 
have

[[Page S5483]]

that as a high priority because most freight moves through a State and 
they do not consider that to be a local problem. They are more 
concerned about passenger cars. So it doesn't appear in their 
priorities. Well, it does appear now.
  So we have the first new program, the National Freight Program, which 
is a different type of formula, and it addresses the movement of 
freight through States. The program will expand flexibility for both 
rural and urban areas to designate key freight corridors that match the 
regional movement of goods on roads. It will improve the efforts to 
identify projects with a high return on investment through State 
freight plans and State advisory committees.
  The second program is the Assistance for Major Projects Program. It 
creates a competitive grant program to provide funds to major projects 
of high importance to the community, to the region, and to the Nation. 
The program includes a set-aside for rural areas and ensures an 
equitable geographic distribution of funds.
  These new freight programs will only exist if the DRIVE Act is 
enacted. That is what we are talking about now--the DRIVE Act. And it 
will be enacted by Congress, I am very confident.
  I can't imagine, by the way, Members not listening to the people back 
home. Right now, if you go back to any of the States--I don't care what 
State it is--and you talk to the State departments of transportation, 
they will be listening to not just the road builders and suppliers but 
the people who are driving on the roads. It is the most popular thing 
in America. So I can't imagine having the opportunity to have a 6-year 
program and getting justification for voting against it.
  I think it is time to be innovative and forward-thinking in how the 
Federal programs use tax dollars to responsibly partner with the States 
to improve the National Highway System, and the DRIVE Act is the 
answer.
  Let's talk about Fort Lee, NJ. Here is the George Washington Bridge, 
which connects Fort Lee, NJ, to New York City. It is the second worst 
freight bottleneck by congestion index in the Nation. Average speed 
slows to 29 miles an hour. Rush hour speeds in the morning and evenings 
slow to below 15 miles an hour. The nearby I-95 Cross Bronx Expressway 
is the most congested corridor in the country. The morning southbound 
commute is considered the worst of the worst in the country. The George 
Washington Bridge is the world's busiest motor vehicle bridge. That is 
what we are looking at.
  Yesterday we were talking about the Brooklyn Bridge. Some of us here 
are old enough to remember the old Tarzan movies. Do you guys remember 
that? Do you watch the reruns? Johnny Weissmuller was his name. He had 
a lot of muscles and was a very strong guy. One of his movies was 
``Tarzan's New York Adventure.'' In that movie he was being chased 
around the Brooklyn Bridge. The Brooklyn Bridge was built in 1883 and 
here we are today and we still have the Brooklyn Bridge. Anyway, Johnny 
Weissmuller crawled up on the top as the cops were chasing him with 
guns and all that and he dived off. Every time I drive over that 
bridge, I think I am going to be diving off there if it collapses.
  Houston, TX, is home to 5 of the top 20 freight bottlenecks in the 
Nation. Texas is home to 9 of the top 25 freight bottlenecks. Freight 
bottlenecks cost the freight industry in Texas some $671 million a 
year--that is just in Texas, the bottlenecks--and 8.8 million hours of 
delay.
  I-45 at U.S. 59 is ranked third by the congestion index. I-45 at U.S. 
610 North is ranked 15. Average speed slows to 39 miles an hour. 
Morning and evening rush hour speeds drop way below that.
  Look at this. You can see that is a problem. That is why this is a 
very important part of the bill that is before us now.
  I think we have an opportunity here. We have to sometimes remind 
