[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 16860-16879]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      TRADE ACT OF 2015--Continued

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to raising the 
debt ceiling. I rise particularly in opposition to raising the debt 
ceiling without getting any sort of spending reform or budgetary reform 
in return. In fact, it will be completely the opposite. We will be 
raising the debt ceiling in an unlimited fashion. We will be giving 
President Obama a free pass to borrow as much money as he can borrow in 
the last year of his office--no dollar limit. Here you go, President 
Obama, spend what you want. We do this while also exceeding what are 
called budget caps.
  We have been trying to have spending restraint in Washington. It 
hasn't worked very well, but at least there are some numbers the 
government is not supposed to exceed. These include spending caps for 
military spending as well as domestic spending.
  When I first arrived in 2010, I was part of the movement called the 
tea party movement. We came into prominence, and I was elected 
primarily because I was concerned about the debt, worried about the 
debt we were leaving to our kids and our grandkids, worried that we 
were destroying the very fabric of the country with debt.
  We came here in 2010, and we negotiated and negotiated, and President 
Obama said: I won't negotiate with you. I won't negotiate with a gun to 
my head.
  The media said: You always have to raise the debt ceiling. It is 
irresponsible to use that as leverage to get reform.
  But you know what. We did get reform. The conservatives put together 
something called cut, cap, and balance. It was passed overwhelmingly in 
the House, blocked in the Senate, but ultimately there was something 
passed called sequestration, which put caps on both military and 
domestic spending. It did slow down the rate of growth in government 
for a little while.
  This is the problem with Congress: Congress will occasionally do 
something in the right direction, and then they take one step forward 
and two steps back. In 2013 we gave up on the sequester and we added 
back in about $60 billion worth of money. Now they are doing the same 
thing again. This time we are going to add back in $80 billion--$50 
billion in 2016 and another $30 billion in 2017.
  We are doing the opposite of what we should be doing. We should be 
using the leverage of the debt ceiling by saying: We are not raising it 
again until you reform your ways, until you begin spending only the 
money you have.
  Instead, we are saying: Here, Mr. President. You can raise the debt 
as much as you want. You can spend as much as you want while you are in 
office, and we are going to do nothing. In fact, we are going to help 
you. We are going to exceed the caps so everybody gets what they want.
  So everyone in Washington is going to get something. The right is 
going to get more military money, the left is going to get more welfare 
money, the secret handshake goes on, and the American public gets stuck 
with the bill.
  I think one of the most important things that we do is defend the 
country. If you ask me to prioritize the spending, I will say we have 
to defend the country above and beyond and before all else. But that 
doesn't mean we are stronger or safer if we are doing this from 
bankruptcy court.
  I think the No. 1 threat to our country, the No. 1 threat to our 
security is debt, this piling on of debt. The debt threatens our 
national security. Yet we just want to pile it on and pile it on.
  This deal will do nothing but explode the debt. In fact, it doesn't 
even limit

[[Page 16861]]

how much the debt can go up. We are giving the President a blank check.
  We are in the middle of a filibuster. This filibuster will go on 
until about 1:00 in the morning, and then we will find out who the true 
conservatives in this town are. If you are conservative, you will say: 
There is no way I am going to vote to give an unlimited power to the 
President to borrow money. If you are a conservative, you are going to 
say: We shouldn't be exceeding the budget caps; if anything, we should 
be passing more stringent budget caps.
  It disappoints me greater than I can possibly express that the party 
I belong to that should be the conservative party doesn't appear to be 
conservative. This is a big problem.
  I am traveling the country, and I have asked Republicans everywhere. 
I have yet to meet a single Republican who supports this deal.
  In the House, they voted on this yesterday. Do you know what the vote 
was? Two to one among Republicans say that this is a god-awful deal and 
that we shouldn't touch it with a 10-foot pole. It is a terrible deal. 
House Republicans understood this.
  We should be doing the opposite. We should be taking the leverage of 
saying we are not going to raise the debt ceiling unless we get reform. 
Instead, we went to the President and said: Here, raise the debt 
ceiling as much as you can possibly spend over the next year, and we 
will let you exceed the budget caps. It is irresponsible. It shows a 
lack of concern for our country, for the debt, and it should go down in 
defeat.
  When I ran for office in 2010, the debt was an enormous issue. The 
debt was $10 trillion. Some of us in the tea party were concerned 
because it had doubled in the last 8 years. It doubled from $5 to $10 
trillion under a Republican administration. Many of us were adamant 
that Republicans needed to do a better job. We had added new 
entitlement programs, we added new spending, and the deficit got worse 
under Republicans. Now we are under a Democratic President and it is 
set to double again. This President will add more to the debt than all 
of the previous Presidents combined. So we will go from $10 trillion 
now to nearly $20 trillion. We may get close to $20 trillion, and now 
that we have increased the debt ceiling an unspecified amount, we may 
well get to $20 trillion by the time this President leaves.
  Is that a problem? Some people say: It is just a big number. I don't 
know what $1 trillion is.
  If you want to imagine $1 trillion, take thousand-dollar bills and 
put them in your hand. Thousand-dollar bills 4 inches high is $1 
million. If you want to have $1 trillion in thousand-dollar bills, it 
would be 63 miles high. We are talking about an amount of money that is 
hard to fathom.
  You say: What does that mean? How does that hurt me or my family?
  Economists say we are losing 1 million jobs a year through the burden 
of debt. Economists also say that when your debt becomes as large as 
your economy, you are in a worrisome place; that when the debt is as 
large as the economy, there is a possibility that you may enter into a 
period where you might suffer a panic or a collapse or a burden so 
great that your economy can't withstand it. In 2008 we were very close 
to a panic. I think we get closer with each day.
  The No. 1 priority up here shouldn't be trying to scrounge around and 
find new money to spend. It should be trying to conserve. It should be 
doing something that some say is radical but I say is the absolute 
essence of common sense; that is, we should spend what comes in.
  So often up here, things become partisan and people just want to 
point fingers and say: Oh, it is that party that did it; they are the 
ones responsible for the debt.
  But I want to let you in on a secret. This is a secret that goes on 
and on and on up here. It is something I call the unholy alliance. It 
is the unholy alliance between right and left--they both have sacred 
cows they want to spend money on. Instead of saying: The debt is a real 
problem, and we both have to conserve in both areas, they get together 
secretly and raise the money for their sacred cows. So on the right we 
are busting the limits because the right wants more military spending. 
The left wants more for welfare. The unholy alliance is the secret 
handshake. And what gets worse? The debt. We are borrowing $1 million 
every minute, and it is not going to end in a pretty way.
  What do other conservatives have to say about this deal? Stephen 
Moore at the Heritage Foundation writes: ``It is the worst budget deal 
to be negotiated by the GOP since George H.W. Bush violated his `no new 
taxes' pledge in 1990.''
  Rush Limbaugh says: ``The Republican party cannot campaign by running 
around blaming the Democrats for destroying the budget, for 
overspending, for threatening the very fabric of the country.'' They 
can't do it because they are now complicit.
  We can't point fingers and say the Democrats are the big spenders. We 
now, by this deal, become complicit. We become equally guilty of 
supporting new debt.
  Some say: Well, gosh, you have to raise the debt ceiling, right? If 
you don't raise the debt ceiling, there will be a default.
  Hogwash. Do you know how much money comes into this place every month 
through taxes? About $250 billion comes in in taxes. Do you know what 
our interest payment is? About $30 billion, might be as high as $60, 
$70, $80 billion. There is never not enough revenue to pay for 
interest. People say we couldn't pay for everything. I say maybe we 
shouldn't spend it on everything. We have plenty of money that comes in 
every month to spend on interest, to spend on Medicare, to spend on 
Social Security, and to spend on soldiers' salaries and veterans 
affairs and the rest, but maybe government shouldn't be doing much 
else.
  These are the questions we would have to ask: What would happen if 
the debt ceiling didn't go up? We would have a balanced budget. How bad 
would that be? If your debt ceiling didn't go up, you would spend what 
comes in. That is what every American family does--they spend what 
comes in.
  I think this is absolutely what we need to do, but even I am willing 
to compromise, so I have put forward a compromise. I put forward a 
compromise that we tried in 2011 called cut, cap, and balance. My 
compromise would cut the deficit in half in 1 year--a dramatic 
lessening of the burden of debt. That is the cut. The cap is that my 
bill would actually cap spending at 18 percent of GDP--18 percent of 
the total amount of money spent on the economy. Why did we pick 18 
percent? Because that leads to a balanced budget. The last part of my 
bill of cut, cap, and balance is we would pass a balanced budget 
amendment to the Constitution. I have kind of jokingly said--but 
probably seriously--if we pass a balanced budget amendment to the 
Constitution and we pass term limits, I will go back to being a doctor, 
which is my first love anyway.
  We have to fix the country. We are destroying the country with debt. 
We are drowning in a sea of debt, and neither party seems to be 
concerned with it anymore.
  So what I would do is I would say, yes, I will compromise. I will 
raise the debt ceiling under these three conditions: cut the deficit in 
half, cap the spending, and pass a balanced budget amendment to the 
Constitution.
  People say: Well, there aren't the votes for that.
  Why don't we have a vote? Why don't we allow a vote on cut, cap, and 
balance, the conservative alternative to this deal we have on the 
floor? Why don't we vote on an alternative? Because there won't be any 
amendments allowed. This will be pushed through without amendments. I 
really object to that. This is supposed to be a body of deliberation. 
We are supposed to be able to deliberate over how we are going to fix 
the problems of the country. And I think this is the No. 1 threat to 
us. We are accumulating debt at $1 million every minute. Someone has to 
stand up and do something about it.
  Taxpayers for Common Sense says about this: ``We're not a fan of the 
Bipartisan Budget Agreement of 2015.''

[[Page 16862]]

  CATO writes: ``The Gipper's [Ronald Reagan's] ghost is probably 
looking down from heaven at the new budget deal between congressional 
leaders and the Obama administration and saying `there they go 
again.'''
  ``So let's rephrase the question: What do advocates of fiscal 
restraint get in exchange [for raising these spending caps]? Well, if 
you peruse [this] agreement, it's apparent they don't get anything.''
  What we have traded is an increase in the debt ceiling--not just an 
increase, an unspecified increase in the debt ceiling. We have said to 
President Obama: You can spend as much money as you want throughout the 
rest of your Presidency--no limits.
  The National Taxpayers Union writes:

       If the question on the budget and debt ceiling package is 
     ``Deal or No Deal?'' taxpayers should clearly opt for the 
     latter.

  While the agreement contains a few meritorious provisions, it fails 
other sufficient savings and structural reforms necessary to address 
our Nation's $18.1 trillion debt problem. The debt is without question 
the No. 1 problem in the country. We will have a vote this evening, and 
that vote will be: Do you care? Are you willing to do something to slow 
it down? Do you think we ought to use the leverage of the debt ceiling 
to slow down spending or are you a profligate spender who will vote to 
bust the caps and who will vote to give President Obama unlimited 
borrowing authority?
  I think it is a clear-cut question. I will vote no, and I will 
continue this filibuster as long as there are enough votes to allow it 
to continue.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2182

  Mr. President, at this point, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of my bill, Cut, Cap, and 
Balance, which is Calendar No. 274, S. 2182. I further ask that there 
be 1 hour of debate equally divided in the usual form; that following 
the use or yielding back of time the bill be read a third time and 
passed and the motion to reconsider be made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the Senate is now considering a bipartisan 
budget agreement. I believe it is important to pass that bipartisan 
effort to avoid catastrophic default and to put an end to the mindless 
sequestration and pass funding to keep the government open. 
Regrettably, because I often agree with my friend from Kentucky and we 
team up on so many issues, the request to take up the Cut, Cap, and 
Balance legislation is a step in the wrong direction.
  When you push for cut, cap, and balance in this context, you are 
pushing for default, recession, and joblessness because that is what 
all of the independent financial authorities tell us is what is ahead 
if we don't act in the Senate. The desire to set aside what we are 
working on and pursue this other legislation is specifically an 
approach that would throw aside the bipartisan agreement before the 
Senate.
  This bipartisan effort is exactly the kind of bipartisan work where 
Democrats and Republicans come together to tackle a major issue. The 
American people expect their leaders to find common ground on key 
issues. That is what this legislation does.
  For those reasons, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I agree with the Senator from Oregon that 
bipartisan agreement is necessary in this body, but I think we have in 
this agreement bipartisan agreement in the wrong direction. The 
bipartisan agreement we need is to conserve across the board, for both 
sides to say that our sacred cow, whether it is military on the right 
or domestic spending on the left--that they all will have to be 
conserved. We will not be able to spend money we don't have.
  I think we are becoming weaker as a nation the more we borrow. If we 
pass this bill, it is not a difference or a choice between calamity and 
continuing to add to the debt--which this bill will do. I fully believe 
we can continue to make our payments. We have $250 billion a month that 
comes in. Interest payments are $30 billion. There is absolutely no 
reason we would ever default. In fact, I have a bill called the Default 
Protection Act, which would ensure that Social Security, Medicare, our 
soldiers' salaries, and the interest on the debt were paid for. So I 
think what we should be doing is doing the opposite kind of compromise. 
Right and left should come together and say: You know what. I really 
want spending on this. The right says: I really want spending on the 
military. They should come together and say: You know what. We don't 
have any money. We are borrowing $1 million every minute.
  So I think this bipartisan compromise goes in the wrong direction. 
What I would ask for is a bipartisan compromise to actually save money 
and borrow less.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                 Syria

