[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 160 (Thursday, October 29, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7604-S7621]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           TRADE ACT OF 2015

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of the House message to accompany H.R. 1314, which 
the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       House message to accompany H.R. 1314, an act to amend the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for a right to an 
     administrative appeal relating to adverse determinations of 
     tax-exempt status of certain organizations.

  Pending:

       McConnell motion to concur in the amendment of the House of 
     Representatives to the amendment of the Senate to the bill.
       McConnell motion to concur in the amendment of the House of 
     Representatives to the amendment of the Senate to the bill, 
     with McConnell amendment No. 2750, to change the enactment 
     date.
       McConnell amendment No. 2751 (to amendment No. 2750), of a 
     perfecting nature.
       McConnell motion to refer the amendment of the House of 
     Representatives to the amendment of the Senate to the bill, 
     to the Committee on Finance, with instructions, McConnell 
     amendment No. 2752, to change the enactment date.
       McConnell amendment No. 2753 (to (the instructions) 
     amendment No. 2752), of a perfecting nature.
       McConnell amendment No. 2754 (to amendment No. 2753), of a 
     perfecting nature.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today we are kicking off a debate on major 
bipartisan legislation. Chairman Hatch and I are also involved in an 
important Senate Finance Committee hearing. He will be here a little 
bit later today.
  I ask unanimous consent that our colleague, Senator Durbin from 
Illinois, be allowed to speak after I do. I believe that his remarks 
will also be completed before Chairman Hatch arrives.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WYDEN. I thank the Presiding Officer.
  Chairman Hatch and I will be managing this bill, and we want our 
colleagues to know that we are anxious to give everyone an opportunity 
to speak out on this extraordinarily important issue. If Senators who 
wish to speak come down and consult with the Finance staff--majority 
and minority--in our respective cloakrooms, we are going to work very 
hard to accommodate all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle.
  Here, in my view, is what this issue is all about. Fiscal battles in 
the Congress come and go, but nothing should ever be allowed to 
threaten America's sterling economic reputation, and this legislation 
will preserve it. Without this agreement, the Congress is staring at a 
potential debt default--a debt default that would be literally days 
away, when the Treasury would lose its authority to borrow in order to 
make payments.

  By now, I think a lot of Senators understand the disastrous 
consequences of default: housing costs shooting upward, retirement 
accounts shrinking, jobs disappearing, and consumer confidence 
dropping. We also understand that no one can get particularly thrilled 
by the prospect of raising the debt ceiling. Yet it is a job that must 
be done.
  Our country is an economic rock in tumultuous seas, and we certainly 
have disagreements. Disagreements practically come with every news 
cycle and election. But what doesn't change is that our country pays 
its debts and we pay them on time. That is why this legislation is so 
important.
  The bipartisan compromise reduces the threats of a potential 
government shutdown in December. When this becomes law, the pin, in 
effect, goes back in the grenade, where it belongs. That is positive 
news, as we look for some predictability and certainty, and we all hear 
from our businesses, our employers, and our citizens that this is so 
important.
  Congress ought to look at this compromise, in my view, as a 
springboard to a full and productive debate over the budget in the 
upcoming 2 years. The fact is, last-minute deals have become too 
commonplace and they have left a lot of important policy reforms and 
policy improvements on the cutting room floor.
  For example, with America's West getting hotter and drier each year, 
our broken system of budgeting for wildfires is in drastic need of 
improvement. The same goes for many programs and services that are a 
lifeline for rural America. Fortunately, this legislation lays the 
groundwork for the Congress to go back to having robust budget debates 
that can actually solve these challenges.
  With my time this morning, I wish to address some specific elements 
of the bill, starting with what I see as several particularly 
constructive policies.
  First, the legislation staves off the full brunt of the automatic 
budget cuts known in the corridors of Washington as sequestration. This 
policy was designed in effect to be painful from the get-go, and it 
would weaken Medicare, the lifeline for older people, and other 
domestic programs. It was supposed to be considered so god-awful that 
it would vanish 2 years after it began, but it continues to haunt 
budget debates to this day.
  It is important that this legislation eases the burden by $80 billion 
over 2 years. That means more opportunities to invest in education, in 
medical and scientific research, in housing assistance, in public 
health, and more.
  Second, this bipartisan plan is going to prevent a big spike in 
Medicare costs for millions of older people. Several weeks ago, the 
news came down that seniors were facing a hike in premiums and 
deductibles in Medicare Part B, the outpatient portion of Medicare, of 
potentially more than 50 percent. That would amount to an increase of 
hundreds of dollars--perhaps more--in a year when Social Security 
benefits are not expected to grow. From my years as codirector of 
Oregon's Gray Panthers, I can tell my colleagues that for many seniors 
living on a fixed income, that would have really hit them like a 
wrecking ball.
  When we got those initial reports, several of my Democratic 
colleagues and I got together and introduced legislation that would 
fully shield older people from this huge financial hit. Following our 
work, the bipartisan compromise before the Senate includes a version of 
this important fix. It is not as generous as the proposal my colleagues 
and I introduced. There are questions about how it will affect the 
landscape a few years down the road. But, make no mistake about it, 
this approach goes a long, long way toward protecting seniors, 
particularly the dual eligibles--seniors eligible for Medicare and 
Medicaid--and this is a very important part of this legislation.
  Third, the budget compromise takes an extraordinarily important step 
to shore up one of our country's most vital safety net programs: the 
Social Security Disability Insurance Program. Without a fix, what is 
called SSDI--Social Security disability insurance benefits--that 
workers have earned would have been slashed by 20 percent, and that 20-
percent cut would have hit those affected very quickly.
  This proposal is going to follow what has been a frequently used 
bipartisan approach of shifting funding within the Social Security 
Program to make sure that those who depend on this program are 
protected through 2022. I introduced legislation earlier this year, 
along with 28 of our colleagues, which would have gone further by 
guaranteeing that the program remain solvent through 2034, but this 
compromise package strengthens the program for several years, and we 
will have a chance to come together--hopefully on a bipartisan basis--
and go even further.

  Fourth, the budget package makes real progress on what is called 
complying with our tax laws--tax compliance. It is important to note 
that these are not tax hikes. This is a question of enforcing tax law 
so that when taxes are owed, they are actually paid.
  In the tax compliance area, there are several important proposals 
that are

[[Page S7605]]

going to crack down on taxpayers who seek to dodge their 
responsibilities and pass the buck to other Americans. For example, 
enforcing the tax laws with respect to large partnerships has been a 
challenge for some time. There are more than 10,000 of these complex 
businesses in our country. More than 500 of them have at least 100,000 
partners. So there has not been an effective way to conduct audits 
under the current rules because the rules are basically decades old and 
haven't kept up with the times. In my view, the proposal before the 
Senate makes meaningful improvements. More taxpayers will pay what they 
owe instead of using sleight-of-hand approaches to dodge their 
responsibilities.
  We all understand that the Tax Code almost boggles the mind in terms 
of its complexity. I think it would be fair to say there may be more 
work that goes into getting this policy right as it relates to 
partnerships and several of the other issues, and my colleagues and I 
on the Finance Committee intend to keep giving the scrutiny the 
partnership issue deserves on an ongoing analysis.
  Those are four specific areas of progress in this compromise that 
staves off a risky budgetary battle.
  I do feel it is important to share one of my concerns with the bill 
at this time, and it is a provision that really has little to do with 
the budget. It is called section 301, and it allows debt collectors to 
make robocalls directly to Americans' cell phones. Here is my view. 
Debt collectors should not be gifted broad permission to harass our 
citizens, particularly through robocalls, running up costly charges in 
many cases. The Federal Communications Commission has limits on the 
number and duration of calls, and they are not sufficient. In a 
healthier budget process, this kind of proposal would get weeded out. 
So I would like to say to our colleagues in the Senate, both Democrats 
and Republicans, that I am going to do everything I can to reverse this 
action in the weeks ahead.
  Finally, in my capacity as ranking member of the Finance Committee, I 
wish to discuss how these fiscal agreements ought to be financed in the 
future. Medicare and Social Security absolutely cannot become the honey 
pots that Congress raids whenever it needs to pay for legislation. If 
we go around the country--to Oregon, to Illinois, to Georgia, to the 
Dakotas, to Texas--and we ask typical Americans what they want their 
representatives in Congress to do, protecting Medicare and Social 
Security is right at the top of the list. I hear it in every townhall 
meeting. I have had more than 700 of them in my home State. And I have 
to believe many colleagues in South Dakota and Illinois and elsewhere 
hear the same thing.
  There is a longstanding tradition that says changes in Medicare 
policy should be for strengthening Medicare in the future. The same 
principle goes for Social Security. Yet, twice now, these vital 
programs have been used to fund budget deals, and Medicare 
sequestration is sticking around long past its original expiration 
date.
  This legislation preventing a calamitous default is coming down to 
the wire. I would tell colleagues that this is a must-pass bill. I 
support it, and I urge Democrats and Republicans to do so as well.
  I would also say as we talk about where we go from here that it is 
important to recognize that Medicare and Social Security must not be 
used as ATMs for other spending in the future. The bottom line has to 
be that the process of reaching a budget and keeping the lights on in 
this wonderful institution--the people's branch--keeping the lights on 
in the process of reaching a budget has to change. The Congress cannot 
continue to just go from crisis to crisis to crisis. It is our job as 
lawmakers, working in a bipartisan way, to set the right temperature in 
our economy with smart, forward-looking policies that help our 
businesses succeed and give everybody in America--I want to emphasize 
that; everybody in America--the opportunity to get ahead. It is pretty 
hard to do when we lurch from one crisis to another.
  Let's use this legislation as an opportunity to get back to writing 
the budget in a bipartisan fashion through the traditional approaches 
that have been used in what is called regular order, pass this bill now 
so as to ensure that America's sterling economic reputation is intact, 
and then let's look to the future around some of the principles I have 
laid out.
  Again, Chairman Hatch will be here in a bit. He and I, as the 
managers of the bill, want to make it clear we want to try to 
accommodate as many colleagues as we can, and we ought to be able to. I 
look forward to the remarks of the distinguished senior Senator from 
Illinois. I believe that before too long Chairman Hatch will be here as 
well.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Democratic leader.


                         University of Phoenix

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, yesterday the senior Senator from Arizona, 
the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, came to the floor 
to speak to an issue and mentioned my name several times during the 
course of his remarks on the floor. I come here this morning to respond 
to the senior Senator from Arizona.
  The issue is a decision by the Department of Defense on October 7 of 
this year to place the University of Phoenix, a for-profit university, 
on probation and prohibit the company from enrolling new Department of 
Defense tuition assistance and MyCAA beneficiaries. Under this 
Department of Defense order, the company--University of Phoenix--was 
barred from accessing military bases. This is a serious action, and 
there is a reason for it.
  The senior Senator from Arizona came to the floor to protest this 
decision by the Department of Defense and to also protest other actions 
that have been taken relative to other for-profit universities. I come 
this morning to respond.
  What is at stake is something that is very essential. When men and 
women volunteer for our military and hold up their hands and say ``I am 
willing to die for this country,'' they make a promise and we make a 
promise. Our promise is that if you will serve this country and risk 
your life for America, we will stand by you when you come home. If you 
are injured, we will provide medical care. If you want to pursue 
education and training, we will help you do it; in fact, we will help 
your family do it. And there are many other benefits that we rightly 
promise to these members of the military.
  Department of Defense tuition assistance and the GI bill, which has 
been characterized as the GI bill since World War II, is really the 
vehicle that gives to many of these servicemembers, while they are 
serving and after they have completed their service, a chance to build 
their lives. They are generous programs, and they should be. MyCAA is 
generous to their families, and it should be. But these are virtually 
once-in-a-lifetime opportunities. We hope these members of the military 
choose well in terms of the courses they need to take and the training 
they need to prepare for their lives after they have served our 
country. We have a responsibility when it comes to those who are 
currently in the service to monitor the activities of the schools that 
are offering education and training as part of these programs. We would 
be derelict in our responsibility if we did not.
  The Department of Defense wrote a memorandum of understanding to all 
schools saying: If you want to offer Tuition Assistance program 
training and education, if you want to offer training for the families 
of servicemembers, here are the rules to play by. And I think virtually 
every institution of higher learning knows going in to follow the 
rules, whatever the institution may be.
  Let me say a word about the University of Phoenix. This is not just 
another for-profit school; it is the largest by far. At the height of 
its enrollment, the University of Phoenix, a for-profit university 
largely offering online courses, had as many as 600,000 students. That 
is dramatically more than the combined enrollment of all the Big Ten 
colleges and universities. Over the years--in the last 5 years, the 
size of their student body has declined; it is now slightly over 
200,000. As an individual institution, it is the largest in America, 
and it certainly is the largest of the for-profit colleges and 
universities. You can hardly escape the advertising, the naming rights 
to the stadium where the Arizona Cardinals play their football games in 
Arizona. They have advertising on television, radio,