people of what doesn't work. What doesn't work are short-term fixes or 
short-term extensions of previous bills that were passed. The last one 
we passed was in 2005. It was a 5-year bill. It expired at the end of 
2009. At that time we should have started another transportation 
reauthorization bill, but we didn't do it. So we have had short-term 
extensions.
  There is a guy named Gary Ridley out in Oklahoma who is recognized 
nationally. He has been here testifying several times before us as a 
nationally recognized scholar. He really understands transportation. If 
we look at the 33 short-term extensions we have operated under here in 
America after 2009 and before this bill, it wastes more dollars than a 
long-term reauthorization.
  I think it is important for a lot of people to hear this because 
sometimes there are rating organizations that say: Well, we are going 
to oppose a bill because it is a big spending bill. Sure it is a big 
spending bill. You know, that old, worn-out document called the 
Constitution says what we are supposed to be doing here is defending 
America and building bridges and roads. So that is what this is all 
about, and we are going to do it. But for conservative groups to say 
they don't want to support this bill--they have dropped short of 
understanding the fact that the alternative is to have short-term 
extensions, which is an irresponsible use of dollars. The conservative 
position is to pass a funded highway reauthorization bill.
  I know a lot of people will be talking about devolution. I can talk 
about this because going back 25 years ago, at that time a guy named 
Connie Mack, who was a House Member and later a Senator from Florida--
he and I were the fathers of devolution. You didn't know that, did you? 
We are the ones who introduced the devolution bill. The idea sounded 
good on the stump because you could say: Well, we will just repeal all 
the Federal taxes and make State taxes out of them.
  Well, it didn't quite work that way because you can't do that. If you 
repeal a Federal tax, then you have to pass a State tax. And how many 
people here are naive enough to believe that all 48 contiguous States 
would be willing to pass a sizable State tax increase? It is not going 
to happen. So that is why the National Highway System is so important. 
That is why Eisenhower started this back in 1956.
  I have friends up in Wyoming. There are very few people in Wyoming, 
but there are a lot of roads that are part of our National Highway 
System. If devolution occurred in Wyoming, they would have to pass a 
31-cent-per-gallon gasoline tax increase in Wyoming. It is not going to 
happen. We know it is not going to happen. So we are not going to have 
a uniform system unless we do it this way.
  The opportunity we have now is the DRIVE Act. I know the House has 
made some statements that they want to do a 5-month extension. See, 
there we go again, another short-term extension. Their reasoning, I 
guess, is they want to get to the year's end and then couple that--
because of the popularity of the highway bill--with some of the tax 
changes that are set to take place at the first of this coming year.
  So I know some of my friends--because I have talked to them over in 
the House--have said: Well, we want a short-term bill because we don't 
think you are going to pass a long-term bill in the Senate.
  Well, when they find out we are going to pass a long-term bill--we 
are going to pass this bill--that will change things. So I look forward 
to that, to the opportunity to get this passed and get it passed in a 
timely fashion.
  By the way, we have to keep in mind that we are on a deadline. The 
deadline is the end of this month. The highway trust fund runs out of 
money at that time, so that is why it is important that we get this 
passed.