  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the conflict in Syria, 
and in particular what is happening over the next couple of days and 
weeks. We know that in the last 4 years, starting in 2011, this 
conflict has resulted in the deaths of a quarter of a million Syrians. 
More than 4 million Syrians have fled and registered as refugees in 
neighboring countries. We are told that 7.6 million Syrian are 
displaced from their homes within Syria itself.
  So when you combine those who have fled the country because of the 
violence and combine that with the number of folks displaced in the 
country, you have about half the population of Syria. If we had the 
equivalent number here in the United States--of over 300 million 
people--that would be something on the order of 150 million Americans 
displaced from their homes. We cannot even imagine the scale of that 
suffering.
  At the center of this horror, this horrific war and humanitarian 
catastrophe, sits Bashar al-Assad, the dictator, who in the estimation 
of many experts and world leaders, and this is my opinion as well, has 
lost all legitimacy as the leader of Syria. A conflict that began with 
peaceful protests by Syrian young people for change quickly gave way to 
fighting on the streets of Homs, Daraa, and Aleppo.
  Assad's security forces have attempted to quash dissent with brutal 
beatings, imprisonment, starvation, use of chemical weapons, and 
wholesale destruction from indiscriminate barrel bombs, which, by the 
way, is a violation of international law. These actions prove to be a 
recruiting windfall for extremists and terrorist groups like ISIS, 
which now operate along many major transportation routes and cities in 
parts of Syria.
  The Institute for the Study of War just this week assessed that ISIS 
is now challenging the Assad regime for control of the supply line to 
Aleppo, expanding their reach westward. As I have said before and some 
others have said--it is what I will continue to maintain--the conflict 
in Syria and the international effort to degrade and ultimately defeat 
ISIS are inextricably linked.
  We cannot expect to bring about a lasting defeat of ISIS without 
bringing about a political transition in Syria. The atrocities 
perpetrated by these two evils, one the Assad regime and also ISIS--
these atrocities are too numerous to catalog today. Neither entity 
offers a stable, secure, and prosperous future for Syria. Several times 
the United States has participated in international negotiations with 
an eye toward ending this horror and paving the road toward a third 
choice for Syria.
  That is what this would be, a real political transition featuring 
inclusiveness, rule of law, and the primacy of citizenship over sect, 
ethnicity, and other divisive categories. These conversations have yet 
to bear fruit, mostly because the regime in Iran and the

[[Page 16863]]

Russians continue to offer a lifeline to the murderous Assad, but we 
must keep trying. We must keep trying.
  One look at the images of the destruction in Aleppo or the faces of 
Syrians fleeing to Europe for a better life reminds us of the human 
costs of inaction. It is because of this that the Iranian and Russian 
escalation in recent weeks is so outrageous. These countries look at 
Syria as a ground line of communication to Hezbollah or a friendly host 
for a warm-water naval outpost. They turn a blind eye to the suffering 
of ordinary men, women, and children in an effort to exert their 
international influence. Russia's warplanes have struck in areas where 
the Syrian opposition, not ISIS, operates. Their strikes appear 
indiscriminate and have killed many civilians.
  Now, in the case of Iran, the recent visit of a designated terrorist 
and IRGC commander, Qasem Soleimani--his movement to Syria indicates 
that Iran and its proxies like Hezbollah are still central elements of 
this fight. I am on the floor today as leaders from major countries 
meet in Vienna. Yesterday in a speech at Carnegie Endowment, Secretary 
Kerry described his diplomatic task as ``charting a course out of 
hell.'' That is how he described the way out through a political 
resolution in Syria.
  Although news reports indicate that these talks will not deal 
directly with the question of Bashar al-Assad, our policy must remain 
firm. Assad has no place--no place in Syria's future. No bombing 
campaigns, no promise of sham elections should change that. I commend 
the work Secretary Kerry is doing. I commend him for the speech he gave 
yesterday.
  One month ago I wrote to him calling for greater U.S. leadership on 
at least three tracks: political, multilateral, and humanitarian. In 
the response to my letter, the State Department emphasized, ``The only 
way to sustainably end the suffering of the Syrian people is through a 
genuine political solution consistent with the Geneva principles.''
  I appreciate and agree with this commitment. However, I am concerned 
that the Governments of Syria, Iran, and Russia remain in clear 
violation of multiple U.N. Security Council resolutions, including 
flouting arms control restrictions and travel sanctions. These regimes 
do not appear to be ready for dialogue consistent with the Geneva 
principles. Secretary Kerry said during his Carnegie speech yesterday 
that the United States and Russia have many points of common ground on 
Syria. However, the areas of divergence are stark.
  We know there is no military solution to this conflict. Only a 
political settlement can heal the deep wounds across Syria. We must 
continually assert that no political solution can include a role for 
Bashar al-Assad. For a ruler who indiscriminately barrel bombs children 
over and over again, presides over the death of over one-quarter of a 
million civilians, there must be no soft political landing.
  We have said over and over again--and I will continue to say it--that 
Assad must go. It is important our negotiators in Vienna insist that 
these talks are a vehicle to effectuate the removal of Assad, not 
continue his brutal rule.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cassidy). The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business and following my speech that Senator Lee from Utah be 
recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Tribute to M.H. ``Woody'' Woodside

  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, all of us know that back in our home 
States today and every day, there are men and women working hard to 
plant the fields, manufacture the products, run the chambers of 
commerce, sell the groceries, cut the lawns, make the beds, make our 
States work, and make our economy work. We also know that as 
politicians serving in the Senate, there is not one of us who doesn't 
owe our career to community leaders back home who take the time to lend 
their support to us, bring their communities to us, and give us the 
fortification we need to serve our great State.
  Back in Georgia there is one such person who means a lot to me and 
who meets all those criteria. His name is Woody Woodside. Woody is the 
president of The Brunswick-Golden Isles Chamber of Commerce in 
Brunswick, GA. On November 5, he is going to be honored for 30 
consecutive years as president of that chamber. And Woody is one great 
chamber president, let me tell you.
  He got his start right here in Washington, DC, working 11 years for 
Bo Ginn, the Congressman from Georgia's coast, and for 3 years 
following that for Bo's successor, Lindsay Thomas. Woody worked hard 
for our State, he worked hard for his district, and he worked hard for 
those members of commerce.
  But he comes back to us every year now as the president of the 
chamber of commerce. He brings his board with him. He brings the issues 
that are before them and he lobbies hard for his community. But he also 
lobbies hard for the environment. Woody represents a chamber that 
promotes tourism on the coast of Georgia but fights equally for the 
preservation of the estuary of the Atlantic, the Marshes of Glynn.
  He is proud of his community and proud of the work he does. He is a 
tireless worker on behalf of his State and his community. He loves his 
beautiful family--his wife Ellen, his daughter Mary Gould, his late son 
Jay, his grandson James ``Woods'' Woodside, and his granddaughter Mary 
Bremer Moorhead.
  He is one of those priceless citizens who means so much to our State 
and so much to me personally. On this occasion on the floor of the 
Senate, I pay tribute to Woody Woodside for his 30 years of service to 
the Brunswick-Golden Isles Chamber of Commerce and thank him for 
everything he has done for his country, his State, and his community.
  May God bless Woody Woodside, and may God bless the United States of 
America.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, the budget deal before the Senate today is 
not just a horrible piece of legislation that is undeserving of this 
Chamber's support, it also represents the last gasping breath of a 
disgraced bipartisan beltway establishment on the verge of collapse.
  The bill is the product of an unfair, dysfunctional, and 
fundamentally undemocratic process--a process that is virtually 
indistinguishable from what we promised the American people a GOP-
controlled Congress would bring to an end. We made that promise 
precisely because negotiating legislation behind closed doors without 
input from the majority of Members and then rushing it through to final 
passage without debate or opportunity for amendments violates our 
party's core principles. It also inevitably leads to bad policy.
  The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 is a case in point. This bill would 
suspend the debt limit for 17 months and increase government spending 
beyond its already unsustainable levels. It would do so while failing 
to make reforms that would put us on a path toward fiscal 
sustainability.
  Many proponents of this budget deal challenge this claim. They say: 
Well, the bill isn't perfect, but while it isn't perfect it does 
include some meaningful entitlement reforms.
  The sales pitch we hear most often alleges that this budget deal will 
save the Social Security disability trust fund from insolvency, but we 
are never told exactly how this bill would do this. That is because, as 
always, the devil is in the details.
  I rise today to discuss these very details, details that prove this 
budget deal's so-called entitlement reforms are nothing of the sort. At 
best, they are well-intentioned but ineffectual tweaks to a program 
that desperately needs fundamental, structural overhaul. At worst, they 
are accounting gimmicks unbecoming of the U.S. Congress.
  According to the Social Security trustees, the Social Security 
Disability Insurance Program--or SSDI--is scheduled to run out of money 
in 2016, which

[[Page 16864]]

means that without serious reform disability benefits would be slashed 
across the board by nearly 20 percent.
  Under the Budget Control Act of 2015, the bankruptcy deadline of SSDI 
would be pushed off for an additional 6 years until 2022. But here is 
the kicker: It would do so by raiding the Social Security trust fund to 
the tune of $150 billion. That is right. Our grand, bipartisan solution 
to the impending insolvency of our Nation's disability insurance 
program amounts to stealing $150 billion from our Nation's largest 
retirement insurance program.
  This isn't the only phony pay-for in this budget deal. There are 
others that simply move money around from elsewhere in the Federal 
budget, such as the Crime Victims Fund and the Assets Forfeiture Fund. 
There are also new heavyhanded instruments that purport to implement 
cost savings in Medicaid reimbursements but actually only impose 
misguided price controls on the generic drug industry. Only in 
Washington, DC, could something so deceptive and ineffective, something 
so unfair to America's seniors and future generations, be considered a 
reform.
  To be fair, there are a couple of sound entitlement reforms in this 
budget deal that deserve to be commended. First, there is a position 
that would correct a design error in the Social Security program that 
amounts to an unfair and wasteful loophole. Fixing this would save a 
significant amount of money over a 75-year window. There are also 
measures that would increase the penalties for fraud, create new pilot 
programs, and prohibit doctors with felonies from submitting medical 
evidence. But these minor changes don't even come close to putting SSDI 
on a path toward fiscal sustainability and sanity, and they represent 
only a tiny fraction of the sensible reform proposals put forth by our 
conference.
  Many of my colleagues, such as Senator Lankford and Senator Cotton, 
have already spoken or will soon speak on the floor about the long list 
of structural reform ideas that are still sitting on the sidelines of 
this debate. I wish to take a moment to touch on just a few of them.
  Senator Coats has a proposal that would protect the SSDI trust fund 
from being drawn down by fugitive felons illegally receiving disability 
benefits.
  Senator Hatch has put forth a plan that would prevent an individual 
from receiving both unemployment insurance and disability insurance 
simultaneously, ensuring that SSDI funds would remain focused on their 
intended population.
  I also have a proposal that would expand the footprint of private 
disability insurance program, which I intend to file as an amendment to 
this bill.
  That is not all. My friends, Senator Cotton and Senator Lankford, 
have their own proposals, and there has been an equal amount of policy 
innovation by our colleagues in the House of Representatives.
  They are all commonsense ideas that would bring us much closer to 
real SSDI reform than what is found in this budget deal, but you won't 
hear much about them in this debate because there won't be any real 
debate on the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015--no amendments, a fast-
approaching deadline and, in the end, a take-it-or-leave-it choice 
forced upon us with our backs up against a cliff.
  This is not how Congress is supposed to operate. This is not how we 
promised the country we would conduct the American people's business if 
given control of the House and the Senate. We should be the party of 
ideas, but we won't be so long as we continue to tolerate a legislative 
process that stifles our most innovative proposals from getting a fair 
hearing. We should be the party of reform, but we won't be so long as 
individual Senators are blocked from offering amendments to 
legislation. We should be the party of fiscal sanity and responsible 
governance, but we won't be so long as we continue to govern by crisis 
and by cliff, delaying the inevitable while working only 3 days a week 
in our legislative calendar. We should be the party that looks out for 
the most vulnerable among us, but we won't be so long as we lack the 
courage to enact the structural reform that our retirement and 
disability programs need to survive for generations to come.
  We can be all of these things. I know we can, but it is going to take 
hard work--a fair, open, and inclusive legislative process, and all the 
policy innovation we can muster. It is going to take something more, 
something better than this budget deal.
  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. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, in recent weeks I have spoken three or 
four or five times on the question of whether we are going to 
realistically and honestly fund the transportation improvements our 
country so badly needs. I don't know if it is my imagination, but every 
time I am here speaking on the subject, you are here. We have any 
number of people--50-some Republican Senators in the majority--who 
cycle in as Presiding Officer, yet you always seem to draw the short 
straw and get to hear me wax eloquently about transportation 
infrastructure. I am honored you would be back again today for more of 
the same. Pretty soon, you will be able to give these talks for me and 
I will sit up there and preside. I won't ask unanimous consent for 
that, but it is a good thought.
  Mr. President, this is a picture that was taken, gosh, 60 or 70 years 
ago, and there is a quote here by a fellow who was a great military 
leader for our country during World War II and later one of our 
Presidents. In fact, he was President when I had just about come into 
the world and left as President a few years after that. The photograph 
says, ``This is the first project in the United States on which actual 
construction was started under provisions of the new Federal Aid 
Highway Act of 1956.''
  This is in Missouri. They have the contractor and some of the local 
folks there. I don't see Ike anywhere, but his words are here at the 
bottom of this old photograph. His words that day were: ``A modern, 
efficient highway system is essential to meet the needs of our growing 
population, our expanding economy, and our national security.''
  There is a word--``prescient''--that indicates something is wise and 
forward-looking. Those words are just that--wise and forward-looking--
and they were first spoken almost 60 years ago by President Eisenhower.
  This week, President Obama and leaders in the House of 
Representatives and the Senate reached a long-sought compromise on a 
budget deal for 2 years, through 2017. And while there are certainly 
some aspects of that budget deal that are disappointing, other aspects 
of it, at least for me--in terms of finding ways to save money, going 
after program integrity, and looking for waste and fraud--bring a good 
deal to like about it as well.
  It is encouraging that Democrats and Republicans were able to come 
together to reach an agreement--any agreement--that will pause the 
cycle of crisis government, from crisis to crisis, where we find too 
much of our time across the Federal Government, as we run up to these 
crises, spent not doing work--the work we ought to be doing-- but 
actually trying to figure out how we deal with a shutdown. At least we 
can say this agreement will prevent that and for the next couple of 
years enable people across the Federal Government to do their work, 
whether it happens to be agriculture, environment, law enforcement, 
border security, or you name it.
  The other thing I would say is by preventing a default on our Federal 
obligations and lifting the harmful spending cuts--particularly in the 
areas of our budget where we actually invest money that create economic 
opportunity--this deal will help to encourage continued economic growth 
and recovering from low job creation and job preservation.