[[Page S7606]]

and billboards. It is a company that markets in every direction and as 
a consequence has built a large student enrollment.
  How about the University of Phoenix in terms of dollars it receives? 
That is interesting. Unlike universities and colleges around the United 
States, whether in North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Illinois, or 
wherever, these for-profit universities get a substantial portion of 
their revenue directly from the Treasury through Pell grants and 
student loans. Dramatically higher percentages of their revenue come 
from Treasury than virtually any other college or university. This is 
unique to the for-profit college and university sector. They are the 
most heavily subsidized for-profit private businesses in America today.
  Let me give an example of what I am talking about. Eighty-two percent 
of the revenue going to the University of Phoenix--$2.7 billion--comes 
out of title IV. When it comes to Department of Defense tuition 
assistance, University of Phoenix is the fourth largest recipient in 
the United States--$20 million. Under the GI bill, it is the largest 
recipient from the Department of Defense and the Treasury--$346 
million. Their CEO, Mr. Cappelli, is paid $8 million a year in total 
compensation, which is dramatically more than virtually any other 
university president in the ordinary course of higher education--what 
is a record.
  University of Phoenix students cumulatively owe more in student debt 
than any educational institution in America. University of Phoenix 
students owe $35 billion in student loans. Only half of the University 
of Phoenix borrowers are paying down their debt 5 years after 
graduation or after they have dropped out of school. Phoenix's overall 
3-year repayment rate--that means how many borrowers are making 
payments on their debt after 3 years--is 41 percent. Less than half of 
the University of Phoenix students and graduates after 3 years are 
paying back. Their 5-year repayment rate is 47 percent. Nearly one out 
of every two students who graduated or dropped out in 2009 has 
defaulted within 5 years. The University of Phoenix's 5-year cohort 
default rate--students who graduated in 2009 and defaulted by 2014--is 
45 percent. The Arizona location--which includes online students across 
the country--the 4-year bachelor's-seeking graduation rate is 1 percent 
and the 6-year bachelor's-seeking graduation rate is 10 percent.
  In the for-profit college and university industry, there are three 
numbers to remember. Ten percent of the students graduating from high 
school go to these for-profit schools. Twenty percent of all the 
Federal aid for education goes to these schools. Why? They are very 
expensive. The tuition they charge is dramatically more than colleges 
and universities across the country. But here is the number to 
remember: As an industry, 40 percent of all the student loan defaults 
are students who attend for-profit colleges and universities. Why? It 
is so darned expensive that students can't continue the education and 
drop out or they complete the education and many times find that the 
diploma is worthless.
  Let's go back to the Department of Defense. We want to protect our 
men and women in uniform from being exploited by any college or 
university, for-profit or not. The Department of Defense wrote a 
memorandum of understanding and said: If you want to offer courses to 
our men and women in uniform, here are the rules to play by.
  On October 7, the Department of Defense announced that they placed 
the University of Phoenix on probation and prohibited them from 
enrolling new servicemembers in the DOD Tuition Assistance and MyCAA 
Programs. They barred them from accessing military bases. The decision, 
the Department said, was based on violations of the memorandum of 
understanding, which I described this morning, based on their own 
review.
  Yesterday the senior Senator from Arizona came to the floor to 
protest the decision by the Department of Defense. There were several 
things he said during the course of his floor statement which I would 
like to address.
  The senior Senator from Arizona claimed that the Department of 
Defense's ``actions were taken without due process'' and based on ``an 
outside investigative report.'' The Senator went on to say that it 
``wasn't a department investigation. There was no scrutiny.'' He said 
that on the floor to protest the Department of Defense decision.
  Here are the facts. The Department of Defense conducted nearly 4 
months of review of the University of Phoenix's practices after the 
report by the Center for Investigative Reporting raised allegations 
relating to the company strategy using corporate sponsorship of events 
on military bases to skirt the Federal rules on recruitment that had 
been spelled out in the memorandum of understanding.
  The Department of Defense placed the University of Phoenix on 
probation when its review ``revealed several violations of the 
Department of Defense Memorandum of Understanding.'' DOD also gave the 
company 14 days to provide the Department of Defense with materials in 
response to the decision.
  To argue that there was no due process in this is betrayed by the 
facts.
  The senior Senator from Arizona went on to say: ``If the University 
of Phoenix is guilty of some wrongdoing, I want to be one of the first 
to make sure that proper penalties are enacted.''
  Here is the fact: The Department of Defense confirmed that the 
University of Phoenix is guilty of wrongdoing. The Department of 
Defense's notice to the university stated that ``it conducted a review 
of the agreements between the University of Phoenix and the DoD, as 
reflected in the DoD MOU. . . . This review revealed several violations 
of the DoD MOU attributed to the University of Phoenix, including, but 
not limited to, transgression of Defense Department policies regarding 
use of its official seals or other trademark insignia and failure to go 
through the responsible education advisor for each business related 
activity requiring access to the DoD installations. . . .'' They go on 
to say that they found that ``the frequency and scope of these previous 
violations of the DoD MOU is disconcerting.''
  Despite this, the senior Senator from Arizona is urging the 
Department of Defense to ignore what they found in their investigation 
and to reverse their decision putting the company on probation.
  The senior Senator from Arizona went on to call Phoenix's violations 
``minor breaches in decorum'' and ``technical in nature.''
  The Department of Defense found that the University of Phoenix 
violated terms of its memorandum of understanding--a legal document 
laying out the rules and standards every institution must adhere to in 
order to be eligible to participate in voluntary military education 
programs. For instance, this document specifies that the base's 
education officer, not the base commander, is the sole approving 
authority for any and all access to the base. In their violation of 
this memorandum of understanding provision, the Department of Defense 
called the University of Phoenix's violations disconcerting in their 
frequency and scope.
  The company had a corporate strategy of spending millions of dollars 
to sponsor events on military bases to skirt Department of Defense 
rules and the 2012 Executive order that was designed to prohibit 
institutions from recruiting servicemembers on military bases.
  Mr. President, let me spell out some of the things that were being 
done by the University of Phoenix. Remember what we are talking about. 
This university is receiving $20 million a year through DOD tuition 
assistance and $346 million through the GI bill. Of course, it is a big 
profit center for them to continue this pursuit of the military, and 
they spent a lot of money to support it, and that is what got them in 
trouble.
  The University of Phoenix spent over $250,000 in the last 3 years 
just in one location--Fort Campbell, KY--sponsoring 89 events. One 
event featured a performer named Big Smo; that alone cost $25,000. 
Across the country, the University of Phoenix sponsored events on 
military bases, including rock concerts, Super Bowl parties, father-
daughter dances, Easter egg hunts, a chocolate festival, and even 
brunch with Santa.
  The University of Phoenix paid the Department of Defense to have its 
staff serve as exclusive resume advisers in

[[Page S7607]]

Hiring Our Heroes job fairs and workshops, many on military bases. A 
Center of Investigative Reporting hidden camera documented that all of 
the resume workshop materials, presentation slides, and sample 
``successful'' resumes were labeled with University of Phoenix 
marketing, and trainers urged attendees to go to the University of 
Phoenix Web site for more information.
  The University of Phoenix used ``challenge coins''--which the Senator 
from Arizona raised on the floor--with DOD seals and logos to show its 
close relationship with the military without receiving prior approval. 
The Senator from Arizona noted that other schools have done the same 
thing, including, he mentioned, Southern Illinois University. This 
Senator is not going to send a letter to the DOD protesting if they 
hold SIU or any school accountable for the same conduct as the 
University of Phoenix. The senior Senator from Arizona did, and I think 
he ought to reflect on that for a moment.
  The senior Senator from Arizona says the University of Phoenix has a 
long history of serving nontraditional students, such as Active-Duty 
military and others. According to Paul Reickhoff of the Iraq and 
Afghanistan Veterans of America, the university of Phoenix ``is 
constantly reported as the single worst by far'' when it comes to for-
profit colleges taking advantage of its members.

  The Senator from Arizona says the Consumer Financial Protection 
Bureau, the Education Department, and the California attorney general, 
Kamala Harris, drove another for-profit school, Corinthian, out of 
business without ever proving misconduct, and now we are attempting to 
do the same to the University of Phoenix.
  The fact is, there are ongoing investigations into the University of 
Phoenix by the Federal Trade Commission related to unfair and deceptive 
practices, including military recruitment and the handling of student 
personal information. There is an investigation underway of the 
University of Phoenix by the Department of Education's inspector 
general related to marketing, recruitment, enrollment, financial aid 
processing, fraud prevention, student retention, personnel training, 
attendance, academic grading, et cetera.
  There is an ongoing investigation into the University of Phoenix by 
the Security and Exchange Commission relating to insider trading, and 
not one but three different state attorneys general are investigating 
the University of Phoenix for unfair and deceptive practices. The 
Senator from Arizona comes and protests that we are involved in some 
sort of ideological grandstanding--that is what he said, ideological 
grandstanding--ignoring the evidence which I have presented this 
morning about the investigations into the University of Phoenix going 
on across agencies, State and Federal, and the investigation by the 
Department of Defense that led to this decision.
  He also went on to say yesterday in his remarks:

       Last year, the Education Department, Consumer Financial 
     Protection Bureau--

  And an individual named Ms. Harris--

     mounted a coordinated campaign that drove for-profit 
     Corinthian College out of business without ever proving 
     misconduct.

  They were able to drive a college out of business. What a coincidence 
that he would make that statement on the floor of the Senate yesterday, 
the same day it was reported that a Federal judge in Chicago ordered 
Corinthian College--now bankrupt--to pay $530 million to the Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau, resolving a year-long lawsuit against the 
for-profit chain for allegedly steering students into predatory student 
loans.
  The CFPB Director, Richard Cordray, said in a statement, ``Today's 
ruling marks the end of our litigation against a company that has 
severely harmed tens of thousands of students, turning dreams of higher 
education into a nightmare.'' I don't understand how the Senator from 
Arizona could come to the floor the same day this Federal decision was 
reported and raise this issue without some knowledge of what the 
Corinthian Colleges were doing. What they were doing was lying. They 
were misrepresenting to the Federal Government how many students were 
employed after they graduated. It turns out Corinthian was paying 
employers several thousand dollars to hire their students--graduates--
for a month or two so they could report to the Federal Government they 
had jobs.
  Of course, when the money ran out from Corinthian, the students lost 
those part-time jobs. Corinthian was caught. They were asked to provide 
information to refute what I have just said. Instead of doing that, 
they started dissembling and going out of business. They were also 
steering students to what they called genesis loans at Corinthian 
College. Students were paying outrageous tuition and fees for 
bachelor's degrees, $60,000 or $75,000, and then they were facing 
genesis loans, they called them, with interest rates as high as 15 
percent.
  This industry does have good schools and good courses in the for-
profit business sector, I am sure, but there has clearly been 
misconduct. We have to call them on it and hold them responsible. It is 
our Federal Government that virtually acknowledges the accreditation of 
these schools that offer Pell grants and direct student loans to their 
students, creating the impression among students and families that 
these are perfectly good colleges and universities. We have a 
responsibility to students and families across this Nation to police 
their ranks when there is misconduct. In this case, the Department of 
Defense looked closely and decided that the University of Phoenix was 
involved in misconduct. That is why they reached their decision.
  There was a letter that was prepared by a number of organizations--I 
will not read all of their names--but it was sent October 27 this week 
to the Honorable Ashton Carter, the Secretary of Defense, thanking the 
Department for their recent action when it came to the University of 
Phoenix. These organizations went on to catalog the things I have said 
this morning. They also talk about the students these organizations 
have worked with. This letter says servicemember complaints regarding 
the University of Phoenix fall into three categories: servicemembers 
who were signed up for loans without their knowledge or permission 
after being promised they would incur no loans, servicemembers who were 
misled about the cost of tuition increases at the University of 
Phoenix, servicemembers who were misled about the accreditation and 
transferability of University of Phoenix credits.
  Yesterday, the senior Senator from Arizona cited three students. I 
would like to read from this letter. They note three students who were 
members of the military commenting on the University of Phoenix. First, 
Cody Edie, of the U.S. Marines said:

       I was told these credits would transfer anywhere nationwide 
     but as I began my transition from active duty I found out 
     they will not transfer to the schools in my home state. I 
     wasted my time and 15 credits for nothing.

  A statement from Erin Potter, U.S. Army:

       I was told by the University of Phoenix that I would be 
     eligible for grants that I did not have to pay back. I came 
     to find out they enrolled me in loans and now I cannot afford 
     the payments.

  From Dennis Chamberlain, U.S. Army:

       I attended the University of Phoenix to obtain my bachelors 
     degree. I racked up close to $20,000 in debt to attain my 
     degree. I feel they targeted me for my military student aid. 
     I struggle every month paying back the student loans I could 
     have avoided. I was shot twice in Afghanistan by shrapnel 
     from RPGs.

  The letter is signed by about 20 different organizations: the Air 
Force Sergeants Association, the Association of the U.S. Navy, the 
American Association of State Colleges and Universities, Blue Star 
Families, Paralyzed Veterans of America.
  I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                 October 27, 2015.
     Hon. Ashton Carter,
     Secretary of Defense,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Carter: We write to thank you and your staff 
     for the Department's recent action to enforce its Tuition 
     Assistance Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the 
     University of Phoenix. The MOU is the Department's main tool 
     for implementing Executive Order 13607 and its directive to 
     protect service members from deceptive recruiting, including 
     surreptitious recruiting on military installations.
       In these difficult financial times, protecting the 
     integrity of the Tuition Assistance program is essential to 
     preservation of

[[Page S7608]]