                            Order for Recess

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess from 
12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. and that the time during the recess count 
postcloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 22.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. With that, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about critical 
legislation before the Senate regarding our Nation's transportation 
regulatory framework and infrastructure.

[[Page S5484]]

  As an active member of the Senate commerce committee and the 
Environment and Public Works Committee, I am proud of the work my 
colleagues and I have done to develop a strong, comprehensive bill that 
keeps our Nation moving by making our transportation system safer and 
more efficient, while also increasing our global competitiveness. As 
many may know, my father was the director of the Nebraska Department of 
Roads. Through his service--and by osmosis--I gained a deep 
appreciation for infrastructure projects and enabling them to move 
forward in Nebraska and elsewhere.
  I have spoken with families, consumers, workers, and business owners 
all across the State of Nebraska. The message is loud and clear. 
Nebraskans want a long-term highway bill. Nebraskans want to bring 
certainty to local projects and increase safety on the roads and 
highways.
  In the coming days, the Senate has the opportunity to provide our 
constituents with just that--a 6-year transportation bill that will 
help vital projects get up and running.
  The bill enhances safety, makes much-needed regulatory reforms, and 
increases investment in our Nation's infrastructure.
  I appreciate the work that Chairmen Thune and Inhofe and Senator 
Boxer and their committee staff members have accomplished with the 
DRIVE Act.
  The DRIVE Act will reauthorize surface transportation programs for 6 
years--something I have long advocated--to provide certainty for 
States, businesses, families, and the traveling public. Most 
importantly, the bill advances key provisions to ensure that local 
infrastructure projects in my State will move forward with a better and 
more defined process from the onset.
  Throughout the process of developing this bill, I worked with local 
stakeholders in Nebraska, including our State department of roads, 
highway builders, consultants, and transportation leaders. The 
meaningful changes I championed will provide better coordination 
between the Federal Highway Administration and States on streamlining 
environmental permitting and review and programmatic agreement 
templates when initiating new infrastructure projects.
  More specifically, the bill will establish procedures, based on a 
template developed by the Transportation Secretary, allowing States, in 
addition to the Federal Government, to determine which State or Federal 
agencies must be consulted prior to beginning an infrastructure 
project.
  In addition, the bill provides technical assistance to States that 
want to assume responsibility for reviews of categorical exclusion 
projects, which are a category of projects that don't have a 
significant impact on the environment, triggering a less arduous level 
of environmental review.
  My provision would help States provide their own certification 
regarding the appropriate level of environmental review of certain 
projects, rather than wasting time and taxpayer dollars waiting for the 
Federal Government to provide the assessments.
  Given Nebraska's challenges with starting and completing 
infrastructure projects, these elements of the DRIVE Act offer a major 
step forward for transportation projects in my State. I appreciate all 
of the input my office received from Nebraska's transportation 
stakeholders on these crucial issues.
  The bill also includes major components of a bill I introduced 
earlier this summer called the TRUCK Safety Reform Act. The legislation 
offers important regulatory reforms to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration, or FMCSA, and encourages stronger regulatory analysis, 
more transparency, and wider public participation in this regulatory 
process.
  The bill also provides regulatory relief to agricultural producers in 
Nebraska, reforms research at the Department of Transportation to 
reduce duplication across the modal administrations, and it addresses 
the challenges of the CSA truck scoring program.
  I am also pleased that the bill establishes a new freight program to 
prioritize, increase efficiency, and lower the cost of the movement of 
freight imports and exports throughout our Nation.
  The freight program will help America's transportation system 
continue to facilitate expanding U.S. trade flows.
  The DRIVE Act further incorporates performance-based regulations into 
our Nation's transportation system. Performance-based measures will 
offer States more flexibility in meeting the goals of infrastructure-
related regulations.
  Furthermore, the reforms to our transportation system will increase 
U.S. global competitiveness and strengthen safety on our Nation's 
roads. They will also provide certainty to States and local 
governments, businesses, consumers, workers, and families.
  Although this bill does not include every single provision for which 
I initially advocated, I was willing to compromise. I was willing to 
compromise for the greater good of our country's transportation 
network. I truly appreciate Senator Boxer's willingness to negotiate in 
good faith.
  I encourage all of my colleagues to support this essential 
legislation. It is time for us to address our Nation's transportation 
challenges.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COATS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                               The Budget

  Mr. COATS. Madam President, I repeatedly have come down to the Senate 
floor to talk about our budget issues. Earlier this morning I talked 
about my 18th waste of the week--looking at waste, fraud, and abuse in 
terms of government spending and a waste of taxpayers' dollars.
  The first 4 years of this 6-year term that I am enjoying and 
participating in, I have been consumed with the issue of our continuing 
deficit spending and increasing national debt.
  I was part of a group working directly with the President in an 
effort for many months with his top people to reach an agreement on how 
to address our long-term budget situation. It is no secret that under 
this administration the national debt has almost doubled. It is 
staggering to think that over the 230 or 240 years of the life of this 
country we have gone from $10.6 trillion to now $18.8 trillion of debt. 
It is going to have consequences.
  As chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, we recently released 
some information entitled ``Ten Things to know about CBO's Long-Term 
Budget Outlook.'' This is something we spent a great deal of time 
debating years ago, but it has fallen under the radar. We are obviously 
dealing with issues that are important. This Iran deal that has just 
been signed by the administration deserves intense concentration and 
consideration in terms of how we address it. We also have the 
continuing economic malaise and slow recovery from the recession.

  We have a number of issues we need to address, such as highway 
funding, health care, and so forth. These are all important issues. But 
underlying all of this is a fundamental issue that has not been 
addressed, and if it is not addressed, it will have significant and 
adverse consequences for the American people, not just for future 
generations but even for our own generation.
  I keep trying to bring us back to this gorilla in the room that we 
ignore and keep thinking we will deal with it later. It has been passed 
on, and the so-called can has been kicked down the road election after 
election, through different Presidents and resulting in more and more 
negative consequences for the American people.
  Our Joint Economic Committee just recently released ten things we 
need to know about the Congressional Budget Office's long-term budget 
outlook.
  No. 1, the United States cannot rely on borrowing forever. This is 
not a complex issue. If you continue to borrow more money and don't pay 
your bills, eventually the tax collector is at the door. With the tax 
collector being at the door, this means eventually investors will 
demand higher and higher interest rates because we don't have the 
confidence the United States is going to be able to pay its bills.