[[Page 16865]]

  I heard today that this agreement is worth about an extra one-third 
of a million jobs, and in a little State like mine, Delaware, with 
fewer than a million people, that is quite a few jobs. However, if we 
really wanted to focus on economic growth and job creation, we would be 
talking a lot more about transportation, and I mentioned the words here 
of Dwight Eisenhower, but let's go on to the next poster.
  While there is much to like in the budget agreement we are debating 
today and into the night, I am disappointed that it fails to offer a 
long-term plan to increase investment in America's infrastructure, 
particularly in our transportation infrastructure. A budget deal like 
this offered a prime opportunity to address our chronic underinvestment 
in the roads, highways, bridges, and transit systems of this Nation.
  I have looked high and low in this budget agreement, and when it 
comes to transportation, there is a ``whole lotta nothing'' in there 
with respect to transportation and infrastructure investment. Instead, 
Congress is now poised to pass not the 13th but the 14th extension of 
our Federal transportation programs since 2008. We have done this 14 
times. Fortunately, this extension does not require us to add to the 
$74 billion we have spent since 2008 to bail out the highway 
transportation fund time and again, but it only continues the cycle of 
uncertainty and crisis governing that prevented our States and our 
cities from planning major transportation projects.
  I would just insert here that if you look at the country from coast 
to coast, our State transportation budgets use a mix of funds from 
different sources, but on average, about half the money they spend--
from Delaware and the other 49 States--comes from the Federal 
Government.
  We have missed another opportunity to give our Nation's economy a 
serious boost. This is a little bit of what I am talking about. This 
poster says: ``Here's why Congress needs to reauthorize funding to 
rebuild America's infrastructure.'' Here are a few numbers to keep in 
mind: 25 percent, 45 percent, and 65 percent. Twenty-five percent of 
our bridges require significant repair. Either that or they cannot 
handle today's traffic at all. Twenty-five percent. Forty-five percent 
of Americans lack access to transit. Forty-five percent. Sixty-five 
percent of America's roads are rated in less than good condition. 
Sixty-five percent.
  There is an outfit called the American Society of Civil Engineers. 
One of the things they do every year is to rate highways, roads, and 
bridges. They assign a grade. It could be an A.
  We have our pages here. They are here doing their school work while 
they are paging in the Senate, so they do double duty, but hopefully 
they are all getting A's in their courses. Our roads, highways, and 
bridges do not receive any A's. They do not receive B's. Hopefully our 
pages get B's and better, but our roads, highways, and bridges do not. 
In fact, our roads, highways, and transit systems are earning a D. D is 
disappointing. D is degraded. D is dogged. And our Nation's bridges 
earn a C-plus. Those aren't grades that our pages would be proud of or 
that their parents would be proud of, and those certainly aren't grades 
we should be proud of as a country.
  In the most recent World Economic Forum ranking, in less than a 
decade the United States has fallen from seventh overall in the quality 
of our transportation infrastructure. A decade ago we were No. 7; today 
we are No. 18. In Billboard magazine, when they are rating the top 
record across the country--a record on the rise gets a vote. A No. 5 in 
the vote means it is heading up the charts. Ten years ago we were No. 
7, and now, like a bullet, we are heading right the other way--from No. 
7 to No. 18. We are heading in a very wrong direction.
  Here in this poster we can see that highways and transit spending as 
a share of GDP has not been going up.
  In 1962 John Kennedy was President and I was a junior in high school, 
just like you pages. In 1962 the share of GDP that we spent for 
highways and transit was right at 3 percent--right at 3 percent. Over 
time it started dropping. Around 1972, in the middle of the Vietnam 
war--I spent some time overseas in Southeast Asia with my compadres--it 
dropped to 2 percent. We were trying to pay for guns and bullets. It 
really dropped rather steeply there, probably because of the war. What 
has gone on since 1972 is to trend down, down, and down, and now the 
number is somewhere between 1 and 1.5 percent. It has diminished by 
more than half since 1962.
  Let me mention a couple of other numbers. The infrastructure spending 
is only about 2.5 percent of GDP in the United States. Actually, it is 
only about 1.5 percent in the United States. What is that compared to? 
Compared to what?
  I have a friend, and when you ask him ``How are you doing?'' he says 
``Compared to what?'' Well, how is the United States doing? Well, 
compared to what? We are at 1.5 percent--actually, a little less than 
that--of GDP for transportation infrastructure. Where are our Canadians 
up to the north? They are at 4 percent--more than twice the number we 
are. Australia, South Korea--where are they? They are at 5 percent, and 
5 percent for most of Europe. China is at 9 to 12 percent. They are 
spending 9 to 12 percent of their GDP on transportation and 
infrastructure. We are spending 1.5 percent. That is not a good thing. 
That is not a good thing.
  The National Association of Manufacturers estimates that their 
investments in roads and highways dropped significantly between 2003 
and 2012. How significantly? By another 20 percent.
  To meet our country's needs in ways that support American business 
and families, an outfit called McKinsey Global Institute--most of us 
have heard of the McKinsey Consulting Company, but they have an arm of 
their company called McKinsey Global Institute--estimates that we need 
to increase infrastructure investment by $150 billion annually through 
2020 to catch up the backlog of projects that are badly needed--roads, 
highways, bridges, and transit.
  Our lack of transportation investment is hurting families, 
individuals, and businesses. There is an outfit down in Texas, Texas 
A&M, which is famous in recent years for their football teams, but they 
are also well known because every year they give us a report on 
congestion on the roads, highways, and bridges in the United States. 
They found that the average commuter across the country wastes 42 hours 
per year in traffic--42 hours per year just sitting there or barely 
moving. If you actually look at cities such as New York City or 
Philadelphia or Dallas or Denver or L.A., that number is 82 hours per 
year. Think about that--82 hours per year here in the greater 
Washington area and a lot of other places, such as L.A. and New York 
City. The resulting wasted fuel and lost productivity cost the Nation's 
economy $160 billion this year--$160 billion. That works out to about 
$960 per commuter.
  In addition to congestion, we have other costs to commuters--people 
out on the roads, highways, and bridges--that come from our repairs.
  Not everybody can see this, but obviously there is a guy working on 
potholes and talking to his supervisor. It says: Warning, potholes. But 
here is the number that is really the key: There is $516 per driver in 
increased repair and maintenance costs every year.
  There was an editorial in the Philadelphia Inquirer last week, 
talking to consumers and voters, that said: The next time you get a 
bill for replacing your tires, your steering, your rims or whatever, 
send the bill to your Congressman, your Congresswoman, your Senator.
  Even if it is only half of that, it is still a lot of money. I don't 
have reason to believe it is half, but even if it is, it is a huge 
amount of money that we are spending. Add to that the waste of time, 
and this adds up.

[[Page 16866]]