     the program and its goal of military readiness and 
     professional development for our men and women in uniform. In 
     this context, the Department's action to enforce the MOU is a 
     prudent measure, and we feel more needs to be done to protect 
     the integrity of the program. Failure to take swift and 
     serious action against violations of the MOU harms service 
     members, taxpayers, and the program itself, and sends the 
     wrong message to other MOU signatories about the 
     acceptability of violations.
       The Department's investigation concluded that ``the 
     frequency and scope'' of the University's violations was 
     ``disconcerting,'' including ``transgression of Defense 
     Department policies regarding use of its official seals or 
     other trademark insignia and failure to go through the 
     responsible education advisor for each business related 
     activity requiring access to the DoD installations.'' The 
     Department's letter to the University also raised concern 
     that ``several additional provisions'' of the MOU may have 
     been violated if allegations are substantiated about 
     deceptive marketing, recruiting, and billing of U.S. military 
     personnel raised in the law enforcement inquiries of the U.S. 
     Federal Trade Commission and California Attorney General. We 
     also would draw to your attention similar allegations that 
     also, if substantiated, would violate provisions of the MOU, 
     raised in ongoing investigations of the Attorneys General of 
     Delaware, Florida, and Massachusetts; the Enforcement 
     Division of the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission; the 
     Mid-Atlantic Region of the U.S. Education Department's Office 
     of Inspector General; and the whistleblower suit brought by 
     University of Phoenix military recruiters filed in the 
     federal district court in Kentucky.
       Although signatories to the MOU promise to eliminate unfair 
     and deceptive marketing and recruiting, such practices 
     continue. For example, many of our organizations are helping 
     service members and veterans who experienced deceptive 
     recruiting, and nearly 1,000 of these attended the University 
     of Phoenix. Their experiences over the past decade, and 
     through 2015, demonstrate a pattern consistent with the 
     allegations made by current law enforcement investigations. 
     Service members' complaints regarding the University of 
     Phoenix tend to fall into three categories: (1) service 
     members who were signed up for loans without their knowledge 
     or permission, after being promised they would incur no 
     loans; (2) service members who were misled about the cost and 
     tuition increases at University of Phoenix; and (3) service 
     members who were misled about the accreditation and 
     transferability of University of Phoenix credits. Below is a 
     small sampling of complaints about the University of Phoenix 
     from service members who used Tuition Assistance. The first 
     student attended the University as recently as 2015:
       ``I was told these credits would transfer anywhere 
     nationwide but as I begin my transition from active duty, I 
     found out they will not transfer to the schools in my home 
     state. I wasted my time and 15 credits for nothing.''--Cody 
     Edie, U.S. Marines E-4
       ``I was told by University of Phoenix that I would be 
     eligible for grants that I did not have to pay back. I came 
     to find out they enrolled me in loans and now I cannot afford 
     the payments.''--Erin Potter, U.S. Army E-5
       ``I attended University of Phoenix to attain my bachelors 
     degree. I racked up close to $20,000 in debt to attain my 
     degree. I feel they targeted me for my military student aid. 
     I struggle every month paying back the student loans I could 
     have avoided. I was shot twice in Afghanistan by shrapnel 
     from RPGs.''--Dennis Chamberlain, U.S. Army 0-3
       Because the Department's action affects only prospective 
     students, we also urge you to alert service members currently 
     enrolled at the University about the probation and current 
     law enforcement investigations, and remind them about the 
     availability of the Department's complaint system. Doing so 
     would aid those students and enhance the Department's ability 
     to identify MOU infractions. As you may know, the University 
     was required by SEC rules to notify its investors of these 
     actions; current students deserve to be informed as well.
       We thank you for your efforts to protect the integrity of 
     the Tuition Assistance program and to protect service members 
     from deceptive recruiting practices. We hope the Department 
     will continue to take action against violations and consider 
     that reinstatement following a short probation could indicate 
     to other MOU signatories that violations are met with little 
     repercussion.
           Sincerely,
       Air Force Sergeants Association, American Association of 
     State Colleges and Universities, American Federation of 
     Labor--Congress of Industrial Organizations, Association of 
     the U.S. Navy, Blue Star Families, Campaign for America's 
     Future, Children's Advocacy Institute, Consumer Action, 
     Consumer Federation of California, Consumers Union, Empire 
     Justice Center, Higher Ed Not Debt, Institute for Higher 
     Education Policy, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America.
       Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, League of 
     United Latin American Citizens, National Association of 
     Consumer Advocates, National Consumer Law Center (on behalf 
     of its low-income clients), Paralyzed Veterans of America, 
     Public Law Center, Student Debt Crisis, Student Veterans of 
     America, The Education Trust, The Institute for College 
     Access & Success, University of San Diego Veterans Legal 
     Clinic, Veterans Education Success, Veterans for Common 
     Sense, Veterans Student Loan Relief Fund, VetJobs, VetsFirst, 
     a program of United Spinal Association, Vietnam Veterans of 
     America, Working America, Young Invincibles.

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am going to wrap up. I read carefully 
what the senior Senator from Arizona had to say yesterday. I hope I 
have addressed each of the major points he raised. There was indeed an 
investigation. There were standards which the University of Phoenix 
agreed to follow and then failed to follow. There is an effort underway 
to make sure we protect the men and women in the military and their 
families from exploitation when it comes to their GI bills. We should 
continue that effort.
  I hope my friend and colleague from Arizona who has made a record in 
the Senate of speaking up, standing up to avoid those misuses of 
Federal funds, will continue in that same vein when it comes to this 
issue. We want money well spent. We want our men and uniform well 
served.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Flake). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Crop Insurance Program

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the chairman of the Senate agriculture 
committee is on the floor, and I thank him for his tenacity and 
diligent work on behalf of America's farmers and rural communities.
  I have discussed with the chairman his concerns about crop insurance 
provisions in the fiscal agreement and their impact on farmers, 
concerns which are shared by our counterparts in the House of 
Representatives. I also have concerns about the changes to crop 
insurance and what it will mean to the future farmers in my State. We 
have a big agricultural community in Kentucky, and I have certainly 
heard from them in great numbers over the past couple of days.
  Farming has been a long tradition in my State. Kentucky is made up 
largely of smaller family farms--farms that have been passed down from 
generation to generation. These folks rely heavily on the notion that a 
bad-crop-yield year will not stop their ability to continue farming 
because of the certainty provided through this crop insurance program.
  It is our joint understanding that the House leaders will work to 
reverse these crop insurance changes and find bipartisan alternative 
deficit reduction savings when they consider the omnibus appropriations 
bill later this year.
  So I assure my friend from Kansas and the other Members of our 
conference who care about this that I will work closely with him to 
support the House in these efforts.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, will the distinguished leader yield?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise to engage in this colloquy that 
our distinguished Republican leader has already mentioned or stressed. 
I also thank our majority whip, the Senator from Texas, and the senior 
Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Thune, with regard to a commitment made 
between all of us on the floor.
  This commitment is in reference to the obvious need to remedy the 
language adversely affecting our Nation's farmers and ranchers that is 
now included in the Bipartisan Budget Act. This provision, section 201, 
included in the underlying bill, should it go into effect, would 
greatly damage the crop insurance program as we know it, not to mention 
the farmers who purchase this crop insurance.
  The commitment we have reached is to reverse these damaging cuts and 
policy changes to the crop insurance program in order to protect our 
producers' primary risk management tool and their No. 1 priority. In 
all of the great talk and effort that we had to pass the farm bill--
over 400 days--the No. 1 issue to farmers, ranchers, and every 
commodity group and every farm organization was crop insurance.
  This legislative action--or fix, if we want to call it that--will 
take place in consideration of the year-end spending bill. I have been 
working very closely

[[Page S7609]]

with House Agriculture Committee Chairman Mike Conaway, who has reached 
a similar position with the House leadership. It was a tough trail, but 
Mike got it done.
  We have all agreed here to restore these funds to the program and 
reverse this policy and do so with support from the House and the 
Senate.
  I yield to our distinguished majority whip.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I express my gratitude to the majority 
leader and to the chairman of the agriculture committee in the Senate, 
as well as to the two Senators from South Dakota, Mr. Thune and Mr. 
Rounds, for their cooperation and their commitment to address this 
issue.
  I particularly wish to join the chairman of the agriculture 
committee, Senator Roberts, in commending Mike Conaway, a good Texan, 
who is chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, whom I know cares 
very deeply about this issue.
  Texas is a huge agricultural State and 98 percent of our agricultural 
production is run by families and employs one out of every seven 
Texans. Texas ranchers and farmers are no strangers to the perils 
caused by drought and other weather-related events beyond their 
control.
  With the current regulatory environment and unforeseen perils they 
face, I understand the necessity and the viability of the crop 
insurance program to their livelihoods.
  So I wish to say that I too stand ready to support our colleagues, 
working together to find a solution to this important problem.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I yield to my distinguished friend and 
colleague from South Dakota, the senior Senator from South Dakota, Mr. 
Thune.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator from Kansas, 
who is the distinguished chairman of the agriculture committee, on 
which I serve, as well as the leader and the whip in the Senate.
  I rise in support as well of restoring what would be some very 
devastating cuts to an important program, the crop insurance program. 
The cuts were supposed to be imposed by the budget agreement that was 
reached and that we are going to be voting on later today.
  Crop insurance plays a critical role in supporting South Dakota 
agriculture. It is my State's No. 1 industry. Crop losses due to 
drought, wind, hail, and excessive moisture provide the greatest 
challenges to economic survival and sustainability in production 
agriculture. Crop insurance provides the only viable risk management 
tool to meet those challenges. So it is imperative that we preserve 
crop insurance and maintain its viability.
  I support the agreement that has been discussed on the floor today. I 
will work with the leader, the chairman, my Senate colleagues, and my 
colleague from South Dakota, Senator Rounds, who has been involved in 
these discussions, to make sure we find a reasonable alternative to the 
unworkable cuts to crop insurance that are found in section 201 of the 
Bipartisan Budget Act.
  I thank the majority leader, the whip, and the chairman of our 
agriculture committee for their commitment to our farming families and 
rural economies across this great country. I also thank those who have 
worked in the House to come to a point where we can have this 
discussion and move forward in a way that will preserve what is a very 
important program for production agriculture in this country.
  I ask the chairman of the agriculture committee, Senator Roberts, 
through the Presiding Officer, if the House has reached a similar 
agreement in terms of the discussion that we are having in the Senate 
today.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I thank my friend for the question. I 
respond to my friend that, yes, the chairman, Mike Conaway, has reached 
a bipartisan agreement with the House leadership and also the chairman 
of the Committee on Appropriations, Mr. Rogers from Kentucky. So there 
is bipartisan agreement with the House leadership, and it is now time 
for the Senate to respond.
  I also echo the comments of the senior Senator from South Dakota, 
with the help of Senator Rounds, and I would be remiss in not 
mentioning virtually every member of the ag committee who has been 
involved in this effort as well. I appreciate the work of my colleagues 
and the work of our ranking member, Senator Stabenow. I especially want 
to thank her for raising this issue and helping to find an agreement.
  I note that I have worked my entire career to build crop insurance as 
a public-private partnership that best protects our producers, 
taxpayers, and consumers, not to mention a very hungry and malnourished 
world. This agreement reached today continues in that effort to fulfill 
that mission. I thank the majority leader, the majority whip, and 
Senator Thune for their commitment. I also thank many of our colleagues 
who helped reach this solution today.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the 
bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, the legislation that passed in the House 
last night and that I expect we will be voting on soon in the Senate.
  Anyone who hasn't been living in a cave for the last few weeks is 
aware of the controversy surrounding this legislation. However, while 
the bill is likely no one's idea of an ideal path forward, I believe 
the controversy stems more from political considerations than from 
policy or substance.
  Let me say one thing up front. I don't love this legislation. If we 
were living in the ``United States of Orrin Hatch'' this bill would 
look very different, but while I may not like parts of this deal very 
much, there are other things I like much less, including political 
brinksmanship on important matters and election-year posturing on 
complicated issues.
  This budget deal, while far from perfect, will help eliminate several 
hurdles that must be overcome in the near term and hopefully allow 
Congress to function and to actually govern over the next year. That 
said, there are some very important provisions in this bill that I 
think will be counted as wins for good government and will help us 
address some important issues. So I would like to take just a few 
minutes and talk about some of the specifics of this legislation and 
why I believe these provisions are important.
  First, as we all know, the bill would suspend the statutory debt 
limit through mid-March of 2017. I have heard a number of my colleagues 
decry this provision, arguing that any increase in the debt limit 
should be accompanied by fiscal reforms, and on that count my 
colleagues are right.
  I think you would be hard-pressed to find many Members in this 
Chamber who have spent more time than I have talking about our Nation's 
debt and calling for reforms. I have spoken extensively about the need 
to rein in our broken entitlement programs, which are the main drivers 
of our debt. Unlike most Members of Congress, I have actually come up 
with specific proposals that would help stave off the growing 
entitlement crisis. On top of that, as chairman of the Senate committee 
with jurisdiction over the debt limit, I have repeatedly called on the 
Obama administration to do what past administrations have done, which 
is to use debt limit increases as opportunities to reexamine our fiscal 
situation and work with Congress to find a path toward reforms that 
will improve our fiscal outlook.

  Unfortunately, these calls and similar calls made by other leaders in 
Congress have largely gone ignored as the administration refuses to 
even consider fiscal changes in the context of a debt limit increase. I 
am as frustrated as anyone by the refusal of this administration to 
even engage on this issue. However, the President's refusal to be 
reasonable and to do his job when it comes to our debt is no excuse for 
Congress failing to do its job and prevent a default.
  I know some of my colleagues either don't believe a default would be 
that bad or that the result of hitting the debt limit would even be 
classified as a default. I will not delve into the semantics of the 
issue, I will just say that hitting the debt limit would prevent the 
government from meeting a

[[Page S7610]]

large number of its obligations. Nothing good and many things that are 
bad will come from that result. No reasonable person would dispute 
that.
  In addition, I don't think any reasonable person wants to see 
Congress push up against debt limit deadlines multiple times throughout 
2016. Mixing a looming possibility of default with election-year 
posturing--and I am talking about posturing on both sides of the aisle, 
by the way--is, in my view, a recipe for disaster. This budget bill 
will suspend the debt limit and spare Congress and the American people 
the spectacle of ticking debt clocks in the middle of an election 
season. Once again, this isn't my preferred result, but it is much 
better than the alternative.
  In addition to raising the debt limit, the bill would extend the life 
of the Social Security disability insurance, or SSDI, trust fund 
through a temporary reallocation of resources from the retirement trust 
fund into the disability insurance program.
  As we all know, the SSDI trust fund is set to be exhausted sometime 
late next year, which would lead to benefit cuts of around 20 percent 
for disabled Americans. I am not willing to do that. Right now, the 
beneficiaries in the disability program face enormous uncertainty, and 
that will only get worse between now and the end of 2016 if Congress 
fails to act.
  I have been urging action on this issue for quite some time and have 
put forward a number of proposals to reform various aspects of the 
disability insurance program. Sadly, despite many calls for bipartisan 
cooperation, the administration has decided to remain silent, aside 
from the very simple and overly broad reallocation proposal. 
Nonetheless, the budget bill will, as I mentioned, provide an interfund 
reallocation that will add an additional 6 years of viability to the 
SSDI trust fund, preventing benefit cuts to disabled American workers 
and removing the current uncertainty.
  That is not all. The bill would also put in place reforms to the SSDI 
Program, including some of the proposals I put forward earlier this 
year and reflecting a great deal of work between Chairman Paul Ryan of 
the House Ways and Means Committee and Representative Sam Johnson, who 
chairs the Social Security Subcommittee, and me. Our work led to a 
number of features of the budget bill's treatment of SSDI that will 
help combat fraud in the program, make it easier for those who can and 
desire to return to work to be able to do so, and improve the overall 
administration and integrity of the disability program.
  As I said before, this is not a budget bill that I would have 
written, and I think there are a number of other ways to improve the 
SSDI Program and Social Security more generally. However, nothing in 
the bill prevents us from continuing our work to develop and refine 
ideas and come up with additional improvements. Given the 
unsustainability of the Social Security System generally, we will have 
to continue to work on reforms to ensure these programs are available 
to future generations.
  For now, we must be realistic. If we don't act now to prevent next 
year's benefit cuts, we will create a cliff that will occur right in 
the middle of an election campaign, when fundamental reforms to an 
entitlement program will be virtually impossible. Instead of a real 
debate over the future of this important program, we would see 
accusations lobbed back and forth about which side is responsible for 
the impending benefit cuts. Why would anyone want that? What good would 
that accomplish?
  I would also like to remind my colleagues that the SSDI reforms in 
this budget bill represent the most significant changes to any Social 
Security program since 1983--more than three decades ago. That is 
nothing to sneeze at. So while critics may be right that these changes 
aren't the only types of long-term fixes the SSDI Program needs, they 
should not by any means be overlooked.
  While we are on the subject of entitlements, I also want to point out 
that this budget bill will avert an unprecedented and large increase in 
Medicare Part B premiums for millions of elderly Americans. Under the 
law, there is a complicated interplay between the Social Security and 
Medicare Programs, where under what is called the ``hold harmless'' 
rule, the majority of Medicare beneficiaries cannot see a premium 
increase greater than their cost-of-living adjustment under Social 
Security. However, due to very low inflation, there will be no cost-of-
living adjustments in Social Security in 2016, meaning there can be no 
premium increases for the majority of Medicare Part B participants. 
This means the full amount of what the Medicare system needs to collect 
in Part B premiums for next year will be charged to the nearly 30 
percent of Medicare beneficiaries who do not have their premiums 
deducted from their Social Security payments.