[[Page S5485]]

  No. 2, mandatory spending skyrockets. We all have known the spending 
for Medicare and Medicaid and entitlements is running amok and it needs 
to be addressed on a long-term fix.
  No. 3, according to CBO, ``The large amount of debt could also 
compromise national security by constraining defense spending in times 
of international crisis or by limiting the country's ability to prepare 
for such a crisis.'' Look at the world today. It is aflame. Yet we are 
cutting our defense at historically low rates of readiness in terms of 
dealing with this. So while the threat increases daily and is right 
there before us, we are slashing our spending on defense and national 
security because we cannot afford it due to the entitlements eating all 
of this up.
  No. 4, bankruptcy looms for Social Security. We stand here and 
pretend like everything is fine and everybody is going to continue to 
receive their Social Security checks, no problem. CBO projects that 
bankruptcy looms for Social Security. The report that just came out 
from the trustees has basically said that within a relatively short 
period of time Social Security is going to hit bankruptcy. What does 
that mean? That means dramatic cuts in Social Security benefits to 
people who have counted on using Social Security to help for their 
retirement or dramatic tax increases to cover the deficit.
  There is a portion of Social Security--the Social Security disability 
benefits--that the trustees said is going broke next year. We are more 
than halfway through 2015, and CBO projects that by the end of 2016 the 
Social Security disability fund will be going bankrupt. That is what 
has been said here. If you don't trust my words, read the--not my 
favorite newspaper but one that usually gets its facts right--the New 
York Times. Today's New York Times has a major article: ``Social 
Security Disability Benefits Face Cuts in 2016, Trustees Say.'' I will 
quote a couple of items which are written in this issue:

       Eleven million people face a deep, abrupt cut in disability 
     insurance benefits in late 2016 if Congress fails to 
     replenish Social Security's disability trust fund, which is 
     running out of money.

  That statement was issued by the administration.

       Officials expressed concern about the program as they 
     issued their annual report on the financial condition of 
     Medicare and Social Security, which together account for 40 
     percent of all federal spending.
       The trustees of Social Security . . . said the disability 
     trust fund would be depleted in the last quarter of 2016. 
     After that, they said, benefits would automatically be cut by 
     19 percent because revenues, largely from payroll taxes, 
     would be sufficient to cover only 81 percent of scheduled 
     benefit payments.

  Folks, we have been warning about this for years, not doing anything 
about it, and we now have this report from the trustees who oversee 
these funds, and the report, as published by the New York Times today, 
says this thing is going broke next year and cuts will be 19 percent 
because we don't have the money to pay for it. You would think the 
alarm bells would be sounding. You would think we would finally 
understand we are hitting the wall on spending and that we would 
finally step up and do something about runaway entitlement mandatory 
spending or everybody will end up paying the price.
  I will add one more point from the New York Times:

       The trustees, in their report, said that the squeeze on the 
     disability program was ``but the first manifestation of 
     larger financial imbalances facing Social Security as a 
     whole, as well as Medicare.''