  This is a sad commentary. Some of the charts I use are humorous; this 
one is not. Poor roadway conditions were a significant factor in 
approximately one-third of the 32,000 traffic fatalities last year. 
About 10,000 people who would be alive today are not. The primary 
contributing factor to their death was the poor condition of the 
highways, roads, and bridges on which they were traveling.
  I mentioned the McKinsey Global Institute a minute ago. They said 
that if we were serious about making real progress and doing it 
promptly on the condition of roads, highways, bridges, and transit 
systems, we ought to be investing about $150 billion a year. Here is 
another report from the McKinsey Global Institute. It says that about a 
$150 to $180 billion in annual investment is needed for 15 to 20 years. 
That is a lot of money for a long time. They say that if we are serious 
and consistent in robustly investing in transportation infrastructure, 
we would add to GDP, not once but every year, somewhere between 1.4 
percent and 1.7 percent per year, and we would add about 1.8 million 
jobs if we are willing to make the kind of investments that we need. 
Those aren't my numbers. Those are McKinsey's.
  Put it all together, and this explains why Senator Dick Durbin and I 
introduced a month or so ago what we call the TRAFFIC Relief Act. It 
raises about $220 billion in new money, user fee revenue--revenue that 
can only be used for roads, highways, transit, and bridges, and not for 
anything else--not for foreign aid, not for wars, not for some other 
domestic program. But $220 billion would go into roads, highways, 
bridges, and transit systems.
  The legislation Senator Durbin and I introduced permanently 
eliminates the annual highway trust fund shortfalls. Every year we run 
out of money. We run out of money in the transportation trust fund and 
take money out of the general fund to fill up the transportation trust 
fund. When the general fund runs out of money, we go around the world 
cup-in-hand borrowing money from people such as China to refill the 
transportation trust fund. Then, when we call China on their 
misbehavior--it might be manipulation, it might be dumping various 
goods and services on our country, it might be messing around in the 
South China Sea and other places--we say to them: You can't do that.
  If I were them, I would say to us: We thought you wanted to borrow 
our money. We shouldn't be in that position. So the TRAFFIC Relief Act 
Senator Durbin and I introduced raises an additional $72 billion over 
10 years for new transportation investments, over and above what would 
otherwise be generated. We could use that $72 billion and more.
  Not everybody can read the script here, but this one fellow here is 
saying: ``There is no way I can afford an increase in the gas tax.'' 
Then over here it goes on to say, as his car is towed away: ``I spend 
all my money fixing my car because of these terrible roads.'' Think 
about that. There are a lot of terrible roads, highways, and bridges, 
and some pretty lousy transit systems as well. I spent money on my 
minivan last year replacing a tire that cost me about $200 because of a 
problem with the road. I am not the only person. That happens to a lot 
of folks during the course of the year.
  Those are all the posters I have. I will close by saying that on the 
Environmental and Public Works Committee, where I serve, we have 
reported out unanimously authorizing legislation that would authorize 
investments in transportation systems--roads, bridges, highways, and 
transits--for the next 6 years. It is actually very smart legislation. 
I give Senator Boxer and Senator Inhofe, the lead Democrat and the lead 
Republican on the committee, a lot of credit for leading that effort.
  The House of Representatives is coming up with a 6-year 
transportation authorization plan that reflects in many ways what we 
have done in the Senate. To the extent that is the case, then we 
applaud their efforts as well.
  Some may remember another poster I showed earlier, an enlarged 
photograph of a fellow wearing a cowboy hat as if he were asleep on his 
back. The cowboy hat was covering his face. He didn't look like the 
``Marlboro Man.'' He looked like a cowboy who had been ridden hard and 
put up wet. The caption at the bottom of the poster was talking about 
the hat: ``All hat, no cattle,'' suggesting the guy wasn't a real 
cowboy. ``All hat, no cattle.''
  It is great that we have sound, smart transportation authorization 
legislation, and we do. What is really disappointing is ``all hat and 
no cattle'' when it comes to paying for this stuff, not coming close to 
the amount of money we need to invest. We are not even close. I think 
we are going to look at a 6-year transportation authorization with 
maybe 3 years of funding. Some of that funding we create by borrowing 
and spending, which is like 8, 9, 10 years down the road and bringing 
it forward to pay for spending today. I don't feel good about that. I 
expect you don't either. In some cases we are taking money that is 
supposedly being collected for TSA, for aviation safety and our 
security in the skies, and using that money for roads, highways, 
bridges--taking TSA funding increases and using it for a couple of 
months on roads, highways, bridges, and improvements. We do the same 
thing with Customs fees along our border. People and a lot of commerce 
come across our border. Another idea we have used in the past is taking 
money out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, maybe from oil we bought 
for $80, $90 a barrel and turning around and selling it for half that 
price. Buy high and sell low--I don't think that is a very smart 
strategy for investing in or for funding transportation projects. The 
American people deserve better than this.
  Ronald Reagan, Eisenhower, and others--even Democrats--have said that 
the way we have funded transportation for years in this country and 
improvements to transportation--roads, highways, bridges--is a user 
approach. The folks and the businesses that use our roads, highways, 
and bridges ought to pay for it. That is what we have done. We have 
come to a place in this country where we are finding it hard to pay for 
the things we need and the things we want. Somehow we have to summon 
the courage to do what the American people expect us to do, which is to 
work together, to work smartly, and to make some tough decisions.
  The legislation I alluded to that Senator Durbin and I and another 
colleague or two have introduced and sponsored would raise the gas tax 
and diesel tax in this country. It hasn't been raised in 22 years. The 
gas tax, which 22 years ago was raised to 18 cents, because of 
inflation is now worth less than a dime. The diesel tax, which 22 years 
ago was worth about 23 cents, is now not even worth 15 cents. 
Meanwhile, the cost of concrete, asphalt, steel, and labor have all 
gone up, and we are still stuck with the same purchasing power from 
these user fees that we had 22 years ago. The math doesn't add up. As a 
result, we earn nearly failing grades for the transportation system 
that we have.
  If we were to somehow wave a magic wand and the House and the Senate 
would come to their senses and pass by acclamation an increase in the 
user fee of 4 cents a year for 4 years, we would get to 2020 and we 
would have added 16 cents over that period of time to what is one of 
the lowest user fees on gas and diesel of any advanced nation in the 
world. I think we are No. 33 out of 34 of the OECD nations. In 2020, 
after an increase of 4 cents a year for 4 years was put in place, the 
cost to the average driver is the cost of a cup of coffee a week. Think 
about it. For the average driver paying an additional user fee of 4 
cents a year for 4 years, indexing for inflation, the cost is the cost 
of a cup of coffee a week.
  The question I would ask my colleagues--and I think we would ask most 
people--is this: Would you rather put up with really--one of my 
favorite, good senatorial words--``crappy'' roads, highways, bridges? 
Would you rather continue to put up with that?
  We could have a transportation system that we could be proud of for a 
cup of coffee. I don't think that is asking too much.
  I don't have a magic wand. I don't think it is likely that my 
colleagues

[[Page 16867]]

will rush to the floor after these remarks today and say: Let's do 
something real. Let's see if we can't get our roads, highways, and 
bridges making the kinds of grades that our pages are making doing 
their schoolwork while they serve us here in the Senate.
  In the Bible there is a parable where some seeds were sown on the 
hard ground and never bore fruit. Some came up for a little while and 
raised up some plants but then died away in the hot sun. But others 
took root and grew a hundredfold. I am going to keep sowing these 
seeds, and hopefully someday soon--sooner rather than later--some of 
these seeds will fall on fertile soil.
  Until then, I look forward to joining the Presiding Officer on the 
floor to keep this up until you say ``uncle'' and then we will change 
places.
  I see my friend from Kansas--my many talented friend--here with our 
friend from Nebraska. I am tempted to wait and see what they have to 
say.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, in the morning we will vote on a budget 
agreement and I will vote no. I think it is useful and important for my 
constituents to understand my thinking and the basis on which I reach 
that conclusion.
  In my mind, one of the most important issues that we face in this 
country today is the fiscal condition of our country. The amount of 
debt that we incur and the amount of debt that we continue to incur is 
a significant drag on our economy, on job creation, and, in reality, on 
the American dream.
  It is an economic issue. At some point in time, if we don't get our 
fiscal house in order, we will pay a significant price. We can either 
deal with this issue in a gradual, incremental way, in which we set 
ourselves on a path to right, or we can wait for the crisis to occur, 
which I have no doubt will happen.
  While it is often said that this is an economic issue, and fiscal 
issues matter to the country, I also would point out that this is not 
just an economic issue. It is a moral issue. The borrowing of money to 
pay for services and goods that the government provides the American 
people is a selfish circumstance in which we take the so-called 
benefits of government programs today and expect future generations of 
Americans to pay for those benefits. It is wrong economically for us to 
continue down the path of fiscal irresponsibility, but it is also 
morally wrong to expect someone else to pay for the so-called benefits 
we receive today.
  As to this issue today, this Bipartisan Budget Act--this bipartisan 
effort to resolve the circumstance we find ourselves in because we face 
a debt limit problem--the problem is that if we don't do something, 
then we reach the debt limit. There are those who will argue that the 
consequences of not raising the debt ceiling are so dramatic, so 
damaging that we need to do that regardless of the fiscal consequences 
of doing so.
  I come down on the side of fiscal responsibility, and I want to 
explain why. I want Kansans to know how I think about this issue. In 
fact, one of the first letters I ever wrote to President Obama as a new 
U.S. Senator, March of 2011, was an explanation to the President that 
he needed to work with Congress, and I offered to work with the 
President and the administration and my colleagues in the Congress and 
the Senate to see if we couldn't find a solution so that when we raised 
the debt ceiling, we actually did something that would change the 
course, the path of spending we are on.
  I explained to Kansans, by publishing that letter and explaining my 
comments in the letter to the President, what I believed was important, 
most important. Unfortunately, since 2011 we are no more on a course of 
fiscal sanity than we were when I wrote the letter to the President.
  Here is the point I want to make. If we give up the leverage, the 
opportunity that this issue presents to us as Members of Congress, to 
force us to do things that we apparently don't have the will, the 
courage, the political desire to do, how do we ever get it done? Again, 
I guess there will be editorialists--certainly across the country and 
perhaps a few in Kansas--who will say that we need to raise the debt 
ceiling because it is irresponsible not to. Isn't it also true that it 
is irresponsible simply to raise the debt ceiling every time we need 
it? If we don't take advantage of the circumstance we are in to force 
ourselves to do the things that need to be done, we are irresponsible.
  I read a lot of history. For a few years I have studied our country 
as a private citizen, and I have been involved in the political process 
in Washington in trying to resolve problems our country faces. Here is 
an observation: Things have changed over time. It used to be a 
bipartisan desire, a bipartisan understanding that balancing the budget 
was important. One of things that has changed over time is there no 
longer seems to be the desire on the part of many in Congress--many 
don't see it and in my view Democrats in particular don't see deficits 
as a bad thing. We look the other way.
  Maybe in days gone by, when there was broad consensus from Republican 
Presidents and Democratic Presidents that balancing the budget was 
something that mattered, that reducing the debt at least over time was 
important, that when we incurred expenditures going to war that we paid 
for them, that was something that was generally believed across the 
country by the vast majority of Americans and by the vast majority of 
Members of Congress, regardless of what political party they associate 
with.
  That consensus, that drive, that insistence that we do that no longer 
exists, which highlights for me that the necessity of using this issue 
of whether the debt ceiling should be raised to determine what we 
should do about reducing spending, reducing the debt, figuring out what 
the balance is between taxes and expenditures is all the more 
important.
  If I had any faith that this Congress, this President were going to 
deal with the deficit, regardless of what happened with the debt 
ceiling, then I wouldn't be interested in using the debt ceiling as a 
tool to force change in behavior in Washington, DC, but unfortunately I 
have no faith that there are enough people here who care enough about 
the deficit to do something about it unless we are forced to do so.
  At the moment, the only tool I have is to insist we use this 
opportunity, in which we are requested to raise the debt ceiling, to 
change the course our country is on in regard to spending and deficits. 
Again, the argument may be by some it is irresponsible. In fact, I have 
heard so many times that all we are doing is authorizing the borrowing 
of money to pay for the things we have already encumbered.
  Wouldn't it seem a better solution for us to quit encumbering over 
time rather than coming after the fact and saying let's raise the debt 
ceiling? But the reality apparently is there is no will to do that. We 
can say it is irresponsible not to raise the debt ceiling. We can say 
we are only paying for the things we have already decided to spend 
money on, but if that is the only thing we say, we never take it to the 
necessary step of doing anything about the problem.
  It is irresponsible not to use this opportunity to force us to behave 
in ways that are good for the country today, that are economically 
solid and sound, that are morally correct. Borrowing money ad infinitum 
is not an option for this country under either economic or moral 
circumstances.
  It is irresponsible for us to once again decide we will try to solve 
this problem later. I have always thought that the most important 
political issue we face, the one that has been most important to the 
country since I was elected to the Senate, was how do we make certain 
that the economy is growing, there are job opportunities, people feel 
secure in their employment, they have the opportunity to advance their 
careers, and they have the sense that they are saving for their kids' 
education, that they are saving for their own retirement. This issue of 
the fiscal condition of our country inhibits the ability for that 
economic security to be available to Americans.

[[Page 16868]]

  I wish to conclude by saying we need to do what is responsible. What 
is responsible is making certain we pay our way and that we don't 
expect others to do so in the future. To only say that we have to reach 
this agreement in order to avoid greater challenges in our country is 
to walk away from something that I think is a primary and important 
responsibility of Congress and the President. It is unfortunate.
  In my time and service in the Senate, President Obama has been the 
President, but I have seen no political will on the part of this 
administration to do anything about the long-term consequences of 
spending more money than we have. That means we have no choice but to 
insist that something be done, and the only opportunity before us is 
this question of whether the debt ceiling should be raised without 
corresponding reductions in spending.
  In my view, those reductions in spending take priority. It is 
important. Our primary responsibility as American citizens, as an 
American citizen, not just as a U.S. Senator but all of us as American 
citizens--we have a responsibility to do two things for the future of 
our country: protect and preserve the freedoms and liberties guaranteed 
by our Constitution and make sure the American dream is alive and well 
so future Americans have the chance to pursue their dreams in this 
country.
  To continue to borrow money to put our country's fiscal condition in 
jeopardy once again means we will have failed that responsibility 
because the spending and borrowing of money inhibits our personal 
liberties and freedoms and reduces economic opportunity, the American 
dream for all Americans.
  I will vote no.
  I yield the floor to the Senator from Nebraska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.