  Long story short, absent some kind of action, more than one-quarter 
of all Medicare Part B beneficiaries will see their premiums go up as 
much as 52 percent in 2016. This bill is important, with all its 
faults, and that is a great reason to vote for it. The legislation 
before us will prevent this increase, once again allowing Congress to 
avoid a contentious fight and preventing many seniors from becoming 
pawns in the unending liberal political gamesmanship and demagoguery. 
Most importantly it would do so in a responsible manner.
  In addition to sparing our country some needless political fights 
over Social Security and Medicare, this bill will also repeal the 
employer autoenrollment requirement under the so-called Affordable Care 
Act. This provision, once implemented, would require large employers to 
automatically enroll new employees in health insurance plans, putting 
the burden on employees who prefer alternative plans to opt out. This 
provision, like many provisions of ObamaCare, never made sense and 
ultimately had few champions outside left-leaning think tanks that 
continually advocate for the government to ``nudge'' citizens into what 
some technocrats believe are preferred outcomes by removing certain 
nonpreferred choices.
  So with this legislation we have bipartisan agreement on the need to 
remove at least part--and not an insignificant part--of ObamaCare. That 
is important. That is a good reason to vote for this. Obviously, we 
need to do more, but in my view any acknowledgement from my friends on 
the other side that any part of the President's health care law doesn't 
work is good progress. We haven't been able to get them to admit that 
in all these years of this failing program that is going on.
  Finally, and for many most significantly, the bipartisan budget 
legislation would partially lift the budget caps established under the 
Budget Control Act both for domestic spending priorities and national 
defense. While very few people in Congress or elsewhere are big fans of 
the sequester threat, it did result in the only legitimate measurable 
spending cuts we have seen in quite some time. It is especially 
noteworthy, given the current administration's seemingly insatiable 
desire for more debt-fueled spending.
  I sympathize with my colleagues who might be hesitant to lift those 
spending caps. However, I think we need to keep a few things in mind. 
First, the increase in the spending baseline under this bill is fully 
offset. That is important. While not all of the offsets are ideal, it 
is important that the spending cap relief will not result in increased 
debt or a tax hike. Let me repeat that. It is important to note that 
the spending cap relief will not result in increased debt or a tax 
hike. In that sense, the spending caps, even with the relief included 
in this bill, continue to be successful. Let me repeat that again. In 
that sense, the spending caps, even with the relief included in this 
bill, continue to be successful.
  Second, lifting the spending caps will help us ensure our military is 
properly funded, although many of us would like to do more with the 
world in the turmoil it is in. Many Members of Congress, particularly 
on the Republican side, have expressed concern regarding the impact of 
the spending caps on our men and women in uniform and our overall 
military readiness. Make no mistake, these are dangerous times. 
American generals and military officials have made clear the spending 
levels under the Budget Control Act are not enough to meet the 
challenges our Nation faces on the world stage. Between the threat of 
ISIS in Iraq and

[[Page S7611]]

Syria, Russian aggression in Eastern Europe, and our newly prolonged 
troop presence in Afghanistan, now is not the time to underfund our 
military. We need to be sure our troops have all the resources they 
need to succeed.

  As we know, President Obama has conditioned any budget-cap relief for 
defense on similar relief for other domestic spending programs. While I 
agree with many of my colleagues that this represents an odd set of 
priorities for a Commander in Chief--his No. 1 duty is to keep us 
safe--we should not let the President's refusal to do right by our 
military lead us to do the same.
  In addition to criticisms of the substance of the bill, some of which 
I agree with, I have also heard complaints about the process that led 
us here. On that front as well, I share some of my colleagues' 
concerns. It certainly would have been better to move this legislation 
through regular order, including committee consideration and an open 
amendment process. I can't speak for anyone else, but I would assume 
that almost everyone involved would prefer to see legislation of this 
magnitude move through the House and Senate in a more deliberative 
process and a longer timetable. Unfortunately, for a variety of 
reasons, that is not what happened.
  However, much of the time, effective government is about the art of 
doing what is doable. Though Republicans control both Chambers of 
Congress, there is a Democrat in the White House and enough Democrats 
in the Senate to sustain a filibuster. That is just a fact. We have to 
live with that. If we want to get anything done around here, we cannot 
demand perfection, nor can we operate in a zero-sum environment where 
every victory for the other side, however minor, is considered a loss 
for yours.
  I get that there are some who sincerely and truthfully believe that 
compromise inherently means failure, and I know there are others with 
different agendas in mind that lead them to oppose anything resembling 
a concession to the other side, no matter what their side may get in 
return, but I have been around here long enough to know that such an 
approach does not often yield satisfactory results. If you are going to 
wait for that perfect bill to come around, my experience has taught me 
that you are likely to wait a very long time.
  The budget bill before us is far from perfect. But, as the saying 
goes, the perfect should not be the enemy of the good. Under the 
circumstances, I believe this bill needs to pass so we can solve these 
problems, remove many dangerous obstacles directly in front of us, and 
give ourselves a chance to govern effectively without the cliffs, 
crises, and deadlines that all too frequently dictate what we do around 
here. For these reasons I plan to vote yes on this legislation, and I 
urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Having said that, I would like to compliment our majority leader. He 
has one of the toughest jobs ever on Capitol Hill.
  I want to compliment the House as well. I have worked very closely 
with the distinguished new Speaker of the House. He is a tremendous 
human being. He does not reject the doable. He is a very strong 
conservative, one of the strongest people in either House of Congress, 
as is our majority leader. Both of them are doing what has to be done, 
and they deserve to have support in doing that. I compliment my friends 
on the other side for the successes they consider they have made.
  On the other hand, I wish to pay tribute to our majority leader and 
the work that he is doing, trying to keep this fractious group of 
people together in so many ways and to get important legislation like 
this passed so that we are working on even more important legislation 
in the future.
  I want to personally pay tribute to Paul Ryan for his election to 
Speaker of the House. We have worked very closely together, as he has 
been chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. We have met almost 
weekly ever since he took over as chairman of that committee and I as 
chairman of the Finance Committee. He is one of the truly great people 
in the Congress, and I personally want to express my view that we are 
lucky to have him. We are lucky to have our distinguished majority 
leader as well.
  I want to compliment my friends on the other side who have been 
working to do the art of the doable and, though imperfect, have worked 
with both of these leaders to get this done.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.


                            The Middle East

  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I rise to discuss a very troubled part of 
the world, the Middle East, a region that is experiencing perhaps the 
greatest turmoil it has seen since the end of the First World War.
  After more than 4 years, with over 200,000 people killed and 4 
million forced to flee, Syria's civil war and humanitarian crisis 
continues to drag on. President Assad still clings to power, and he 
clings to that power with the help of Iran, Russia, and Hezbollah.
  Opposition groups remain divided, and they are weak, while terrorist 
groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda's al-Nusra Front exploit the chaos. ISIS 
also exploits sectarian tensions across the border in Iraq, where its 
fighters battle Iraqi and Kurdish forces, as well as Shia militias, for 
control of large parts of the country. And, according to press reports, 
a Saudi-led coalition meanwhile battles Iranian-backed Houthi rebels 
for control of Yemen, home to Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.
  In addition to its support for Assad and terror and proxy groups, 
Iran continues other hostile activities, such as testing ballistic 
missiles, attacking in cyberspace, and violating human rights. I think 
this is an important thing to remember, as the expectations of the 
Iranian joint nuclear agreement--this was not a panacea for all of the 
things that Iran is doing. As a matter of fact, it specifically was a 
negotiation to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon, which I think 
has been achieved for at least 10, if not 15 to 25, years.
  Then, to add to the complications regarding Iran, there are still 
four Americans detained or missing. One that is missing, of course, is 
our Floridian Bob Levinson, a former FBI agent.
  These are tough challenges that reflect a changing balance of power, 
and we have already taken important steps to meet them. I am talking 
about steps other than the Iranian nuclear joint agreement. American 
and coalition air strikes against ISIS in both Iraq and Syria and the 
training and equipping of Iraqi and Kurdish forces in Iraq have blunted 
ISIS's momentum, and we are starting to see some reverses there. As the 
Secretary of Defense just a few days ago told our Armed Services 
Committee, we are changing our approach to supporting the moderate 
Syrian opposition and equipping those forces already on the battlefield 
against ISIS. It is much more difficult in Syria, and we have not had a 
lot of success in training and equipping those so-called moderate 
forces in Syria.
  So now the changing strategy is that the United States is focusing on 
what the Secretary of Defense referred to as the ``three R's''--the 
ISIS strongholds of Raqqa in Syria and Ramadi in Iraq and then targeted 
raids in both to build battlefield momentum. We saw such a raid that 
tragically took the life of a senior enlisted Special Forces Special 
Operations sergeant the other day, but that raid was particularly 
successful in that it rescued 70 people who were about to be executed 
the next morning. In those raids, the three R's the Secretary mentioned 
are underway.
  Turmoil and violence in the Middle East may seem distant to everyday 
Americans, but the consequences extend far beyond those regions. We see 
it daily on our television screens. Tens of thousands of Syrians have 
sought refuge in Europe. ISIS, we are reminded, uses the Internet and 
social media to spread its propaganda and radicalizes young people far 
from Iraq and Syria and even some in the United States.
  So in this whole perplexing problem, as we try to get our arms around 
it, meeting these challenges, protecting our national security and 
interests, including those of our allies like Israel, is going to take 
strong and patient leadership on the part of our country.
  I wanted to share these thoughts with the Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page S7612]]

  

  Mrs. MURRAY. 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. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Export-Import Bank

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, it is not always easy to get a majority 
of Congress to agree on something. But when it comes to the Export-
Import Bank, the numbers are now clear. Three days ago, the House 
easily passed a bill to reauthorize this critically important program, 
313 to 118. Months before that, here in the Senate, we approved 
reauthorization 64 to 29. That is a supermajority in both Chambers, so 
no one should think we should not be able to pass this. But right now, 
the will of a bipartisan supermajority is being blocked by Senate 
Republican leaders who have so far refused us the opportunity to act. 
This lack of movement on this critical issue is unacceptable, and 
people across the country are not going to stand for it.
  Every single day that passes without this program in operation, 
America's businesses--most of them small businesses--are at a 
disadvantage. That is because one of the main goals of the Export-
Import Bank is to level the playing field for American companies to 
sell their goods overseas.
  There are 60 other export credit agencies worldwide, including 
several in China. While companies around the world are enjoying the 
support of their own lending programs, this Congress allowed one of its 
best tools to grow the economy to go dark. That is now hurting our 
economy at a time when we should be continuing to work to build and 
grow and create jobs.
  For months, I have heard from businesses in my home State of 
Washington that they are being held back by partisan grandstanding 
nearly 3,000 miles away. Businesses in Washington State make great 
products, and they want to ship what they make overseas and continue to 
build their business at home, and Congress ought to be a good partner 
in that effort.
  This isn't a Republican issue or a Democratic issue. This is about 
supporting American companies that are creating local jobs, adding to 
our economy, and helping our economy grow from the middle out. It is 
why the Export-Import Bank has had the support of this body now for 
more than 80 years.
  I urge Republican leaders to stop allowing extreme members of their 
party--a minority of their party--to hold our economy hostage. It is 
time to renew the Export-Import Bank on behalf of American businesses, 
American workers, and American families.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 597

  Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, once again we are down on the floor of 
the Senate, begging, pleading, and trying to get anyone to listen to 
our pleas to once again open the Export-Import Bank. As we look at the 
consequences of having closed--for the last 3\1/2\ months--the Export-
Import Bank, it becomes readily apparent every day and every hour that 
we are losing American manufacturing jobs and we are stressing small 
businesses that have a strong history of reliance on the Export-Import 
Bank, and that we are, in fact, not only not helping American business, 
but we are hurting American manufacturers in this country.
  Why would we do that? Why would we wait one more day? Before the 
charter expired on the Export-Import Bank, we were told that the reason 
why--even though we had 64 votes in the Senate for the Ex-Im Bank--we 
couldn't possibly get this done was because the House of 
Representatives would not take this up. The House of Representatives 
would not move on the Ex-Im Bank, and, in fact, if it came to the 
floor, it was doubtful that we would actually get a vote that was 
favorable to the Ex-Im Bank. Well, a funny thing happened when we 
looked at the reality of where the House of Representatives is today.
  When we counted the votes this week for the Ex-Im Bank, guess what; 
over 70 percent of the House of Representatives voted to reauthorize 
the Ex-Im Bank. And probably even more remarkable, a majority of 
Republicans in the House of Representatives voted to reauthorize the 
Ex-Im Bank.
  Now, you might wonder: What changed? What happened? How could we 
possibly have been so wrong?
  Well, let me tell you that no one in their right mind in the business 
community ever believed that we would let the Ex-Im Bank charter 
expire, and so everybody assumed that we would do the right thing 
here--that the charter would go on and that this would happen. Guess 
what happened. When we shut down the Ex-Im Bank and people weren't able 
to approach the Ex-Im Bank to get credit guarantees to do the work of 
manufacturing and exporting, all of a sudden, those small business men 
and women and those employees of those institutions picked up their 
phones and started calling their Members of Congress. When they called 
their Members of Congress, that is when we saw action. That is when we 
saw things moving in a direction that actually supports American 
manufacturing.
  This is an institution that has been reauthorized many times. This is 
an institution that has been in existence for decades. It is an 
institution that is in competition with dozens--in fact, about 80 or 90 
export credit agencies are run by other countries--of credit agencies 
every day. They are competing against those same agencies.
  What we have now is unilateral disarmament. Imagine this: American 
manufacturers--longstanding manufacturers--are actually considering 
moving their manufacturing facilities offshore so that they can compete 
for this export business. We can't wait another minute. We can't wait 
another day. We can't wait for another opportunity to present itself. 
We have to do this now.
  I understand and know that I am new to this institution. But most 
times when you have supermajorities in support of something, it 
shouldn't be that hard to get it done, and we know the President will 
sign it.
  I am always a little shocked when people say: Well, you know, we 
still can't get that done because we need to find a vehicle. And I 
think: Well, what does that mean when you actually introduce a bill and 
the bill itself is sitting at the desk and there is an opportunity not 
to try to attach something so that somebody can hide their vote or not 
to try to attach it to something because you might be able to leverage 
another idea on there but to actually move this bill forward?
  We don't need to look for a vehicle. We don't need to look for 
another opportunity to advance the Ex-Im Bank. Guess what we need. We 
need to bring this bill to the floor right now. We need to ask our 
colleagues to engage in what we should be doing here, which is debate 
and legislation on the floor of the Senate. We need to resolve this 
issue and wrap it up.
  When we started this journey, we were told the Ex-Im Bank was in need 
of reform. In a very bipartisan way, my office sat down with Senator 
Kirk's office, joined by Senator Blunt, Senator Lindsey Graham, Senator 
Manchin, and Senator Donnelly and said: What do we need to do to make 
the Ex-Im Bank better? What do we need to do to make the Ex-Im Bank 
more accessible and more accountable?
  We negotiated something that is rare here, which is a bipartisan 
bill, the Kirk-Heitkamp Ex-Im Bank reauthorization bill. That bill has 
been the vehicle and the kind of blueprint for how we are going to move 
forward. In fact, when the House did their discharge petition, they 
discharged the bill that is, in fact, the Kirk-Heitkamp bill. There is 
nothing in there where we have to balance this or somehow reconcile a 
House version and a Senate version.
  We can get this done today. We can move this forward. We can send the 
message to the rest of the world that the Ex-Im Bank and American 
manufacturers are open for business. It makes absolutely no sense for 
us to wait any longer and in any way delay the movement of the Ex-Im 
Bank.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.

[[Page S7613]]

  

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from North Dakota 
for her continued leadership on this issue and for pointing out to our 
colleagues that we really could be just a short step away from 
reauthorizing a very important business tool for small businesses, 
manufacturers, and the agriculture industry by making sure that we 
reauthorize the Export-Import Bank.
  What my colleague is referring to is that it would take just a short 
agreement here this morning to go ahead and take the House-passed bill 
that, as she explained, was passed after colleagues got a discharge 
petition, but it is the same as the language that we have had over here 
in the Senate.
  The process to move forward on this reauthorization would be very 
simple. I am sure Senator Heitkamp pointed out before I got to the 
floor that a filibuster-proof majority of our colleagues approve of 
this legislation. I think 67 of our colleagues approve of this, and now 
we have this tremendous support--313 votes--from the House of 
Representatives.
  As Senator Heitkamp said, we are just a short step away. Why are we 
so emphatic about that? Why wait? When we look at what has just come 
out, the financial numbers show a 1.5 percent job growth. I think it is 
something like that. It shows very anemic numbers for our economy.
  I don't know about anybody else, but since we are a very cyclical 
economy in the Northwest, or we have been for various periods of time 
in our history, my constituents expect me to get up every day and fight 
for things that will improve the economic opportunity of America, and 
that is what we are doing here.
  When we look at 2014, it supported $27.4 billion in U.S. exports and 
164,000 jobs. My colleagues know how much the economy outside of the 
United States is growing. So we want to sell them U.S.-made products. I 
think it is one of the biggest economic opportunities in front of us. I 
believe in what we make.
  I complained because I think exotic financial instruments got us into 
trouble, and I want to be known for something in the United States of 
America besides exotic financial instruments. I like that we make 
airplanes and automobiles.
  The Senator from Michigan has joined us on the floor. I like that we 
make great agriculture products from North Dakota that are then 
exported around the globe.
  I visited Bob's Red Mill in Oregon. That company makes a great 
variety of various grain products that are shipped all over the world. 
They use the Export-Import Bank as a way to gain access because not 
every bank in Oregon is brave enough to take on a deal in Tanzania or 
some other country. Why? Because the banking doesn't exist there. So 
the Oregon bank says: OK, I will bank you. I will get Bob's Red Mill 
sold in all of those places, but I want some credit insurance. I want 
to be sure that you have an insurance program in case something goes 
wrong, and that is where the Export-Import Bank comes in.
  In 2014, we had $27.4 billion in U.S. exports and 164,000 jobs.
  Where have we been since 2008? It has helped us with 1.4 million 
jobs. Our economic information shows that we have had a somewhat anemic 
quarter in our country. I would say it is interesting that it did 
coincide with this issue of the Export-Import Bank, and this whole 
malaise here of not getting work done probably didn't make anybody 
happy in business, and there is the fact that a lot of doubt and 
uncertainty plagued us.
  So if you want to help the economy, let's just agree this morning 
that the Export-Import Bank is a great tool to help U.S. manufacturers 
grow their economic opportunities outside of the United States. Let's 
just agree this morning and get this done, and we will be moving ahead 
on this important issue.
  Now, some people are saying: Let's just wait. I am saying: What we 
are risking by waiting is more job loss, more small businesses at risk, 
and the U.S. economy at risk. There are more than $9 billion in pending 
Export-Import Bank deals on the table--$9 billion. That can't get done 
because the Bank doesn't exist anymore. If you just think about that, 
those are U.S. companies that have economic activity to do around the 
globe to help us grow the U.S. economy at a time when we have been 
anemic. If no one objects to my motion, we would restart that engine 
today.
  Ms. STABENOW. Will the Senator from Washington yield for one quick 
question?
  Ms. CANTWELL. Yes.
  Ms. STABENOW. Was that $9 billion?
  Ms. CANTWELL. Yes.
  Ms. STABENOW. We have economic activity that is hanging in the 
balance, and because of this inactivity, we are losing $9 billion every 
single day?
  Ms. CANTWELL. Yes.
  Ms. STABENOW. That is billion with a ``B''?
  Ms. CANTWELL. Yes. That's the dollar value of deals for U.S. 
companies being held up that could be moved forward.
  Ms. STABENOW. Shocking.
  Ms. CANTWELL. So I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to 
the consideration of Calendar No. 282, H.R. 597, the Export-Import Bank 
Reform and Reauthorization Act, and that the bill be read a third time 
and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid 
upon the table with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I would remind my colleagues that we 
voted on the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank already. There 
are numerous objections on this side of the aisle; therefore, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I hope our colleagues realize that the 
economic activity we could be seeing today could help us in everything 
we are doing moving forward.
  While the Senate has passed the Export-Import Bank, it is part of a 
larger transportation package that this Senator hopes will actually get 
done. But there are many people who don't want to see the Export-Import 
Bank reauthorized. In fact, some of our colleagues suggested in the 
recent budget deal that they put a 1-year provision in for the Export-
Import Bank. I don't support a 1-year provision. We support a 5-year 
reauthorization, and we want to get to that now. We do not want to see 
more jobs shifted overseas as we continue to have this debate, because 
that is what is happening. We are giving economic opportunity to other 
countries to take advantage of our businesses.
  I hope we will take this up and move it forward so that we can get 
economic opportunities back in front of the American people at a time 
when we most critically need to.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Ms. HEITKAMP. Will my friend from Washington yield for a question?
  Ms. CANTWELL. Yes.
  Ms. HEITKAMP. We have now had this experience of 3\1/2\ months--
really 4 months because we are at the end of October--with no 
opportunity for a small business to actually look at how they could 
grow that small business. We know we have lost jobs all across America 
in States where they are economically challenged. Opportunities are 
there. We know that the large institutions, the large manufacturers in 
our country, some of which are in Senator Cantwell's State, rely on 
this small business chain of businesses, and those are the businesses 
that have been hit the hardest.
  If we wait, again, for another promise that we are going to put it on 
another vehicle--how much more inactivity, how much more disruption to 
these small businesses can these small supply chains have given their 
economics? Isn't it true that a small business is much more challenged 
by a day's delay in opening up the Ex-Im Bank than a large corporation?
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota 
for her question because she is right on the pinpoint of what this 
issue is about. It is really about small businesses that don't have 
huge capital reserves to set aside money so that they can guarantee the 
sale of their product.
  As I said, there is $9 billion of pending issues before the Bank 
right now, and many of those are small businesses. So those small 
businesses could

[[Page S7614]]

be opening up economic opportunity that might grow their revenue 
significantly and allow them to create more jobs. When we think about 
the motion I just made, if no one had objected, that $9 billion would 
have been free to go out into the economy, those deals would have 
gotten done, those small businesses would have been empowered, and we 
would be on our way to winning in what is an export economy.
  Why is it an export economy? Because the growing middle class around 
the globe is going to double in the next several years. Ninety-five 
percent of consumers live outside the United States of America. So we 
want to win economic opportunity, and we have to be able to sell 
outside the United States of America. It is hard because not every 
place in the United States of America is so developed that their 
banking system is there to do deals.
  This great company in my State, in Spokane, SCAFCO--two of my 
colleagues here--the ranking member on the Agriculture Committee, from 
Michigan, and my colleague from North Dakota, Senator Heitkamp--are 
very active in agriculture issues and will get it. He is basically 
making and selling aluminum grain containers, silos, all over the 
world. That is his business. He has expanded it, built new buildings, 
and he has an incredible workforce.
  As the rest of the world--particularly in Africa and South America 
but even in Asia--starts to grow their agricultural economies, guess 
what they need. They need agriculture equipment. I am sure the Senator 
from Michigan understands that because she has some of those 
manufacturers. So those manufacturers have a huge opportunity to sell 
U.S.-made agriculture equipment.
  I like to say: Guess what we are still No. 1 at in the United States 
of America? Agriculture. We know how to do agriculture. Guess what the 
next big opportunity is around the globe? Feeding the growing middle 
class around the globe. It is one of the biggest economic 
opportunities. But we have to be able to sell them things. We have to 
be able to sell them Michigan-manufactured products. We have to be able 
to sell them agriculture products that my colleague from North Dakota 
makes. SCAFCO needs to be able to sell their grain silos, but they 
can't because people want to hold up this process, all to put a trophy 
on someone's desk saying they did the bidding of a very conservative 
think tank that--the last I know, I don't think they created any of 
these manufacturing jobs in America.
  I hope my colleagues will help us continue this debate because I know 
there are some who will say: Well, we passed this bill, and it is going 
to get done someday. Someday, really? Because everybody said we will 
get it on the Transportation bill in April. OK. That didn't happen. 
They did an extension. It didn't happen. We will get it on the 
Transportation bill in July. The Bank won't expire. Guess what. It 
expired. Now they are telling us to wait again, and we do not want to 
wait on creating more U.S. jobs.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, if I might just wrap up one statement. I 
know my colleague from New Jersey is here.
  I want to thank my colleagues who are such great leaders on the 
Export-Import Bank, the Senator from Washington State, Ms. Cantwell, 
and Senator Heitkamp from North Dakota.
  I just want to put on the record that 100 businesses in Michigan 
alone were assisted in $1 billion in exports, which meant jobs in 
Michigan last year. We can't wait. We need those jobs. Our businesses 
need the support. We need to get this done now.
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following 
my remarks, Senator Sessions be recognized, and that following Senator 
Sessions, Senator Daines be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Third Anniversary of Superstorm Sandy

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise on the third anniversary of 
Superstorm Sandy to reflect on where we have been, how far we have 
come, and what is still left to accomplish, and to praise the people of 
New Jersey who have remained New Jersey proud and New Jersey strong 
during this long, 3-year recovery process. But, most importantly, it is 
to remind everyone in this Chamber and all around the Nation that the 
job isn't done yet. Many people believe that this is over and that 
everyone just moved on, but I know that for many Sandy victims, that is 
not the case.
  In these last few years, we have made a lot of progress. Billions of 
dollars of Federal funds have flowed to the State and were used to 
rebuild bridges, roads, boardwalks, help businesses reopen, and keep 
people working. Those fortunate enough to navigate the maze of Federal 
and State programs have rebuilt their homes stronger and more resilient 
than before. The Jersey Shore has enjoyed a resurgence in tourism which 
fueled the local and State economy, creating jobs and supplementing the 
recovery.
  But while the beaches have been replenished and the boardwalks have 
been rebuilt, 3 years later, for far too many working-class New 
Jerseyans, the recovery not only is incomplete, in some cases it has 
still barely begun. There are still parts of the State that remain 
neglected. There are still families who haven't stepped foot in their 
homes for 3 years. They may not have a reality TV crew following them 
around, but they are the real New Jerseyans, the salt of the Earth, and 
the backbone of our great State. They are the unsung, hard-working New 
Jersey families who suffered loss and pulled themselves back up and 
kept going, one foot in front of the other, every day, not only because 
they wanted to but because they had no other choice.
  For these families, even after the storm passed, the clouds parted, 
and the Sun came out, a different kind of disaster--this time manmade--
was looming on the horizon. They went from filling up sandbags to fend 
off the Atlantic Ocean to filling out endless forms to fend off 
insurance companies and government officials. They had endured the 
fight against Mother Nature but were simply no match against Uncle Sam.
  Doug Quinn, a constituent of mine who served as a marine--and once 
you are a marine, you are always a marine, so I won't say former marine 
but who served as a marine--and who served his country with 
distinction, encapsulated this sentiment perfectly in a letter he wrote 
to me. In it he said:

       I was in my home the night the floodwaters rushed in. I 
     waded out through waist deep water at midnight to escape 
     while electrical transformers exploded and houses burned 
     down. That was the easy part. It's the year-and-a-half since 
     then that has been the tragedy.