  Where is AARP? Where are the people in retirement who say don't touch 
a penny of my Social Security or Medicare benefits, when the trustees 
say don't worry, we will not have to touch a penny of it; the program 
is going broke on its own.
  For all of us who have been pleading to do something to address this 
issue, it is not even being talked about. Yet anybody who comes to the 
floor and says this kind of stuff is immediately pilloried by AARP: Oh, 
they are going to go off and cut our Social Security. No. It is going 
to automatically happen because we haven't addressed the issue. So 
don't criticize us for trying to address an issue that will cut your 
benefits by 19 percent or cause the program to go broke. Support those 
who have had the courage to stand and say: Folks, we have to do 
something about this. If you want to continue and guarantee Social 
Security benefits when people retire or give them Medicare coverage 
when they retire and need it, something has to be done now or there 
will be massive cuts. That is not just a Republican or conservative 
standing and saying that we are spending too much money and we have to 
cut back on that; the trustees who oversee the programs are warning us 
and saying you have to do something or everybody is going to take not 
just a haircut but a major cut.
  A couple of other things came out on the budget term outlook. The 
Federal debt has nearly doubled since President Obama was elected. It 
now stands at 74 percent of the economy. The Federal debt has nearly 
doubled since the President was elected. What a legacy. Why in the 
world would a President of the United States with a responsibility to 
oversee the fiscal basis of what makes this country work and to commit 
to people that he will address problems as they occur--if this was a 
private business, it would be in bankruptcy. Nobody would buy the stock 
of this business. Nobody would buy bonds of this business. Nobody would 
invest in this business because it is totally dysfunctional and it is 
totally going broke. Yet the Federal Government has printing presses 
down in the basement and they keep printing out dollars. That decreases 
their value to cover our debts, and they continue to tell people to go 
ahead and loan money to the States. We are also going to keep taking 
your taxes, but buy our bonds and don't worry because we are going to 
pay them back--not at this rate. We are heading toward the wall, we are 
in the crisis, and we are not doing anything about it.
  No. 6, and the last point. Hopefully, CBO, the Congressional Budget 
Office, made correct assumptions. Their warnings are based on 
assumptions and hopefully we will make some efforts and prevent some of 
this, but if they are off by just three-quarters of 1 percentage point, 
it will result in a dramatic change of raising the Federal debt from 
111 percent of the economy by 2039 to 159 percent of the economy. You 
know who has those numbers? Greece. Japan is careening toward that 
catastrophe.
  If you want to see a model or example of what happens to a country 
that allows its debt to run unchecked and to hit the 100-percent mark 
of its total economy, just take a look at what is happening in Greece. 
None of us wants to see that happen, but we have far too few alarm 
bells sounding in this country because it is happening. This isn't just 
Republican or conservative propaganda. This is the Congressional Budget 
Office. It is not Republican, it is not Democratic, it is totally 
neutral. It is math. It is numbers. It has nothing to do with ideology. 
It has everything to do with numbers that ought to be driving us 
to deal with this issue, standing up to our constituents and saying, 
regardless of the political consequences, folks, just do the math. It 
is pretty simple math. If we don't do something, everyone is going to 
pay the price.

  For those organizations--and I call out AARP--that scare people with 
mail and phone calls and everything else saying that they are going to 
cut your Social Security and take some money away from your disability 
benefits, that is not what we want to do. We want to guarantee what we 
have promised to people, but if we don't take these actions, it will 
automatically happen. So we need the support of everybody who has 
concern not just about my generation, who are retiring in record 
numbers, but about the future for our children and grandchildren. What 
is this country going to be if we can't take these steps?
  I get exercised about this, and it is why I came back. It is one of 
the two main reasons I decided to run for the Senate again. I was 
worried about terrorist attacks and the nightmare of a marriage between 
weapons of mass destruction and terrorist groups impacting our country 
and the world. But while we seem to be struggling to address the terror 
issue and having some success--at least we are aware of it on a daily 
basis--we are letting this fiscal crisis go by without even talking 
about it. I think everybody is exhausted. We have had exhausting 
exchanges. We

[[Page S5486]]

have had bipartisan Democrats and Republicans working together and 
pleading with the President and the White House, starting with Simpson-
Bowles, which was a bipartisan effort. The Gang of 6, the Committee of 
12, the supercommittee were all bipartisan efforts.
  I was part of the dinner group, which was an effort to plead with the 
President to do something together to address this problem and being 
turned down time after time after time. Now we are sailing toward the 
end of this Presidency, and obviously nothing is going to be done even 
though the Social Security trust fund is going to expire on the 
President's watch. They will come up with some gimmick and shift some 
money around and so forth, thereby just putting us further in debt and 
kicking the can down the road. They have to cover this because 
politically they will not allow this to happen, but they will do it in 
a way that makes our situation even worse.
  As the President careens toward retirement and his legacy, one of 
those legacies will be questioned by people for years and years into 
the future: Why didn't we do something when we had the chance on a 
bipartisan basis with support from both parties? Why was the President 
so adamant about not doing anything to address this problem?
  Time is running out. Social Security disability will collapse under 
the President's leadership before he escapes at the end of 2016. You 
can tell how frustrated I am, but I will keep coming down here and 
talking about this stuff and hopefully--well, we don't want it to 
happen under a crisis. We don't want to be days away from bankruptcy, 
so we move some money around in the Federal budget and so forth and so 
on, take it from Peter to pay Paul, put us further in debt, and then 
kick the can down the road.

  I feel for the next President, whoever that might be. They are going 
to get a can of worms because we didn't do anything about this during 
this tenure.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BOOKER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________