                               Equal Pay

  Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise to respond to the minority 
leader's earlier comments today regarding equal pay. Pay discrimination 
is wrong. It is also illegal. Republicans and Democrats alike believe 
that violations of the Equal Pay Act and the Civil Rights Act should be 
punished to the full extent of the law.
  Let me be crystal clear. The lack of consensus on proposals like the 
Paycheck Fairness Act does not mean that Republicans do not support the 
principle of equal pay. I am tired of hearing that Republicans don't 
have any new ideas on this issue.
  I have offered legislation, the Workplace Advancement Act, which 
would prohibit retaliation against employees who discuss their wages. 
My proposal has a strong record of success, and unlike other proposals 
out there, it has bipartisan support.
  In April of 2014, before Republicans had the majority, I, along with 
Senator Ayotte, Senator Collins, and Senator Murkowski, offered an 
amendment to the Paycheck Fairness Act that would make it illegal to 
retaliate against employees for seeking or sharing information on their 
wages. Unfortunately, that amendment was not considered.
  This March I offered a similar amendment to the budget that would 
reaffirm and strengthen equal pay laws and make it illegal to retaliate 
against employees for seeking or sharing information on their wages. 
This nonretaliation measure was adopted to the budget resolution with 
bipartisan support. The legislative progress of my efforts to protect 
women in the workplace from retaliation for trying to ensure fairness 
in pay suggests a clear bipartisan way forward in this Chamber.
  When women are fighting to be paid what they are worth, they need to 
know what they are up against. Knowledge is power, especially in the 
case of equal pay. Ensuring transparency will make it easier for 
workers to recognize pay discrimination and ensure that they are being 
paid fairly. How can workers negotiate for fair pay when they don't 
know how their industry or their employer compensates other workers? 
How can a woman know that discrimination is taking place if she is 
prohibited from asking about what other workers are making?
  I want to empower women to be their own best advocates, secure in the 
knowledge that they have every tool available to them as they negotiate 
for the wages they deserve. It is time to remove this issue from our 
election-year politics. Let's have a real conversation about a 
substantive policy change that will improve the lives of all workers. I 
hope the Senate will soon consider my legislation because I believe 
Republicans and Democrats can come together on this issue and we can 
make a real, needed difference in ensuring equal pay.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, prior to being elected to the U.S. Senate, 
I spent 28 years in business. When you are in business, you know you 
can't keep spending more money than you are taking in or you go broke, 
you go out of business. I was elected to help get our country back on 
track and get the reckless spending and record debt of Washington, DC, 
under control. In fact, the very first bill I introduced in the U.S. 
Senate was the Balanced Budget Accountability Act. It is pretty simple. 
It requires that the Members of Congress pass a balanced budget or they 
don't get paid. The people of Montana deserve real solutions to address 
the failures of Washington, DC, not more budget gimmicks and backroom 
deals. In fact, Montana's farmers will suffer because of this budget 
deal. The crop insurance program was gutted as a way to make this deal 
work. Where was the voice of Montana? Where was the voice of rural 
America as this backroom deal was cut?
  This deal takes our Nation in the wrong direction, and that is why I 
am voting no. This budget deal would increase our spending by $117 
billion over the next 2 years and raise the debt limit through 2017. 
How big are these numbers? We are currently at about $18.1 trillion of 
debt. By the end of this 2-year agreement, sometime in 2017, we will be 
above $19 trillion. How big is 1 trillion? Do you know how long it 
takes to count to 1 million? If we were to count to 1 million 1 digit 
per second, 24 by 7, it takes less than 30 days to count to 1 million.
  How long does it take to count to 1 billion? To count to 1 billion 
would take 32 years. Then the question is, How long would it take to 
count to 1 trillion? We are throwing around these numbers without much 
sense of how big they truly are when we are talking about $18 
trillion--and soon to be $19 trillion--worth of debt. How long would it 
take to count to $1 trillion? It would take 32,000 years.
  It is irresponsible for Washington to increase the limit on the 
Nation's credit card while at the same time busting the budget and 
increasing government spending with the false promise of far-off 
savings and new revenues that will never materialize. It is time that 
Washington, DC, takes a page out of Montana's playbook and stops 
spending more than we are taking in. It is time for commonsense 
solutions that protect the taxpayer and make elected officials 
accountable for delivering results to the people they serve because 
Americans deserve a thoughtful and open discussion, not one with 
backroom deals, about how to best support the Nation's priorities while 
also cutting wasteful spending and reining in this national debt. The 
current budget fails to provide a more secure future for the next 
generation of Montanans.
  I thank the Presiding Officer and yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.


                    Environmental Protection Agency

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, back in August several western States 
and Indian tribes suffered an enormous environmental disaster. It has 
been called the Gold King Mine spill. In this disaster, the 
Environmental Protection Agency spilled 3 million gallons of toxic 
wastewater into a tributary of the Animas River in Colorado. This plume 
of toxic waste threatened people in Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah. It 
stretched to the land of the Navajo Nation and the southern Ute Indian 
Tribes.
  Last month, I chaired a hearing of the Indian Affairs Committee that

[[Page 16869]]

looked at the spill. The EPA was there to testify. The EPA claimed that 
it was taking full responsibility, and then it did everything it could 
to deflect actual blame. They said they were taking full 
responsibility; then they did everything they could to deflect actual 
blame.
  The agency administrator actually told our committee that this spill 
was inevitable. She said it was ``inevitable.'' Does that sound like 
someone who is actually taking full responsibility?
  Well, last week we got the results of the investigation by the 
Department of Interior about what actually happened at the Gold King 
Mine. On Friday the Washington Post reported: ``EPA gets blame for mine 
spill into rivers.'' Well, according to this report, the EPA's crew 
didn't take engineering into account when it was working on the mine. 
It didn't take engineering into account. The agency didn't understand 
that waters in these mines, according to the report, ``can create 
hydraulic forces similar to a dam.'' How could the experts from the 
EPA, the U.S. Government's Environmental Protection Agency, not know 
that? The report also said that ``the conditions and actions that led 
to the Gold King Mine incident are not isolated or unique, and in fact 
are surprisingly prevalent.''
  Remember, the EPA said it was inevitable. This spill was inevitable 
only because the EPA is so inept, so negligent, and so incompetent that 
it was inevitable the agency would cause a disaster like this someday, 
and now they have. It is inevitable that the agency is going to keep 
making the same mistakes unless something changes at this 
irresponsible, incompetent agency.
  What has changed? It has been almost 3 months since this disaster 
happened. The Environmental Protection Agency has not named a single 
person whom it is holding responsible for poisoning the river. If the 
EPA's incompetence is ``surprisingly prevalent,'' as the investigation 
found, you would think that this agency should be trying to get its 
house in order before it takes on new jobs. That is not what the Obama 
administration is doing. Oh, no, it is not slowing down at all. It is 
not slowing down in its quest for power or in finding more ways that it 
can control what people do.
  On Friday, the Obama administration published the final rule for what 
it calls its Clean Power Plan. This regulation would create more 
Washington control over how electricity is produced across the country. 
That very same day 26 States, including mine and that of the 
President's, filed lawsuits in Federal court to stop this disastrous 
rule. These States say that the Environmental Protection Agency went 
far beyond anything that the law allows and far beyond anything 
Congress ever intended. I completely agree. This rule is too expensive, 
it is too extensive, and it is too extreme.
  The EPA does have a job to do, and it is failing dramatically at its 
job. Instead of going back to basics and doing its job right, the EPA 
wants more power, more control, and less accountability. This so-called 
Clean Power Plan will cost billions of dollars. According to one 
estimate, it will destroy the jobs of more than 125,000 Americans. None 
of that seems to matter to the President of the United States or his 
administration and the EPA. They are driven by ideology, not by the 
facts, and their ideology is driven by their desire for more control. 
That is why it is so urgent that we focus our attention on all of the 
ways this Washington bureaucracy is trying to restrict people's freedom 
and take more control for themselves.
  The Obama administration isn't even satisfied telling States how to 
get their energy. Now the Obama administration wants to be involved in 
making these decisions for the whole world. It is trying to negotiate a 
climate change treaty that will impose broad new limits on American 
energy. This treaty will also do incredible damage to the American 
economy. At the same time, the administration wants to pay billions of 
American taxpayer dollars--hard-earned dollars--to other countries. In 
return for these other countries adopting green energy sources like 
solar panels, the Obama administration will help prop up their 
economies, not at their expense but at America's expense. It wants to 
do all of this behind closed doors without any oversight from Congress 
or the American people.
  The administration wants to make sure that nobody can do anything to 
stop it until after it is too late. It wants to tie the hands of the 
American economy, dole out billions of taxpayer dollars, and not even 
ask the American people if that is what they want. The U.S. Congress 
cannot stand for that. It is the wrong choice for America, and it is 
the wrong choice for the rest of the world as well.
  There was an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal last Thursday by Bjorn 
Lomborg. He is the director of a nonpartisan international group called 
the Copenhagen Consensus Center. The headline is ``This Child Doesn't 
Need a Solar Panel.'' It has a photo of a child in a slum in 
Mozambique. The author points out that the Obama administration is 
wrongly focused on the kind of climate change payoff that the President 
is promoting.
  In the op-ed he writes:

       This effectively means telling the world's worst-off 
     people, suffering from tuberculosis, malaria, or 
     malnutrition, that what they really need isn't medicine, 
     mosquito nets, or micronutrients, but a solar panel. It is 
     terrible news.

  He goes on:

       In a world in which malnourishment continues to claim at 
     least 1.4 million children's lives each year, 1.2 billion 
     people live in extreme poverty, and 2.6 billion lack clean 
     drinking water and sanitation, this growing emphasis on 
     climate aid is immoral.

  That is the assessment coming out of the Copenhagen Consensus Center. 
The President's actions are immoral. There are some very real dangers 
facing the United States and other countries today, such as the threat 
from global terrorists and from countries like Russia, Iran, and North 
Korea. There are desperate humanitarian crises around the world. That 
is where the Obama administration should focus its foreign policy.
  Here at home, the EPA should be cleaning up the environment, not 
poisoning America's rivers and lakes. Until the Obama administration 
gets its priorities straight, Congress will have to act to stop it.
  Republicans have introduced legislation to block some of the 
administration's most egregious new rules. Senator Ernst has filed a 
resolution against the so-called waters of the United States or the 
WOTUS rule. I have introduced legislation to replace the WOTUS rule 
with one that actually protects waterways while preventing Washington's 
takeover of nonnavigable waterways. Senator McConnell and Senator 
Capito have filed resolutions against the extreme limits on 
powerplants. Senator Flake has filed one on the burdensome new ozone 
standard.
  We are going to keep a spotlight on this administration as it 
negotiates this new climate change treaty. We are going to stop it from 
committing this country to another bad deal--and the rest of us will be 
paying for that bad deal long after President Obama is out of office.
  Congress is going to hold the Obama administration accountable--
accountable--and rein in the Washington bureaucrats before they do 
additional damage.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I rise to express concern about the budget 
deal that seems to have been reached that we will vote on later today 
or tomorrow morning.
  This Senator has a broader concern that we simply aren't cutting 
spending and that we aren't holding to the budget agreements we made. 
What we are

[[Page 16870]]

doing here is getting rid of or extending the budget caps on the budget 
control agreement, spending about $80 billion more than we would have 
otherwise.
  We have told ourselves that we have offset this spending. Here is my 
concern. It is clear that we haven't. Some of the so-called offsets are 
simple budget gimmicks. Many have been tried and true in the past, such 
as just extending the sequester a little longer. One that is of 
particular concern was raised earlier today. There is in this budget 
agreement a modest crop insurance savings provision. In farm bills over 
the past few years, we have tried to rein in some of the massive 
subsidies and waste that have gone on in terms of direct payments and 
some of the other methods. A lot of that funding has gone toward crop 
insurance, and it is quite a generous program. In fact, the taxpayer 
subsidizes crop insurance on average of I think about 70 percent. 
Seventy percent of the premium is paid for by the taxpayers.
  What we are doing in this agreement or what we have tried to do in 
previous farm bills is say that the savings--if we reform these 
programs through so-called standard reinsurance agreements, or SRAs, if 
we realize some savings, than we plow those savings into the deficit or 
against the deficit. But what came out of the last farm bill was a 
provision that said if there are any savings in this program, they have 
to stay within the program.
  Now, we don't have that type of provision in just about any other 
program of government, where if you realize some savings by reform, you 
have to spend those savings on the program itself, just in another way. 
That doesn't save the taxpayer any money overall.
  In this case, we have tried to get those savings, but the farm bill 
said no, it had to be plowed back into the program. So the reform that 
was agreed to in this budget deal was to do what we had been trying to 
do--to make sure that any savings that result from a standard 
reinsurance agreement be plowed into or be put against the deficit to 
actually save some money.
  There is also a small provision which set a target rate for crop 
insurance companies at 8.9 percent rather than the 14.5 percent that it 
is currently at now. Opponents of this deal are saying that this minor 
change will gut crop insurance. I don't think that is true at all. Crop 
insurance is far from a suffering industry. It is a significant driver 
of the cost of our Nation's farm program.
  Government costs for crop insurance have increased substantially over 
the decades. In fact, after ranging from $2.1 billion to $3.9 billion 
during fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2007, costs rose to a total of 
$14.1 billion by fiscal year 2012. In fiscal year 2013, the total costs 
were $6 billion, and in fiscal year 2014, $8.7 billion. Taxpayers are 
footing about 70 percent of the total costs of the program and 60 
percent of all premiums paid.
  This change would not impact the coverage that is received; it would 
simply trim some of the profits. Some say that will drive crop 
insurance out of business. I don't think so. There isn't a crisis here 
when taxpayers are footing 60 percent of the premiums and 70 percent of 
the overall cost of the program. Typically, it is the type of program 
the private sector would like to get into. If there is a problem with 
people fleeing the program, it hasn't been demonstrated. This is not an 
industry under siege; it is a industry which has seen dramatic 
expansion and which now faces a slight trimming of its profits. Yet we 
are saying that we can't stand it. What we are saying is that we are 
going to undo that deal as part of the budget deal before we even vote 
on the budget deal.
  Earlier today on the floor, there was an agreement reached with the 
appropriators in the form of a colloquy that in the omnibus coming up 
in a couple of weeks, we would remove that provision, that savings of 
some $4 billion or $8 billion would simply be made up somehow by 
extending the sequester.
  This reminds me of the last budget agreement we had, the Ryan-Murray 
budget, where there was a provision to very slightly adjust the cost-
of-living increase for Active-Duty military retirees. This is something 
that the military actually asked us to do because they wanted to take a 
portion of the savings and put them into other areas of the military, 
but also it would realize a savings for us. This was a small adjustment 
for just Active-Duty military retirees who retired before the age of 
62. If they made it all the way to 62, they could recover all the 
savings that were there for the COLA adjustment.
  Three months after the agreement, because of lobbying by one 
particular small subset of those receiving these benefits, we reversed 
that change. Just 3 months after we signed the deal, we reversed part 
of the deal.
  In this case, what we are doing with the Crop Insurance Program is we 
are not even waiting 3 months after the deal. We are not having a 
separate vote.
  That vote, by the way, was 97 to 3 to reverse it, just because of 
some lobbying against it. I was one of the three opposed to reversing 
the program for the slight cuts.
  But in this case, the Crop Insurance Program in this budget deal, we 
aren't even waiting until the ink is dry. In fact, we aren't even 
waiting until the ink is applied to the paper signing this deal. We are 
reversing this change before we even pass the deal. We are agreeing 
that in the omnibus in a couple of weeks, we are going to reverse these 
savings, we are going to reverse these offsets.
  I had a lot of problems with this budget deal prior to today, but the 
more I look at this and the more I learn, I don't know how we can vote 
for this deal.
  I don't know when we are going to get serious about our deficit and 
our overall debt. If we can't do it now, when will we do it? If we 
can't get serious now, when are we going to get serious? If we have a 
budget agreement with the BCA now and we can't stick to it now, what 
makes us think we are going to in the future?
  It makes me think, if we are reversing changes we made to get some 
savings before we even have the deal signed, what are we going to do a 
month after? What are we going to do in the next month? Are there other 
provisions in the other so-called offsets that we are going to address 
and say: We did not really mean it; we are going to reverse that as 
well.
  It is very discouraging to see what is happening with the budget. We 
cannot continue to simply spend, spend, and spend and just ignore the 
real offsets that are needed. I would have been fine with spending 
additional money on nondefense discretionary if we had been serious 
about going into entitlement spending and the mandatory spending and 
finding real savings, savings that were significant. We have a couple 
of reaches into mandatory spending but not significant reaches. Who 
knows whether they will last or whether we will reverse them as well in 
a couple of months.
  This is very discouraging. I will vote against this, and I would 
encourage my colleagues to vote against this agreement as well.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon in strong opposition 
to the 2-year budget agreement before the Senate. This so-called budget 
deal was negotiated at the last minute. It is now being rushed through 
Congress with inadequate time for proper scrutiny. While the devil is 
typically in the details when Congress negotiates these eleventh-hour 
deals, the flaws in this agreement are evident from merely taking a 
glance at what is in it.
  This budget agreement would increase the current Budget Control Act 
spending caps, which we enacted in 2011 in an effort to restrain 
Washington spending, by approximately $80 billion or more over the next 
2 years. On top