  Let me repeat that. He says the flood was the easy part. This is a 
picture of him in that flood and the consequences to his home 
afterward.
  Doug had maximum coverage of $250,000 and received estimates of 
damages in excess of that--$254,000--but he received only $90,000, just 
over a third of what he needed to rebuild. And Doug was not alone.
  Chuck Appleby is another one of the thousands of New Jerseyans who 
has had to engage in this fight for the past 3 years to just get what 
he deserves. Like many others, Chuck, who joined us recently, was 
lowballed by FEMA and his insurance company, which somehow claimed it 
wasn't Sandy that severely cracked the foundation of his home. 
According to them, it was all a preexisting condition that just 
happened to magically appear the day after Sandy hit. Imagine that. He 
played by the rules, he faithfully paid for flood insurance for 10, 20, 
or 30 years, never had a claim until Sandy, came only to find out it 
wasn't enough.
  People assumed that since they have insurance, they would be made 
whole and that the resources necessary to rebuild would be there. But 
after surviving the wind, the rain, and the storm surge, he woke up to 
another nightmare: A flood insurance claim process that threatened to 
take what the storm had not.
  As much as I wish it were an aberration, Chuck's story is not unique. 
Thousands of New Jerseyans were lowballed by their insurance company, 
stunting the recovery and leaving families out of their homes.
  Fortunately, I, along with Senators Booker, Schumer, and Gillibrand, 
was

[[Page S7615]]

able to convince FEMA to allow all Sandy survivors to have their claims 
reviewed, which will result in tens of millions of dollars going to the 
recovery. Chuck is one of those people who opted into the process, and 
FEMA recently admitted its mistake and acknowledged he was shorted at 
least $50,000.
  Dawn and Sonny Markosky are another example. They stood next to me in 
Belmar this week after having received a check for $56,000 from FEMA's 
claims review money that they should have received the first time 
around. Sonny served our country as a retired Army reservist and a 
police chief. He is now only receiving the justice he deserved and the 
chance to rebuild. And even Dawn's mom, who was lowballed $17,000 on 
her house, got an additional $17,000 from the claims review--money she 
had been owed all along. And it goes on and on.
  It shouldn't have taken this long, nor should the path have been this 
winding and difficult, but these successes illustrate the incredible 
resiliency of all the Sandy survivors who wouldn't give up no matter 
how dark things appeared on the morning of October 30, 2012, and 
throughout the 3 years that followed.
  I will continue to fight to help everyone recover. I will continue to 
be a voice for everyone in the Sandy community as we seek to repair 
what happened and make our communities more resilient in the future and 
more capable of dealing with storms like Sandy, which left incredible 
devastation in its wake.
  As we take a moment to think back on that day 3 years ago today, when 
the clouds finally parted and the ominous seas receded, the destruction 
Sandy left is almost unimaginable. We remember images like these of 
Seaside Heights. In fact, I actually took this photo while touring the 
damage with Vice President Biden.
  This is a photo of Hoboken, in northern New Jersey, where street 
after street looked like a series of canals. Thousands of families lost 
everything and suddenly found themselves homeless. Billions upon 
billions of dollars' worth of property, roads, bridges, trains, 
schools, fire stations, and hospitals were in ruins. Most tragically of 
all, dozens of people lost their lives. It was a dark time for our 
entire State, no doubt about it, but, as the proverb goes, the darkest 
hour is just before the dawn.
  Today, as we remember that dark hour, we commit ourselves to 
completing the job and entering the dawn of a new era in the long 
journey to rebuild and recover not just to where we were before the 
storm but to a place where we are stronger, more resilient, and more 
prepared. I have no doubt we will get there together, not just through 
our efforts here in Washington but because of the indefatigable, dogged 
character of the people of New Jersey. We showed that character in the 
immediate aftermath when, despite the level of devastation, New 
Jerseyans were true to their reputation of being New Jersey strong. 
Communities united, families took in neighbors who lost their homes, 
and we all came together and worked together. It was a testament to the 
fundamental nature of community action, community involvement, and to 
what real community service is all about.
  After seeing the impact of the damage that day, I came back to 
Washington with a heavy heart but a determined mind, solely focused on 
representing the countless victims of our State who had their lives 
turned upside down. They didn't ask for handouts; they asked for help 
and kept moving forward.
  I remember working closely with my late colleague and dear friend 
Senator Frank Lautenberg, and we made it our No. 1 priority to bring 
every available resource back to the victims of our State. I continued 
to work with Senator Booker, who jumped head first into the fight from 
the moment he entered the Senate to do the same. And to be clear, we 
had to fight from the very beginning. We had to fight a tea party-
inspired opposition that was blocking the relief we so desperately 
needed. We had Senators and Congressmen who said no to disaster victims 
in New Jersey with one side of their mouths, while asking for Federal 
funds when a disaster struck their State on the other side. Ultimately, 
we overcame the calloused and ideological attacks and secured more than 
$50 billion for the entire region. These Federal funds have been 
absolutely critical to our recovery, but mistakes by government 
agencies at the Federal and State level hindered our progress.
  On this third anniversary of Sandy, I don't come to the floor to 
point fingers at FEMA or the State or to play a blame game. This is not 
about politics or scapegoating; it is about continuing to do all we can 
to deliver for the people in every disaster who still need help, and 
that requires cooperation and teamwork from all levels of government.
  One example of bipartisanship was our effort to stop the draconian 
flood insurance rate increases that Sandy survivors were facing after 
the storm. These families were being confronted with skyrocketing 
premiums which threatened to take what the storm had not. In response, 
I led a broad, bipartisan coalition from all parts of the country and 
passed legislation to stop these egregious hikes and restore fairness 
in the flood insurance program.
  A recovery requires more efforts like this. It requires the State to 
be transparent and open to correcting any inefficiency that causes 
delays and for every Federal Government agency to step up, step in, and 
make corrections when needed. It requires strong oversight and 
technical assistance from Federal agencies, such as Housing and Urban 
Development.
  As we have seen in the past, this cooperation can result in 
significant improvement. For example, when I discovered that homeowners 
were being needlessly delayed from rebuilding because the State chose 
to conduct historical and environmental reviews at the end of the 
application process--therefore, further delay--I worked with then-
Secretary Donovan to clarify to the State that they could conduct these 
reviews at the front end of the application process, allowing victims 
to begin rebuilding sooner without jeopardizing their funding. This was 
a perfect example of eliminating unnecessary obstacles and 
inefficiencies, and I was proud to be in charge.
  We always need to find more opportunities like this. We need HUD to 
continue to work with the States to discover these inefficiencies and 
to get people fully restored. It is our responsibility to make the 
system and the process work for them.
  When I look at two of these families--a marine serving with 
distinction for his country and a former Army reservist and police 
chief--their country didn't ultimately respond to them the way it 
should have. It made life more difficult when, in fact, it should have 
been the other way around.
  We cannot allow partisan and geographical politics into our Nation's 
disaster response priorities. There is a reason we call our Nation the 
United States of America. I have cast my vote time and time again for 
flooding in Mississippi, wildfires out West, Hurricane Katrina--the 
list goes on and on--because I believe in this we are one. No matter 
where a disaster occurs, no matter if it is across the street or across 
the country, we come together as a nation ready to go.
  With that, Mr. President, I look forward to our continuing effort to 
get everyone in New Jersey back in their homes.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of the Senator 
from New Jersey, and no doubt they faced tremendous challenges.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Daines be 
recognized for up to 2 minutes for remarks and that I then be 
recognized for the 30 minutes I have noticed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.


                Remembering Charles ``Charlie'' DeCrane

  Mr. DAINES. Today I rise to honor Montana World War II veteran 
Charlie DeCrane, a member of the Crow Tribe, who passed away earlier 
this week in Billings, MT.
  Charlie was an incredible person. He was hard-working and dedicated 
to serving his country as well as his tribe. He was a quiet and gentle 
spirit, and that was apparent to anyone who came into contact with him. 
Charlie was a man of principle and honor.
  I had the privilege of spending time with Charlie in Washington, DC, 
when

[[Page S7616]]

he accompanied me as my one special guest to the State of the Union 
Address. I was able to witness firsthand truly what an amazing man he 
was. Our walk from my office to the House Chamber is one I will never 
forget. To personally know a man who fought so courageously in World 
War II was a great honor. Many freedoms we have today stem from the 
sacrifices made by Charlie and men and women like him. His 
accomplishments in life will continue to live on.
  It is my hope that through Charlie's life we will remember how 
important our veterans are and how much respect and care they deserve.
  His passing is one that will affect many, and not just his close 
family and friends. Cindy and I will be keeping Charlie's family and 
the entire Crow community in our thoughts and prayers in this most 
difficult time.
  I thank my colleague from Alabama for allowing me to speak.
  I yield back to Senator Sessions.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the budget passage that will soon be 
before us essentially does a number of things. One of the more basic is 
that it spends a lot more money than the current law allows, and it is 
done in a way that the new Speaker of the House said ``stinks'' a day 
or so ago.
  Once again a massive deal is crafted behind closed doors and is being 
rushed through Congress under the threat of panic. The Bipartisan 
Budget Act of 2015 serves as a reminder that the most important and 
controversial legislation is still being drafted in secret with little 
or no input from the Members of this Chamber. We have been cut out of 
the process. No amendments will be allowed to this massive package, and 
the cloture vote will be filed immediately after the bill is placed on 
the floor in order to force a vote, limiting the debate to the shortest 
possible time under the rules of the Senate. Those who question, 
object, and want more time, are accused of wanting to shut down the 
government and disrupt the machinery of the government. They say that 
President Obama will accuse us of shutting down the government. They 
say that we should cower under our debt at this great charge he might 
make against us. As if insisting that we have a right to read and study 
a bill of this magnitude is out of order.
  It should not be run through the Congress in the shortest possible 
time. They can bluster and they can huff and puff, but I say the 
arguments that I am going to make in opposition to this deal are bricks 
of truth, and this house will not fall down. They will not be able to 
sustain a charge that somehow we have bad motives by objecting to what 
is set about here.
  At its core, this deal with President Obama provides what the 
President has demanded throughout.
  First, it lifts the Federal spending caps for 2 years, including a 
$40 billion increase in spending on the Federal bureaucracy.
  A ``yes'' vote affirms that this spending level--the new high 
spending level--is correct and that we need to spend this much money.
  Second, it erases the current debt limit we have that stops spending 
or borrowing money above a certain amount. It erases that debt limit 
until March of 2017, allowing for approximately $1.5 trillion more to 
be added to our debt of $18.4 trillion, and it could be more than that.
  The text states that at that date the debt ceiling shall be raised to 
whatever level of public debt is at that time. Unlike in the past, when 
we had a debt ceiling, it was a dollar amount, and we would raise it 
and approve a certain dollar amount. Suspending this limit is a very 
unwise process. It was done last time and should not be done in the 
future--raise it to a date in the future and indicate, in effect, that 
as much debt as Congress or the President wants to add in that time is 
approved. We don't even know the amount. This is a covert and clever 
way of raising the debt ceiling without having to engage in a real 
discussion of Washington's runaway spending problem. It ensures that no 
further serious conversation about our debt course or any corresponding 
action to alter it will take place.
  The debt ceiling has always been a pivotal point. It is the classic 
case of the parents calling the young man home from college. He has 
overrun his credit card, and they have a little prayer meeting about 
this spending and demand certain reforms in the young man's spending 
habits if he wants to continue to have a credit card.
  Congress has the debt ceiling power to call in the President and say: 
We are on an unsustainable debt course. We need to have reform.
  That was done in 2011, and that is why we have these numbers in place 
today that contain spending but are being violated by this act.
  Finally, the deal submits the unacceptable precedent that every 
dollar of increased defense spending should be met with a dollar of 
increased nondefense spending. How silly is this? What possible logical 
argument can you make for this? This is upside down.
  If an emergency requires more defense spending--as I think it does--
we could dispute the amount, but we have had the Russians in Crimea 
since 2011, Russians in Syria, refugees by the millions in the Middle 
East, ISIS threatening the very government of Iraq, Afghanistan is 
still a problem, Yemen, Libya, and so forth. All of these have happened 
in some part due to the inconsistent, incoherent policies of this 
President. It has happened. We have a lot of problems out there. We 
need some more money for defense.
  Common sense says we should seek to identify reductions and not 
demand spending hikes because we have to spend more money on defense. I 
think this is a deeply troubling problem that we have.
  Raising these budget caps, as we go forward now, removes the moral 
authority of Senators who vote yes and approve this process and reduces 
our ability to talk with integrity to our friends and voters back home 
to whom we promised reform and more principled spending decisions in 
Washington.
  How can we with a straight face say this is a good policy? If we 
approve these higher spending levels, those who vote for it are 
prohibited in many ways from objecting to the levels in the future. If 
they find some waste and cut it, it does not mean we will reduce 
spending. Instead, the Congress, lacking the moral authority to 
decrease spending below these levels, will spend that money up to the 
higher levels in the future. It is a big decision and I think it is 
wrong.
  Furthermore, I would note, as a member of the Armed Service 
Committee, my concern about defense, but the defense account takes a 
larger percentage of the budget than does the nondefense account for 
discretionary spending. By increasing defense and nondefense by the 
same amount, the nondefense category actually receives a larger 
percentage of the increase, all to pay for more bureaucracy, employees, 
and government in Washington.
  So let's be clear. The spending caps in law today were placed in as a 
part of the 2011 Budget Control Act agreement which lifted the debt 
ceiling by $2.1 trillion. We objected. Congress objected to raising the 
debt ceiling without reform. Senator McConnell stood firm, and the 
Budget Control Act of 2011 is the reform that came. Then we raised the 
debt ceiling. We approved a raising of the debt limit on the credit 
card only after we got a containment of the growth in spending. So 
supporters are calling this bill sequester relief as if that is OK, but 
sequester and the Budget Control Act were just simply limits on 
spending. That is what they were.
  The fact is, we have never followed the sequester. In 2013 the 
Congress passed the Ryan-Murray budget deal. That deal raised the 
discretionary spending $64 billion over 2 years. Now that deal has 
ended, and instead of returning to regular order and agreed-upon 
limits, the President wants us to yet again break the Budget Control 
Act and raise spending an extra $80 billion over the next 2 years.
  This deal will obliterate future spending restraint, it does do so, 
destroying our credibility to achieve meaningful spending reform. The 
Budget Control Act represented a bipartisan commitment to cap spending, 
limiting it at a fixed amount. It is a good, responsible policy. In 
fact, I thought it did not limit the spending enough. It was passed by 
a Republican House, a Democratic Senate, and signed into law by 
President Obama. He agreed to these limits.
  This deal shatters that commitment by spending $80 billion more than 
we