[[Page 16871]]

of raising the caps by $80 billion or more, this deal also adds $32 
billion in additional spending totals. That is $112 billion in new 
spending over the next 2 years--yes, $112 billion in new spending over 
the next 2 years.
  Not only would this agreement allow for increased spending, it would 
also raise the debt ceiling through March of 2017--yes, through March 
of 2017--where we can borrow more money, adding an estimated $1.5 
trillion of borrowing.
  President Obama has continually called for more government spending 
and a blank check, to raise our Nation's debt limit with no 
corresponding reforms or spending cuts. The deal before us today 
represents a victory for President Obama and his liberal allies, not 
for the American people. As long as Washington continues to spend far 
beyond its means and remain on the same unsustainable track, our 
economy will suffer.
  While I believe we should safeguard the full faith and credit of the 
United States, I also believe we should do so in a manner that puts our 
Nation on a more responsible fiscal path. We cannot--I repeat, we 
cannot continue to raise the debt limit without taking responsible 
steps to tackle the underlying problems facing our Nation: wasteful 
government spending.
  Taking on more debt to facilitate more government spending is not the 
answer and is simply unacceptable.
  Hard-working Americans in Alabama and across the country are looking 
for Washington to have serious conversations about how to tackle our 
country's $18 trillion debt that is growing. Instead, this deal before 
us continues the never-ending cycle of bad policies that grow our 
bloated government, impede job growth, and perpetuate a stagnant 
economic recovery.
  I believe our constituents deserve better than a last-minute, flawed 
budget deal that not only exacerbates our debt crisis, but it adds more 
and more to our children's debt. There is absolutely no excuse for 
continuing to increase our Nation's debt. Americans are frustrated that 
Congress continues to push policies that empower Washington instead of 
the people of this great country. This deal is more of the same. Borrow 
more, spend more, be accountable less and less. That is why I adamantly 
oppose this budget deal and will continue to fight for a smaller, more 
effective government that puts the American people first.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I come to bring a very important subject 
to the attention of my colleagues.
  ``Sequestration'' is just a fancy word for cuts, mindless cuts. That 
is why I have always opposed sequestration. This thoughtless, across-
the-board approach to the Federal budget has harmed States across the 
country, but its effect on Massachusetts has been disproportionate.
  Sequestration significantly reduced Federal research and development 
funding for science and medicine. That is Massachusetts. Investments in 
those fields are critical to our economy with its world-class 
universities, medical centers, industry-leading bio- and high-tech 
companies, and clean-tech industries exploding with new technologies. 
This is the future of our country. This is the future of the 21st 
century. This is what we must be investing in: research and technology, 
research and science.
  I am pleased that for the next 2 years this budget agreement will 
give us desperately needed relief from sequestration and will extend 
the debt limit. This legislation will also protect vulnerable Americans 
who rely on Medicare and Social Security. It will ensure that for the 
next 7 years, millions who depend on the Social Security disability 
program do not face a benefit cut. The legislation will also help 
millions of seniors by avoiding a Gronk-like spike in Medicare 
premiums. But this bill comes with a price: more unwanted calls and 
texts to Americans.
  Back in 1991, consumers were constantly harassed by unwanted 
telemarketing phone calls that interrupted their family dinners. In 
1991, my bill, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, stopped these 
intrusive and unwanted calls from telemarketers.
  Yes, this budget being debated today actually makes it easier to 
harass consumers on their mobile phones. That is wrong, just plain 
wrong. Current law contains important safeguards against abusive 
practices. Before a caller can make autodialed or prerecorded calls or 
send texts, that caller must have the consent of whoever is being 
called.
  Section 301 of this legislation before this body today removes that 
precall consent requirement if someone is collecting debt owed to the 
Federal Government. The provision opens the door to potentially 
unwanted robocalls and texts to the cell phones of anyone with a 
student loan or a mortgage, calls to the cell phones of delinquent 
taxpayers, calls to farmers, to veterans, or to anyone with debt backed 
by the Federal Government.
  That is why, once the Senate takes action on this budget bill, I plan 
to file a bill that strikes that provision. I also intend to ask the 
majority leader for a vote on my bill at the earliest possible time. We 
must protect American students and consumers.
  That rollback of protections against abusive telemarketers is not the 
only problem with this legislation. The bill also would sell off part 
of our Nation's oil stockpile simply to raise revenue. The Presiding 
Officer is an expert in this area. Our Strategic Petroleum Reserve is 
there to protect American consumers and our security in the event of an 
emergency, but now it is increasingly viewed as a piggy bank to fund 
other priorities.
  If we are going to sell oil from our strategic reserve, we should at 
least do so strategically to get the best deal for our taxpayers, but 
the budget deal that we are considering would require the sale of a 
specific amount of oil each year from 2018 to 2025 regardless of its 
price.
  When the majority attempted to use similar Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve sales to fund the highway bill, Senator Cassidy of Louisiana 
and I authored a bipartisan amendment to fix the problem. Our 
commonsense amendment gave the Secretary of Energy flexibility to sell 
more oil when prices are high and thereby maximize the return for 
taxpayers.
  Unfortunately, that bipartisan fix is not part of this legislation, 
but I will continue to work with Senator Cassidy on this important 
issue. You know that we are right when a conservative Republican from 
Louisiana and a liberal Democrat from Massachusetts agree on an issue. 
It is foolish to buy high and sell low. That is essentially what this 
legislation is now mandating.
  Rather than saying to the government that you have to find just the 
right time when the price of oil is high to sell it over the next 7 
years, it says sell it on this schedule regardless of whether or not 
you are going to get a good return on your investment. That is not the 
way this government should be operated. We should be using some common 
sense, especially since the Senator from Louisiana and I had already 
drafted the legislation and had already attached it to the 
Transportation bill when that was going to be the place where they use 
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve money.
  This is a very bad provision that is in a bill which is going to 
pass--and it should pass--but this is a flaw. It is going to lose a lot 
of money if it continues on with the language that is in this bill.
  I am going to continue to work with the Presiding Officer, the 
Senator from Louisiana, so that we can correct it. It will save a lot 
of money if we do it the correct way.
  We need to ensure that we have a rational approach to budgeting--
unlike sequestration--which will finally allow us to get back to the 
business of legislating instead of lurching from crisis to crisis. That 
is not possible unless we begin a new era in this institution. 
Hopefully, that is what today and perhaps tomorrow will represent. 
Maybe we can work together again across the

[[Page 16872]]

aisle the way I think all Americans want us to. I pledge to work on 
these two pieces of legislation going forward to correct real flaws 
that are built into this legislation.
  Thank you for allowing me to have the floor at this time. I hope the 
Presiding Officer and I can partner to correct at least one of the 
problems in this bill.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, before we move to a vote on the Bipartisan 
Budget Act of 2015, I want to take a moment to discuss the part of the 
bill that is intended to be an offset for partially lifting the budget 
caps established under the Budget Control Act.
  Under current law, large partnerships are subject to a special set of 
tax procedural rules. They are known as the TEFRA partnership rules 
because they were included in the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility 
Act of 1982.
  These rules are complex and unwieldly for both the taxpayers and the 
Internal Revenue Service. Most tax experts agree that these rules are 
in bad need of reform. I agree.
  The Treasury Department, former House Ways and Means Committee 
Chairman Dave Camp, and Congressman Jim Renacci have all put forward 
reforms of the TEFRA partnership rules. And, on the Senate Finance 
Committee, we have been looking at those reforms and other proposals as 
well. We have also held discussions with the Ways and Means Committee, 
as well as tax professionals and members of the business community. 
These efforts, so far, have been bipartisan.
  Because any such reforms would have a significant impact on a large 
number of taxpayers, we were prepared to tackle this problem the same 
way the Finance Committee has dealt with other widely applicable tax 
compliance measures. Specifically, we had planned to release various 
discussion drafts that would be open for public comment and subsequent 
modification. That is the way the Finance Committee handled issues like 
stock basis reporting and merchant credit card reporting, and the 
process has worked well in the past.
  However, as these efforts were ongoing, bipartisan leaders from both 
the House and Senate identified TEFRA partnership reforms as a 
potential offset for this budget legislation. As per usual, the Finance 
Committee was consulted, and we provided assistance in drafting the 
offset language. I am pleased to say that many of our recommendations 
were adopted in the final version of the bill.
  However, for those who might be concerned about this process, it is 
important to note that the effective date for the TEFRA partnership 
reforms in the budget bill is delayed for 2 tax years. In the coming 
weeks and months, the Finance Committee will treat the TEFRA 
partnership reforms as a work in process. As planned, we intend to hear 
comments and will be prepared to address issues raised by taxpayers, 
especially those issues that may not have been anticipated.
  As an example, we have heard from stakeholders who were concerned 
that particular partner-level tax attributes that may be known by a 
partnership, such as certain passive losses under tax code section 469, 
should be identified in the legislation for purposes of modifying the 
so-called imputed underpayment amount with respect to the partnership.
  In sum, I want the record to be clear: The TEFRA partnership reforms 
are not effective for a couple of years. We plan to use that window to 
properly address problems raised by affected parties.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, for months, Democrats have called on 
Republican leaders in both the Senate and the House to work with us to 
avert the economic crisis that default would have wrought on this 
country. With our backs against the wall, congressional leaders and the 
White House have reached an agreement to not only raise the debt 
ceiling--ensuring that our government can pay its bills--but to limit 
the devastating impacts of sequestration for the next 2 years.
  This agreement is far from perfect. This deal uses funding identified 
and supported by the Senate to extend the critical highway trust fund. 
The trust fund has limped along, one short-term extension after 
another, for far too long. Despite the progress made on advancing a 6-
year authorization, we will now have to move back to square one to find 
a way to pay for it. I am as concerned now as I was in July that we are 
stealing from ourselves by selling off strategic oil preserves at a 
time of low prices when we purchased at a time of high prices, and I am 
deeply concerned that this deal raids the Crime Victims Fund of $1.5 
billion. Democrats and Republicans alike have long supported the Crime 
Victims Fund--unique in that it comes not from taxpayer dollars, but 
from penalties and fines paid by the criminals themselves. This fund 
was set up to be a dedicated resource to help victims of crime. Given 
the ongoing level of unmet need in that community, it is simply 
unacceptable that this fund was raided to pay for unrelated things. 
This one-time rescission must not become a new precedent. We cannot 
turn our backs on the victims of crime.
  Nonetheless, I support the Bipartisan Budget Act. It is the product 
of compromise that will offer a measure of stability and help pave the 
way for an omnibus appropriations bill to keep our government open past 
December 11. But this is only the first step. While we will avert a 
calamitous default next week, we now must undertake the difficult 
process of crafting an omnibus spending bill that will meet our 
financial obligations and properly invest our resources. We have come 
together--across the aisle and across Congress--to support this budget 
deal. Let's not squander those bipartisan efforts in the next phase by 
derailing the appropriations process with needless partisan policy 
riders intended to do nothing more than score political points.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I would like to address a small but 
important aspect of the hospital outpatient policy that is included in 
the budget agreement. The legislation does not address what happens to 
outpatient departments that are currently under construction. The bill 
allows current outpatient departments to continue to receive the 
Medicare outpatient payment rate because hospitals rely on those 
payments. Hospitals that want to build new facilities in the future go 
in with ``eyes open'' because they know they will not receive the 
higher outpatient rate. But that is not the case for outpatient 
departments that are currently being constructed as we speak. These 
hospitals made the decision to build, understanding that these 
facilities would receive the outpatient rate--they had no idea that 
Congress would be voting on this policy as part of this bill at this 
exact time. Facilities under construction should be treated the same as 
current facilities. I think it is unfortunate that this was not 
addressed when the bill was drafted, and I hope my colleagues will join 
me in ensuring this issue is addressed, either through regulations or 
through a technical legislative fix.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to voice my 
support for the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015. This is a credible 
compromise that accomplishes three key objectives: it prevents an 
economically catastrophic default, establishes 2 years of rational 
budgets for defense and domestic priorities, and provides our military 
with the resources they need without an overreliance on the emergency 
war fund accounts.
  Specifically, the agreement takes the threat of default off the table 
until March 2017 and provides $80 billion in sequester relief over the 
next 2 years, evenly split between defense and domestic spending. 
Throughout this process to reach a budget agreement, I have urged my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to work together to find a 
balanced, responsible way to address defense and domestic spending--
because they are both essential to the security and financial well-
being of the American people. And while this bill relies on emergency 
war fund accounts, it more accurately reflects the costs of our 
overseas military operations and provides the Department of Defense

[[Page 16873]]

with some additional budgetary stability and flexibility to plan for 
the future. With the sequester relief that the bill provides, we will 
have greater fiscal certainty and the additional resources we need to 
maintain a strong defense and economy.
  The bill also contains offsets that improve tax compliance among 
large partnerships and reforms federal crop insurance. These are the 
sorts of new revenue and spending cuts we should see more of instead of 
revenue and spending cuts that come off the backs of seniors and the 
middle class.
  Now, while I would prefer to eliminate the sequester all together, 
this compromise sets an encouraging precedent for future sequester 
relief, which is balanced and allows the government to keep making 
investments in areas that spur economic growth like education, 
transportation, health care, and defense. And that is why it's 
important for the Senate and House Appropriations Committees to quickly 
reach a consensus and produce a detailed spending package before the 
expiration of the continuing resolution on December 11.
  I urge my colleagues to quickly approve this budget agreement and 
move on to a bill to fund the government.
  Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I want to speak about the compromise budget 
legislation we are debating on the Senate floor. This is a good deal 
that covers so many important topics: sequester relief for defense and 
nondefense accounts, the debt limit, Medicare premiums, Social Security 
Disability Insurance, and many more items. These are all items the 
Senate needed to address, and I am happy to support this bipartisan 
budget accord.
  In my 3 years in the Senate, I have done everything I can to address 
the nonstrategic sequester cuts that have been hurting our national 
security and economy. When I was sworn into the Senate and put on the 
Budget Committee, we were about to let go into effect the arbitrary 
sequester cuts set forth in the Budget Control Act of 2011. So in 2013, 
we got to a bipartisan Murray-Ryan budget deal. I supported that deal 
because it provided sequester relief for 2 years and gave certainty to 
businesses and families, teachers and shipbuilders, around the 
Commonwealth and Nation to plan for their needs.
  Since 2013, we have seen the uncertainty presented by short-term 
budget deals and continuing resolutions has actually been shown to harm 
the economy. In addition, the world is a very different place now than 
it was in 2011 when the Budget Control Act passed, and we need to 
adjust our budget policies to respond to today's challenges, from the 
rise of ISIL to increasing cyber attacks.
  The deal before the Senate today provides more than $100 billion in 
sequester relief over 2 years for both defense and nondefense accounts, 
which will provide much-needed certainty to Virginia's families while 
helping businesses and the defense community better plan for the 
future. It also prevents certain Medicare beneficiaries from 
experiencing a significant increase in premiums next year and protects 
disabled Americans from a potential 20 percent reduction in benefits. 
It raises the debt ceiling, avoiding a default on our debt and disaster 
in financial markets. The agreement is not perfect. But that is the 
nature of compromise.
  Everyone can find something in this bill they dislike, and that is 
usually the marker of an honest compromise. I wish we were able to 
fully replace sequestration and reach that long-term budget deal which 
would fully replace sequester cuts, make Medicare and Social Security 
solvent over the long term, and reform the Tax Code. But that budget 
deal will take time to negotiate, and we face government debt default 
in less than a week. Given that reality, this compromise is a dramatic 
improvement over a government debt default, across-the-board budget 
cuts, and crisis budgeting.
  I especially applaud the fact that we will do a 2-year budget deal, 
just like we did when we reached the Murray-Ryan compromise in December 
2013. Two-year budgets provide certainty, and that has a significant 
positive impact on the economy. I came to the Senate a strong supporter 
of 2-year budgeting due to my experience as Governor, and it is good to 
see others in Congress finally embracing this helpful reform. I support 
this budget compromise and look forward to moving this bill to the 
President's desk.
  Mr. MARKEY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, people in my home State are trying to 
figure out what they missed on this budget deal. It was announced by 
the White House today that this is a great job-creating achievement, 
but all they see is more spending and no change in the status quo.
  Everyone throws around numbers, but here is the one number people in 
my State want to hear. How much does it save the American taxpayer? Put 
another way, does it help us to balance our budget or to address the 
debt problem?
  We need two things to be able to balance our Federal budget: spending 
restraint and a growing economy. Right now we have neither. We have 
$18.5 trillion in debt and over $430 billion in deficit in this year. 
To start paying down our debt, we have to first balance our budget.
  The Presiding Officer knows very well that we passed a budget earlier 
this year that took the next 10 years to be able to balance our budget. 
Let's play pretend for a moment in this body. Let's say we put that 
budget into place, and over the 10 years we work down a little bit each 
year and get to a balanced budget 10 years from now. Let's take a guess 
in this body, and let's say the year after that we had a $50 billion 
surplus. It took us 10 years to get back to balance, and in year 11 we 
had a $50 billion surplus. How many years would we have to maintain a 
$50 billion surplus until we paid off our debt? The correct answer 
would be: 360 years in a row we would have to have a $50 billion 
surplus to pay off our debt. We need to start doing budgets that 
actually deal seriously with our debt and deficit.
  Today, our GDP growth was announced again. It is a whopping 1.5-
percent growth in the American economy. With new regulations on every 
business, the assault on American energy, new loan restrictions on 
banks, and ObamaCare cost increases--including in my State of Oklahoma, 
where premium increases are hitting 35 percent for next year on 
individuals--people know inherently that if you keep overspending, it 
limits our economic growth in America. We have fewer jobs because of 
it. It is harder to start a business because of it.
  The President keeps saying if we will just spend a little more, we 
will have more jobs. But people don't believe it anymore because they 
have seen it is not true. After 6 years of ``if we just spend a little 
more, spend a little more, this will get caught up'' we still have a 
1.5-percent growth rate in the American economy. That is pathetic.
  While we have a great number of terrific people in the Federal 
workforce, people inherently know if you just keep adding jobs in the 
Federal workforce, it hurts our economy because it continues to take 
money out of private hands and puts it into government control. What 
people want is not unreasonable. They just want a plan. People want to 
know that if we are going to spend money, we use it efficiently and 
that there is a plan to be able to get us out of debt.
  What we heard through the negotiations was that any increase in 
spending would be offset with pay-fors that were real. The spending 
negotiations that were done were supposed to develop that plan. What we 
have as a final document is not a plan to get us out of debt. In fact, 
it increases our debt again. What we have is not a plan to handle the 
long-term consequences of deficit. In fact, it obfuscates that again. 
We need a plan to deal with entitlements, and what we have done is

[[Page 16874]]

just scratched the surface dealing with entitlements.
  What I have heard over and over is that at least the pay-fors are 
real, that for any increased spending that was done, at least there 
were offsets for that. Let me give a couple of examples of these real 
pay-fors, as I read the bill.
  Here are a couple of real pay-fors. One is called pension payment 
acceleration. This is listed as one of the real pay-fors in the 
document. Pension payment acceleration in section 502 changed the due 
date for pension premiums from October 15, 2025, to September 15, 2025, 
in order to get another $2.3 billion into the 10-year budget window.
  You see, this is all laid out to say that in the next 10 years we 
will pay this off. So they took a payment that was due 10 years and 2 
weeks from now and moved it forward a month. So literally, yes, it adds 
$2.3 billion into the 10-year window, but if we had a 10-year-plus-2-
week time period, it would be exactly the same. It is actually zero 
savings. It is not real. They moved the payment a month and said that 
is a pay-for. It is not a pay-for. That is the pension payment 
acceleration.
  How about this one? We have this one in the Federal Government called 
the Crime Victims Fund. The Crime Victims Fund is money seized from 
criminals and designated not for general use but to compensate the 
victims of crime--hence the name Crime Victims Fund. Apparently, this 
budget agreement qualifies as a victim of crime because $1.5 billion is 
taken from the Crime Victims Fund and dedicated not to victims of crime 
but to spending in other areas.
  We literally take $1.5 billion out of the Crime Victims Fund and 
spend it on the EPA, the IRS, and silent Shakespeare festivals out 
there in Federal funding--so much for helping crime victims.
  We have 12 appropriations bills we have done in the Senate. It is the 
first time in a very long time that the Committee on Appropriations has 
done all 12 appropriations bills through committee. In this agreement, 
all 12 of those appropriations bills will have to be redone. Here is 
how they will be redone. The defense bill will be cut, and the other 11 
will all go up in spending. The top of that debt ceiling is without 
reform.
  The final straw for me in looking at this deal is Social Security 
disability. The Presiding Officer knows full well I have worked for 3 
years on Social Security disability reform, knowing that the day was 
coming when we would have to fix Social Security.
  The CBO has warned us for 4 years that Social Security disability 
would reach insolvency in 2016, so my office has spent the last 3 years 
preparing for how we could actually reform this program to make sure we 
stabilize the Social Security disability program. I have interviewed 
individuals within the disability program--attorneys that work with it, 
Federal judges, administrative law judges, representatives, Social 
Security staff in all of those cubicles across the Social Security 
Administration offices, advocacy groups, parents of the disabled, and 
we held bipartisan hearings to look for common-ground solutions and 
worked with the inspector general and the GAO to hear other practical 
solutions they had discovered. We have a long list of real solutions to 
solving Social Security disability for the disabled and for the 
taxpayer. We have submitted those solutions as an amendment to this 
bill because there are real answers to solving Social Security 
disability, if you do the work. We have actually done the work to 
prepare for this.
  Instead, this budget bill renews a few demonstration programs, 
changes a few names, transfers some funds from retirement Social 
Security over to disability Social Security, and calls it reform. If 
you look at the way the actuarial tables work out, of the 100 percent 
that needs to be done to bring solvency, they do 1.5 percent of what 
needs to be done to bring the program to solvency. The estimate is 1.5 
percent of the 100 percent that needs to be done, and it is called real 
significant disability reform. I wish it were, because it is 
desperately needed.
  Everyone knows this Congress only seems to do anything when they have 
to. A deadline is coming to deal with Social Security disability. This 
is the time we have to do the reforms. This opportunity will not come 
around again for 7 years, because this extends out this program for 7 
years with almost no reforms at all. We are missing our window.
  These are the most vulnerable individuals in our society who are on 
disability. These are individuals who literally cannot work in the 
economy in any way, and they need our help and they need real reform in 
this program, and we have punted. There is 1.5 percent of reform of the 
100 percent that is needed to actually stabilize the program.
  What does real reform look like? It helps those stuck in the painful 
process of disability applications and gets them the help they need at 
the time they need it. Real reform helps with those who game the system 
to get out of the system. It gives clarity, accountability, and 
oversight to the system itself. That is what real reform would look 
like.
  Let me give a couple of examples. The grid--it is called a vocational 
grid--which is used to determine if someone can work in the economy, 
has not been updated since 1978. It needs to be updated not just now 
but every 10 years in order to have a regular cycle of updating, and 
not every 40 years. But that is not required in this bill.
  We need to have good record keeping--evidence for disability. That is 
not required in this bill. We need to have a standard to be able to 
rotate off disability and to bring some clarity to it. Right now it is 
medical improvement. The problem is there are no good records often for 
those individuals on disability. So there is no way to rotate off of 
it. An individual is permanently trapped in it because the records were 
so bad at the start. There is no change in that.
  What does that look like in real life? Let me give a couple of real-
life examples. In Puerto Rico, the Office of the U.S. Attorney accepted 
a case for prosecution about 4 years ago. The inspector general 
initiated a Federal grand jury investigation, working closely with the 
Office of the U.S. Attorney, the FBI, and the Puerto Rico Police 
Department. In August of 2013, 74 individuals, including 47 medical 
professionals and a nonattorney claimant representative, were indicted 
and arrested for their involvement in a large-scale disability fraud 
scheme.
  On January 15, 2015, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Puerto Rico 
announced the indictments of an additional 40 individuals, including a 
psychiatrist, for their alleged involvement in this conspiracy when 
they undertook an early-morning arrest operation for those individuals. 
All of these individuals were apprehended, and at the end they estimate 
the cost to the taxpayer is $100 million of fraud in that one case 
alone.
  In Huntington, WV, in May of this year, the Social Security 
Administration mailed letters to approximately 1,500 individuals 
informing them of their need to redetermine their eligibility for 
Social Security disability--many of those individuals have been on 
disability for years--because the Social Security Administration and 
the Inspector General's Office noted that many of these individuals 
were put on in a case that did not match facts with what actually 
happened in their lives. They were led to believe this by a 
representative, an attorney in this case, fraudulent work behind the 
scenes by physicians, and the inside work of individuals within Social 
Security who tracked them through the process. What happened? There 
were hundreds of millions of dollars in fraud.
  These things still continue. Nothing changes on this. I wish this 
bill would correct some of these issues today, but it doesn't. Those 
individuals were told by someone that they fit into the disabled 
category, only to find out later that they had also been defrauded in 
the system.
  There is nothing in this bill mandating the Social Security 
Administration to update its medical and vocational listings. There is 
nothing in this