[[Page S7617]]

promised over the next 2 years. It is problematic because it is filled 
with gimmicks. They contend, not correctly, that all of this new 
spending is offset by new revenues or cuts in spending somewhere else. 
However, I would suggest and would show here that is not accurate. 
These are a lot of gimmicks we have here.
  Secondly, if we have wasteful spending, and some of this is wasteful 
spending, it needs to be eliminated. But the spending cuts ought to be 
used to reduce the deficit, which was over $400 billion last year, will 
be $400 billion next year, and will double in the next 10 years 
according to the Congressional Budget Office. We need to be using this 
wasteful spending--these low-hanging-fruit problems--to reduce 
government expenditures and reduce our deficits, not using that 
opportunity to reduce deficits to instead spend more money somewhere 
else.
  So they offset. It appears the deal is built on the same principles 
as the deal in 2013. It exchanges instant increases in Federal spending 
for distant promised savings in the future, as much as 20 years, or two 
decades down the road, many of which are unlikely to occur. It funds 
increased spending through increased revenues, violating a core budget 
principle by extracting evermore money from Americans to expand an 
already-too-large Federal bureaucracy.
  We need to be reducing the bureaucracy, not adding to it.
  The deal trades ending spending limits for the promise of new 
spending limits 10 years from now. We just agreed to limits in 2011. 
They promised that we are going to have new spending limits in the 
future. My time in the Senate says promises about the future seldom 
come to pass in this body.
  We need to fight tenaciously to hold the spending limits that are in 
law today and not exchange those limits for a promised limit in the 
future. This is how a country goes broke. We are heading to financial 
catastrophe on the path we are going.
  The deal also uses a common gimmick where alleged savings in an 
entitlement program--a trust fund--are used to boost unrelated spending 
in the general discretionary budget. This is a bigger issue than most 
of our colleagues understand. Any savings found in the entitlement 
programs faced with insolvency must be used to shore up those programs, 
those trust funds, not for spending somewhere else. Yet this deal 
claims illusory savings from disability insurance, part of Social 
Security. That is the disability trust fund. There are two trust funds 
of Social Security, disability and a retirement fund. Every American 
pays into both from their paycheck. So 2.2 percent of your paycheck 
goes to fund the disability fund, the rest of it funds your Social 
Security, and then there is additional money that comes out of your 
paycheck to fund the Medicare trust fund.
  So this deal claims illusory savings from the disability insurance 
and increased pension insurance fees in order to boost bureaucratic 
budgets. Perhaps even worse, the deal attempts to stave off the 
shortfall in the fraud-ridden Social Security Disability Insurance 
Program that has a host of problems. We all know and have known for 
years it is coming into default by the end of 2016. How does it get 
around the default in the disability program? It raids the Social 
Security retirement fund to pay for the deficient, ineffective, badly 
managed disability fund.
  It weakens Social Security. We need to be looking at ways to 
strengthen Social Security, not raid it and weaken it. Some $150 
billion in funds will be siphoned off from Americans' payroll 
retirement contributions and taken out of the Social Security fund and 
transferred to the disability program--four-tenths of a percent each 
year of the income of an American.
  This will weaken the Social Security trust fund by $150 billion while 
politicians all over America continue to promise that what they are 
doing is acting to strengthen the Social Security trust fund. We have 
seen the disability trust fund heading for disaster for several years 
now. Now, ``60 Minutes'' and program after program have shown abuse, 
fraud, and total mismanagement in Social Security Disability. It has 
not been reformed. It needs fundamental reform. They made a few changes 
in the program that I am sure are worthwhile, but none that come close 
to putting the disability fund on a long-term sound basis. It is 
basically a gimmick to get past the impending insolvency crisis, to 
kick it down the road, and then create some money to justify the new 
spending above the spending limits imposed by the Budget Control Act.
  People want to end wasteful Washington spending. The people want 
that. Lifting the budget caps and raising the debt ceiling through 2017 
only ensures that our ineffective bureaucracy continues its wasteful 
ways, while momentum in Washington for deficit reduction stalls out. 
That is what is happening. We are losing momentum. Several years ago we 
were in serious discussions about the dangers we faced financially. 
That conversation has been eroded. It eliminates a powerful 
opportunity, the debt ceiling, to advance the case for fiscal 
discipline.
  What about Social Security? The deal uses the same fraudulent 
accounting methods our Democratic colleagues used to pass ObamaCare on 
a straight party-line vote. We just received a letter from the Social 
Security Actuary, Mr. Goss, who stated that the ``enactment of these 
provisions [in this proposed legislation] is projected to reduce the 
long-range 75-year OASDI [the combined Social Security trust funds] 
actuarial deficit by 0.04 percent of taxable payroll,'' which is a lot. 
However, the savings going in are being counted as both, creating money 
that can be spent to increase new spending, and also creating money 
that can be spent to shore up the retirement insurance program. This is 
an important concept, colleagues. The funds are used to pay for more 
government spending outside the retirement and disability funds.
  Even worse than the promise of saving Social Security, which has been 
overstated as major entitlement reform, the savings are being counted 
as money that can be spent on the discretionary account. It basically 
provides cover to extend the debt of the United States.
  This is the very same tool the Democrats used to pass the ObamaCare 
bill, amazingly, and to produce a phony score so the President could 
say that every penny of it is paid for--saying it would not increase 
the deficit. Our colleagues used the same tactic in this deal by 
counting the funds they cut from your retirement account as being able 
to fund new discretionary spending.
  During the Obamacare debate, the Democrats reduced payments to 
hospitals and doctors and others, but Medicare is a trust fund. They 
claimed some $500 billion would be used both to extend the life of 
Medicare and to pay for the new ObamaCare spending. They openly and 
directly claimed that these savings could be used for two different 
things--$500 billion. It was one of the largest, I contend, 
misrepresentations of finances--fraudulent activities--in the history 
of the world.
  You cannot have money that is used for two different purposes. Mr. 
Elmendorf, the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, has said: 
You cannot spend the same dollar twice, even though the conventions of 
accounting might suggest otherwise. So they used an accounting gimmick 
to make it appear that this money was available to strengthen Medicare 
and fund ObamaCare. It is the same money.
  We accepted that kind of improper financial analysis. The bill was 
passed on the promise it would not add to the debt. It certainly did. 
The same accounting gimmick lies at the heart of the proposed 
legislation to waive Federal spending caps and to raise the debt limit 
by at least $1.5 trillion.
  Promoters of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 boast of long-term 
future savings to Social Security disability, but those savings need to 
extend the life of the disability program, which is nearing insolvency. 
Instead, they are spent on new discretionary spending, basically adding 
to the debt. This is not entitlement reform, this is an accounting 
gimmick. Any savings to be captured in the future from disability 
insurance cannot be spent today on bureaucratic budgets for Federal 
departments such as the EPA, the Department of Labor, or the Department 
of Health and Human Services.
  A second and no less egregious accounting trick siphons off as much 
as $150 billion from the Social Security trust fund for retirees and 
transfers

[[Page S7618]]

that money to the fraud-ridden disability program. But there is no 
surplus in the retirement trust fund. We know the Social Security 
retirement trust fund is heading toward insolvency. Taking this money 
out and moving it to the disability program shortens the lifespan, the 
solvency of the retirement program. All this reform accomplishes is 
advancing the insolvency date of the retirement fund, while bailing out 
the mismanaged disability fund by taking working Americans' pension 
contributions and reallocating them to the disability fund. Again, the 
authors of the bill double count the savings as both increasing the 
sustainability of Social Security disability and paying for the new 
spending.
  So instead of implementing much needed reforms to fix the disability 
program, which is projected to go broke next year, this deal robs $150 
billion from the Social Security trust fund and uses it to pay 
disability checks through 2022. The Social Security trust fund is never 
reimbursed. They reduce the amount of dedicated money going to the 
Social Security retirement fund on everybody's paycheck and redirect it 
for 3 years to the disability fund, and the Social Security retirement 
fund is never reimbursed for the money they lost. So Social Security is 
left in a worse financial situation than it is currently. It is also a 
violation of the budget law to do that; I am confident.
  Furthermore, this bailout lasts only 6 years. In 2022, the disability 
fund runs out of money again, and Congress will have to bail it out 
once again. This bill removes the incentive to provide serious reform 
to fix that broken program and put it on a sound basis. It kicks the 
can down the road once again.
  In conclusion, I would say to my colleagues that we don't have to 
pass this bill today. There is no crisis that requires us to pass it 
today. There are a number of interim steps we could take to allow this 
bill to be out there for the Members who actually study it, to offer 
amendments on it, and maybe improve it for the American people to 
understand just what it is the Members of Congress are doing to their 
Social Security and to the fiscal debt of America.
  As I have mentioned, the Budget Control Act of 2011 increased the 
amount that we can borrow in exchange for $2.1 trillion in spending 
cuts that we were able to win in 2011. What we did when we faced the 
debt ceiling issue was that we were able to enforce our new spending 
law, which limited the growth of spending in the future, saving $2.1 
trillion over that period of time. We are still in that time period, 
and we are ceasing to save money because we are violating the law.
  We were able to win a concession from the President. We didn't cower 
under our tables. We didn't retreat from the huffing and puffing of the 
President on this issue. We stood up as Members of Congress, committed 
to fiscal integrity in America, and we told the President: You are not 
going to get an increase in the debt ceiling unless you agree to some 
spending reforms. That is what happened. We did that when there were 
only 45 Republicans in the Chamber. Now there are 54 Republicans in the 
Chamber, and the House has a huge majority.
  I think we can do better. I don't think this should be rushed through 
the Congress, and I object to its passage.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
recognized for up to 20 minutes and that Senator Sanders be recognized 
immediately following my remarks for up to 15 minutes.
  Mr. SANDERS. I thank the Senator. If you could extend that up to 20 
minutes, that would be great.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I amend that to 20 minutes for Senator 
Sanders, if there is no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, having previously served in the Senate, I 
came to the floor once again for the second time as a freshman Senator, 
in the early months of 2011, full of optimism and a sense of purpose.
  Back for a second time as a newly elected freshman, I delivered my 
inaugural speech, which included the following thoughts:

       For each of us serving today, I believe it is our duty to 
     rise to the immediate challenge and resolve the problems 
     which now confront us. It will take all of us, united behind 
     a common purpose--that above all else we must first restore 
     and strengthen our fiscal security. We must articulate a 
     clear vision, set specific goals and make the tough decisions 
     needed to bring our nation out of debt and preserve 
     prosperity and opportunity for future generations.

  Those remarks outline a major part of my vision for what I hope to 
achieve in my term as a Senator. It is now 5 years later. What I came 
back to try to accomplish hasn't been accomplished.
  At the time, I saw--and it was the reason why I answered the call to 
come back--that our fiscal health was eroding right before our very 
eyes. I didn't want to be a part of the first generation of Americans 
to leave our children and the country worse off than the one we 
inherited.
  Anyone who reads through our history knows the sacrifices that have 
been made by generation after generation after generation so that their 
children and their grandchildren and their country could be in a better 
position so that they wouldn't be saddled with the burdens that might 
not allow them to live the American dream.
  I asked Hoosiers to send me back to Washington to focus on taking on 
these essential issues. It was the first thing in my very first debate, 
where I put it on the table and said: Unless we go back and address our 
runaway mandatory spending and entitlement programs, it is not worth 
going back, and I will not ask you to send me back there unless you 
give me the mandate that this is a task that has to be undertaken.
  It was called political suicide at the time: Oh, you can't bring that 
up. I mean those who are on Medicare or Medicaid or Social Security 
will make sure that you will never be sent back to the Senate if that 
is what your goal is.
  I said: I just want every Hoosier to know, when you walk in that 
voting booth, what you are voting for and what you are not voting for.
  And I received the mandate to come back to address that because 
people in my generation understood that as to the privileges they had 
received and the opportunities they had received throughout their 
lives, they wanted to pass them and that same opportunity on to their 
children and their grandchildren. They wanted us to come back and make 
difficult decisions so that would happen.
  It is not that this issue wasn't worked on. Whether it was to fix the 
debt or the Business Roundtable, Domenici-Rivlin, Simpson-Bowles, the 
Gang of 6, the super committee resulting from the Budget Control Act, 
and the dinner club of Senators--all of these efforts over the early 
years I threw myself into and in support of. And many of us--even on a 
bipartisan basis--were working together to try to address this gorilla 
in the room, the runaway mandatory spending. It is now eating up over 
70 percent of our total budget and ever-decreasing discretionary 
spending.
  The President, unfortunately, walked away from every effort that was 
made. The efforts were divided, and nearly 40 of us--20 Democrats and 
20 Republicans--sent the President a letter stating: We need to address 
that, and we are willing to step up and address this if you will join 
us in this process.
  I was very much a part of the final effort with the President--the 
so-called dinner club--at the President's initiative. We were working 
with the President himself, his Chief of Staff, his top Director of 
OMB--now Secretary Burwell at HHS--and his political director. Over the 
months, eight of us met privately--there was no press, no staff--
working to see, as principals, if we could come up with something. In 
the end, it fell apart. It fell apart because the President, in the 
end, wouldn't even accept his own previous proposals--his own White 
House proposals to address this problem.
  Here we are 5 years later. Currently, what we have gone from, under 
this administration, is a $10.6 trillion debt at the beginning of this 
Presidency to now 18-plus, or almost $18.2 trillion. There was almost a 
doubling in just two terms of one President, almost a doubling of our 
debt.
  And here we stand with injunctions from the Congressional Budget 
Office

[[Page S7619]]

saying that we are headed toward a crisis and it is holding down our 
economy. We are not growing as we should and putting people back to 
work as we should because this is a drag on us. It is an anchor holding 
us down.
  Every Member of this Senate understands that the issue here is not 
this particular program or that particular program. The issue is 
runaway mandatory entitlements that are eating up everything--virtually 
three-quarters of everything they spend money on.
  There are essential functions of the Federal Government that have to 
be addressed: the National Institutes of Health and, obviously, our 
defense and national security. There is the CDC, which deals with 
communicable diseases, education funding, veterans programs, law 
enforcement, border security, and food safety, just to name a few. 
Those are essential functions. But the money available to do what 
government needs to do is ever shrinking in terms of our ability to 
allocate it for that to be done, and the mandatory spending is just 
simply running out of control.
  Is anyone in this Senate or in this Congress saying we should end 
Social Security, end Medicare, and end Medicaid? Everyone here is 
saying no. Everyone has to understand, however, that to preserve those 
programs we have to bring on sensible reforms, and that has been the 
challenge.
  CBO said earlier this year: ``Large and growing federal debt would 
have serious negative consequences, including increasing federal 
spending for interest payments; restraining economic growth in the long 
term; giving policymakers less flexibility to respond to unexpected 
challenges; and eventually heightening the risk of a fiscal crisis.
  The evidence that we read and talk about in the Senate every day 
comes to the same conclusion. Congress too often has governed to avoid 
a crisis and failed to make the tough but necessary choices.
  Now here we are in another crisis looming, another leverage for us to 
try to achieve some sensible forward movement in terms of dealing with 
this runaway mandatory spending, and this is the raising of the debt 
limit. Given all the failure of previous efforts, the exhaustion of the 
private sector and congressional efforts, we are left with very few 
options to address our fiscal problems. Now we have a debt limit that 
is hitting us just days from now, November 3, and we won't be able to 
pay our bills unless we raise that debt limit.
  So what have we done, using this potential leverage, to try to 
achieve something of significance? We end up basically waving the white 
flag and saying: There is really nothing more we can do. We just have 
to simply raise this. We have to live with it. We have to continue 
spending more. Oh, and by the way, those caps that we put in terms of 
discretionary spending, we have to break those also.
  There is a legitimate argument for the need to provide additional 
funding for our Department of Defense and our national security. All 
you have to do is turn on the television and watch what is happening 
around the world to understand that America is in a weakened position 
and that national strength and defense strength are important for the 
future of our country. So I do think that was a legitimate issue to try 
to deal with. But to break the caps on an equal basis for more 
government spending on the discretionary side simply is something we 
shouldn't have to do.

  These so-called pay-fors that were put out there are the same old, 
same old. It is spend now and maybe we will adjust the program later 
and that will help cover the cost now. That hasn't worked before, and 
it won't work now. It is a gimmick, in most instances. It is something 
to sell the program, but it doesn't begin to address the problem of 
out-of-control debt.
  Along with that, Social Security disability, the trustees have said, 
is going to go broke in just a few months, and the benefits are going 
to have to be dramatically cut unless it is fixed. So do we come in 
with a real fix for the real future of the Social Security-related 
programs? No, we transfer money from the old age fund--actually, there 
is no money in that fund, we simply allocate the money that is owed to 
that fund to pay for solvency for the disability part of that fund.
  First of all, the thing we need to do is to be honest with the 
American people is to rename the Social Security trust fund to 
something else because the trust tells us there is money there to pay 
these benefits when there isn't. There are IOUs there, locked in a box 
or a safe somewhere. There are simply piled up pieces of paper saying: 
We have to pay you back at some point. Without addressing this--and we 
saw this last evening in the debate, those of us who watched. I was 
going back and forth, to be truthful, between the World Series and the 
debate, trying to catch both of those. But we saw a few Members stand 
up and tell the truth--tell the American people exactly what the 
situation is and why we need to do what we need to do. I commend those 
few who had the courage to go forward and tell the American people 
straight up that this is the problem and it must be solved.
  Anyway, speaking of this vote that is coming up--the vote that will 
allow more spending for Federal programs, many of which are not 
priority programs--the arrangement will simply allow us to take a pass 
on raising the debt limit. We are not going to use it as leverage to 
try and achieve anything meaningful in terms of entitlement--frankly, 
offsets that we have used before and we use over and over again. It is 
the same old shuffle game where we move pieces around, but it doesn't 
accomplish the purpose. All of that leads me to the conclusion that I 
cannot support this particular arrangement.
  There are reforms that must be put in place. We have to get to the 
point where we stop talking about these reforms and put them in place, 
where we make the political decisions that I believe will be supported 
back home. But even if they aren't supported by everyone back home, 
even if they are distorted by organizations that are funded by trying 
to scare seniors into believing Congress or the government is taking 
away their benefits--which is not the case; we are trying to save those 
benefits and we are trying to put our future generations, our children 
and grandchildren, in a better position so they won't be so saddled 
with that debt--there are many ways we can go forward.
  We have talked about balancing our budget. What entity in the world 
doesn't have to balance a budget at some point? What entity can keep 
borrowing money, saying on a piece of paper they will pay it later--
that they are going to spend it now and pay it later? What businessman 
or woman, what small, medium-sized, or large business, what family, 
what organization continues to deal with their fiscal issues the way 
the Federal Government deals with its fiscal issues and survives? We 
are careening toward a crisis. There are solutions for this, but it 
takes political will, and we have seen far too little of that political 
will.
  More importantly, it takes support from both branches of government, 
both the legislative and the executive, if we are going to accomplish 
this. Unfortunately, it appears now we are going to have to wait for 
yet another Presidency, yet another Congress, because we are kicking 
the can down the road. We are dumping this problem on the next group 
coming in. Boy, I feel for whoever winds up with the Presidency, 
whether it is Democrat or Republican, because of what they will 
inherit, given the damage that has been done over the past several 
years.
  Clearly, we need to address the gorilla in the room. Clearly, we need 
to stand up and be truthful with the American people, as some of our 
candidates were last evening. We must tell them exactly where we are, 
what we need to do, and then put the long-term reforms in place that 
will save these programs and put America in a solid fiscal situation.
  Getting a balanced budget amendment in place is something we have 
talked about. We have made an effort, and we need to continue that. 
Without the discipline of putting your hand on the Bible with your 
right hand up and swearing you will uphold the Constitution of the 
United States, which includes balancing our budget and not spending 
more than we take in, we will never get there. You have to put people 
under oath in order to achieve that. We have come close on a couple of 
occasions but, unfortunately, not close enough.
  Therefore, I am resorting to a program that has worked in the past 
regarding our national defense and our military and proposing that what 
we

[[Page S7620]]

do is create another BRAC. BRAC was the Base Realignment Commission--a 
process we finally agreed to because there was no way we could touch or 
close anything, and we were just overrun with excess spending and 
excess bases in the United States. And that worked. It worked very 
well. All of us here know exactly or very closely what the parameters 
of that were.
  In this case, if we cannot summon the courage and the will to stand 
up and do this, as we are required to do under the oath of office we 
take, but which we avoid doing, we should turn to a commission that 
would provide a solution. It would be a budget reduction accountability 
commission. We can use the same BRAC title on the thing. Let's call it 
the budget reduction accountability commission, which would bring 
forward a plan to achieve the goal of bringing us back to fiscal 
health. We would put it before this Congress, both the Senate and the 
House, with a straight up-or-down majority vote--yea or nay.
  Here is the plan. You haven't been able to do it yourself, you have 
tried it, we appreciate your trying it, but it has come up short, 
whether it is the executive branch or the legislative branch. So the 
outside commission presents the path forward, and we say yes or no. 
Then the people back home all know exactly where we stand in terms of 
the future fiscal health of this country. They will know exactly where 
we stand in terms of how we want to leave our legacy to the next 
generation and future generations, how we want to treat our children 
and our grandchildren.
  Each Member will have to go home and not talk about procedures and 
not talk about bumping up to the crisis level of spending and how we 
have to do something to avoid a government shutdown or avoid chaos or 
avoid economic collapse. Every Member will go home and say they were 
presented with a plan to get us there, and they were either for it or 
against it. Nobody could say: Well, we had to do this, we had to do 
that, it was late, we bumped up against the ceiling, it was running 
out, and so forth. I am tired of hearing all of that.
  Mr. President, clearly solutions exist to deal with this problem. 
Clearly, we must summon the courage to set aside politics and do what 
we all know we need to do and suffer the consequences. I think the 
consequences will be applause and support because finally someone is 
standing up and saying we are going to fix this problem for the future 
of America and the future of our children and grandchildren; we are 
going to take that risk. If the groups outside are going to rally 
against this kind of thing and try to take us down, fine; we will go 
down doing the right thing. But I think we will be rewarded for doing 
so.
  I want to close this today with the same words I used to conclude my 
inaugural speech in 2011, where I said:

       I am standing here today to find solutions--to make the 
     hard decisions--and to leave behind a country that is 
     stronger and more fiscally secure for future generations. 
     This crisis is not insurmountable. We can overcome it by 
     doing what great generations before us have done--mustering 
     our will to do what is right. If we do, I know America's 
     greatest days are not behind us, but still lie ahead of us.

  Mr. President, 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.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Marijuana Legalization

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I want to spend a few minutes discussing 
a major crisis in this country that must be addressed. Tragically, in 
the United States of America we now have 2.2 million people in jail. We 
have more people incarcerated than any other country on Earth, 
including China, which is a Communist authoritarian country four times 
our size. We have more people in jail than does China.
  Further, at a time of large deficits and a very large national debt, 
we are spending about $80 billion a year in Federal, State, and local 
taxpayer money to lock up people--$80 billion a year to incarcerate 
people.
  Our criminal justice system is broken, and we need major reforms in 
that system. I think there is no debate in this country that violent 
and dangerous people must be locked up and they must be kept in jail 
and away from society. I think nobody argues that. On the other hand, I 
hope there is also no debate that nonviolent people--people who have 
been convicted of relatively minor crimes--should not have their lives 
destroyed while they do time in prison and create an arrest record 
which will stay with them for their entire lives. The important point 
is, it is not just the year or 2 years somebody is in prison; this 
record will stay with them for their entire lives and do enormous 
damage to their lives.
  In 2014 there were 620,000 marijuana possession arrests. That is one 
arrest every minute. According to a report by the ACLU, there were more 
than 8 million marijuana arrests in the United States from 2001 to 
2010--8 million marijuana arrests--and almost 9 in 10 were for 
possession. Arrests for marijuana possession rose last year nationwide 
even as Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Alaska, and the District of 
Columbia became the first States in the Nation to legalize personal use 
of marijuana.
  Let's be clear that there is a racial component to this situation. 
Although about the same proportion of Blacks and Whites use marijuana, 
a Black person is almost four times more likely to be arrested for 
marijuana possession than a White person. In other words, as we try to 
understand why our prison population today is disproportionately Black 
and Latino, one reason is because in overpoliced Black neighborhoods, 
African Americans are much more likely to be arrested for smoking or 
using marijuana than will Whites. Here is the simple truth: An upper 
middle class White kid in Scarsdale, NY, has a much lower chance of 
being arrested for using marijuana than a low-income Black kid in 
Chicago or Baltimore. Those are just the facts.
  Too many Americans in this country have seen their lives destroyed 
because they have criminal records as a result of marijuana use. That 
is wrong. That has to change. Let's be clear. A criminal record could 
mean not only jail time, but much more. If a person has a criminal 
record, it will be much harder for that person later in life to get a 
job. It is not so easy to come out of jail and get a job, and if you 
don't get a job, there is a strong likelihood you will go back into 
your same old environment and end up in jail again. If somebody has a 
criminal record, it may be impossible for them to obtain certain types 
of public benefits and in fact make it difficult for them to even live 
in public housing. A criminal record stays with a person for his or her 
entire life until the day he or she dies. A criminal record destroys 
lives.
  Right now, under the Controlled Substances Act, marijuana is listed 
as a Schedule I drug, meaning it is considered to be a drug that is 
extremely dangerous. In fact, under the act, marijuana is considered to 
be as dangerous as heroin. I know there are conflicting opinions about 
the health impacts marijuana may have, but nobody I know seriously 
believes marijuana is as dangerous as heroin. This is absurd. Nobody 
believes that.
  In my view, the time is long overdue for us to take marijuana off of 
the Federal Government's list of outlawed drugs. In my view, at a time 
when Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Alaska, and the District of Columbia 
have already legalized the personal use of marijuana, every State in 
this country should have the right to regulate marijuana the same way 
that State and local laws now govern sales of alcohol and tobacco. 
Among other things, that means recognized businesses in States that 
have legalized marijuana should be fully able to use the banking system 
without fear of Federal prosecution.
  In response to the initiatives that Colorado and other States have 
taken, the Obama administration has essentially allowed these States to 
go forward and do what the people in those States have chosen to do. 
That is a good step forward, but it is not good enough because a new 
administration with a different point of view could simply go forward 
and prosecute those marijuana businesses and individuals in those 
States who use marijuana despite what the people in those States have 
decided to do legislatively.
  What I am saying is not that the Federal Government should legalize

[[Page S7621]]

marijuana throughout the country. This is a decision for the States. I 
hope many of my colleagues, especially those who express support for 
States' rights and our Federalist system of government, those who often 
decry the power of the big bad Federal Government in undermining local 
initiatives, would support my very simple and straightforward 
legislation that will be introduced next week.
  All my legislation says is that if a State chooses to legalize 
marijuana, that State should be able to go forward without legal 
impediments from the Federal Government.


                           Capital Punishment

  Mr. President, I want to talk about an issue of great importance in 
this country. I believe the time is now for the United States to end 
capital punishment. I know this is not necessarily a popular point of 
view, but in my view it is the right point of view. Virtually every 
Western industrialized country has chosen to end capital punishment. I 
would rather have our country stand side-by-side with European 
democracies than with countries like China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and 
others that maintain the death penalty.
  We are all shocked and disgusted by the horrific murders we see in 
this country, including massacres in schools and on college campuses 
that seem to take place every week. All of us are tired and disgusted 
with what we are seeing, but it seems to me that at a time of rampant 
violence and murder all over the world, where people are being blown up 
and their heads are being cut off, it is important that the state 
itself, the Federal Government in America, say loudly and clearly that 
we will not be part of that process.
  When people commit horrendous crimes--and we see too many of them--we 
should lock them up and throw away the key. I have no problem in saying 
that people who commit terrible murders should spend the rest of their 
lives in jail, but the state itself, in a democratic civilized society, 
should itself not be involved in the murder of other Americans.
  I know there are strong differences of opinion on this issue. In 
fact, I think I am in a minority position, but I think those of us who 
want to set an example, who want to say that we have to end the murders 
and the violence we are seeing in our country and all over the world, 
should in fact be on the side of those of us who believe we must end 
capital punishment in this country.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hoeven). The Senator from Washington.

                          ____________________