[[Page 16875]]

bill to prevent people who receive unemployment insurance, who by 
definition must be employable, from also receiving disability 
insurance--people who by definition cannot also work.
  There is nothing in this bill to streamline the adjudication process 
or to eliminate the second level of appeal, which is called 
reconsideration. Many individuals within the process who are 
legitimately disabled and who just want to have their cases heard get 
stuck in this long process. There are actually more appeals in Social 
Security Administration, in the Social Security disability program, 
than there are on death row, which puts people in this cycle of endless 
appeals, year after year, and continues to rack up the cost to the 
taxpayer and the effect on those who are disabled.
  There is nothing in this bill to ensure that a claimant's medical 
record is well developed so that when they come up for a continuing 
disability review, a disability determination service examiner can make 
an informed judgment and actually evaluate whether they are medically 
improved.
  There is nothing in this bill to conduct oversight of the 
administrative law judges or claimants' representatives. The bill 
increases the number of administrative law judges but not the 
oversight. I am not sure if many in this body are aware that some of 
the administrative law judges in this country have an overturn rate of 
95 percent or higher, and we are adding more but not increasing the 
oversight.
  There is no opportunity given for greater accountability or even to 
improve the Code of Judicial Conduct--a basic element of reform that 
should be in this.
  As for the claimant representatives, according to the Social Security 
Administration's Office of Inspector General, in tax year 2013, the top 
10 highest earning claimant representatives made $23 million. Remember 
that the payment for the claimant representatives comes directly out of 
the money that should go to the disabled individual, not from another 
fund. It is from the individual who should have received that money as 
disability. So the more the reps make, the less tax money that actually 
gets to the disabled individual. There is no change in this model. It 
continues to provide funding for claimant representatives and attorneys 
and continues to leave the disabled exposed.
  By the way, today in Social Security Administration offices all 
around the country, they are processing the money from the disabled and 
sending checks to the representatives because although the reps are 
hired by the disabled individual, they are paid and processed by the 
Federal workforce from the disabled person's money. We can do better 
than this. We should do better than this.
  This is not a deal the American people are looking for. This is not a 
budget agreement the people of Oklahoma say fixes our debt and deficit 
issues and stabilizes disability. This is a deal that is done, 
apparently, but not a deal that is done well. Based on where we are in 
debt and deficit, we need to do better, and I pray we do in the days 
ahead. We have much to get fixed. It is time to actually fix some 
things, not just to stay operational.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for an additional 5 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Free Exercise of Religion

  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, there is a football coach in Washington 
State. He is the head coach of the JV team, and he is the assistant 
coach of the varsity football team. Tonight is the last game of the 
season for them, but he will not be coaching on the sidelines today 
because last night he was dismissed from his duties in Bremerton, WA. 
According to the attorneys at the school, he was dismissed from his 
duties because last Friday night at the football game, he had the 
audacity to kneel down at the end of the game and silently pray at the 
50-yard line when the game was over, when the school had instructed him 
that he was not to silently pray at the end of a game.
  Help me understand this. The night before the last game of the 
season, they kick the football coach off the field because he had the 
audacity to silently pray when they told him not to.
  To his defense, this is not brand new. Since 2008, this same coach, 
at the end of the games--each game--has had the habit of kneeling and 
praying at the 50-yard line after the kids have gone, after the game is 
over, to thank God for the safety of his kids. It is a habit he started 
7 years ago, but for some reason the Bremerton School District has 
determined this is completely unacceptable. Their perspective is that 
you can only have faith if no one sees it. They have literally set a 
new standard. What they are taking from the Borden case, which I will 
explain in a moment--they are saying that if you are a school official, 
no one can see that you have faith because if anyone sees that you have 
faith, they will take that as the establishment of religion from the 
school district. That is a standard no court in America has set. That 
would mean any individual who is Jewish couldn't wear a yarmulke if 
they were also a teacher. That would mean anyone who is Muslim couldn't 
wear a head scarf because clearly that is a visual display of faith. 
That would mean no teacher could bow their head and pray before their 
meal in the school lunchroom. That would mean no football coach could 
kneel down with 5 seconds to go in the game in, the fourth quarter, 
before their 16-year-old is about to kick a field goal. They would say: 
No, you can't kneel down and pray on the sidelines.
  The absurdity of this is they set this brandnew standard that says 
you cannot have anyone see you have faith. That would mean that in this 
situation, this district has created a new legal standard that no one 
else has ever agreed to, literally created in the school district a 
faith-free zone, put up a sign on the front door that says ``No one can 
express any type of faith in this building.'' That is absurd.
  The school district quoted multiple times from the Borden case, which 
is the Borden v. School District of the Township of East Brunswick 
case. This is what the actual case was. It was a football coach who, 
before the game, at a mandatory meeting of the team, led them in a 
prayer. The only similarity here is prayer and football because this is 
not a mandatory meeting before the game; this is not a required closed 
time; this is an individual, after the game is over, kneeling down on 
his own and freely expressing his faith without requiring anyone else 
to be there, anyone to listen. This is an individual living their 
faith. That is free in America, whether you are Muslim, whether you are 
Wiccan, whether you are Hindu, whether you are Christian, whether you 
are Jewish, whether you are a Federal employee or a State employee or a 
private citizen. Every individual retains their constitutional right to 
the free exercise of their religion. Does that mean they can coerce 
people or proselytize in that situation? No, it does not. The Court has 
been very clear on that. But that is not what this was. This is not a 
situation where the coach was coercing his players to participate in a 
prayer or proselytizing his players while he was on school time. He was 
simply kneeling down to pray, and for whatever strange reason the 
school district has put him on paid administrative leave and has 
started the process of firing the coach.
  I bring this up because it suddenly becomes a national issue when a 
school district creates a new legal standard for every person of faith 
in America. Every person of faith in America has the right to live 
their faith. A school district does not have the right to say to 
someone: Your constitutional right ends here.
  I can go through in great detail the different standards they leave 
out there, but their accommodation was this one simple thing: He could 
privately pray in a room of the school district's choosing. If he 
wanted to pray, they would put him in a spot and say: You can pray in 
there, in a place we pick, but you can't pray out there.
  May I remind Americans that we do not have freedom of worship in 
America; we have the free exercise of religion in America. The 
government does

[[Page 16876]]

not have the authority to confine your faith to the location of the 
government's choosing. A government entity like a school district 
cannot say to an employee: You can only live your faith over there, 
where we pick.
  I don't know what the school district is going to do in the days 
ahead, but I know what Americans of all faiths and people of no faith 
should do. They should rise up and say: We are a nation that protects 
the free exercise of religion. And people who disagree with that coach 
should rise up in the same way with people who agree because I can 
assure you--if they will silence a Christian who is silently praying on 
the 50-yard line, I can assure you they will be after every other faith 
in the country and say: You can only practice your faith in the place 
of the government's choosing. That is not who we are.
  Coach Joe Kennedy has the right to pray anywhere he wants to pray as 
long as it doesn't interrupt his school responsibilities. I pray that 
this school district and the attorneys who are trying to manufacture a 
new requirement on people of faith will see that in the days ahead.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.


                       Honoring Our Armed Forces

                Senior Airman Quinn Lamar Johnson-Harris

  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to pay tribute 
to one of the finest among us, a young man from Wisconsin whose service 
to his country was cut short by tragedy in Afghanistan.
  SrA Quinn Lamar Johnson-Harris, a 21-year-old from Milwaukee, was 
among six airmen and five civilian passengers who lost their lives when 
a C-130 crashed on takeoff from Jalalabad Airfield in Afghanistan 
earlier this month. Every one of those individuals was a grave loss to 
our country. Every one deserves to be remembered and revered before the 
Senate.
  Today it is my solemn duty and particular honor to tell you about 
Airman Johnson-Harris. Quinn graduated from Homestead High School in 
Mequon, WI, in 2012. The very next year, he joined the Air Force. It 
was a foregone conclusion that he would serve his country long before 
that, however. His grandfather served in Vietnam. His oldest brother, 
Jeremy, is a proud marine. His other older brother, Lamar, graduated 
from West Point just last spring and is now proudly serving in the 
Army.
  His mother told the story about how her three sons--Quinn was only 2 
years old at the time--saluted at the grave of their grandfather and 
vowed to serve their country.
  For men such as these, our Nation is eternally grateful.
  Quinn went to rebuild houses in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina 
while he was still in school. Later one of his comrades, a sergeant who 
served with him in the Air Force, said he was: ``the heart of the 
squadron'' and that ``He was the best of us.''
  For 239 years, our service men and women have guarded our freedom, 
more than 42 million of them. Since the Revolutionary War, more than 1 
million of those heroes have given their lives, including more than 
27,000 sons and daughters of Wisconsin. Now Airman Johnson-Harris has 
been added to that terrible toll. His brothers, his sister Fatia, his 
parents Yvette and LaMar, and all his family and friends grieve their 
loss. Our hearts go out to them, and we pray that they will find 
comfort and peace.
  I saw the grief of Airman Johnson-Harris's family this past weekend 
during his funeral service at Christian Faith Fellowship Church in 
Milwaukee. I saw the respect they had for him and the honor granted him 
by a family who knows the meaning of earned honor. Quinn swore to 
support and defend the Constitution of the United States, to put his 
life on the line for the liberties we all enjoy. We must never take 
that type of dedication for granted. We owe him the honor of taking our 
own corresponding oath of duty as seriously as he took his.
  May God bless Airman Johnson-Harris's loved ones, may He guard all of 
those in our Armed Forces who defend our Nation's liberty, and may God 
bless America.
  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. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I spoke a few moments ago on the Senate 
floor, and as I was leaving I was made aware of an article in which the 
minority leader, Senator Reid, was quoted. I wish to highlight 
something I want my colleagues to hear and know.
  What the Senator from Nevada indicated was--the article begins: 
Having secured their goal of getting a budget deal addressing the debt 
ceiling and sequestration cuts, Democrats are now looking forward to 
the appropriations process.
  As an appropriator, so am I. I am interested for us to have the 
opportunity, if this budget agreement passes, to make decisions about 
the priorities of spending within those budget numbers. What is so 
troublesome to me is that the indication was that President Obama and 
Democrats stand firm against efforts to target environmental 
regulations and other contentious riders.
  I am quoting the Senator from Nevada:

       We're holding hands with the president, we're all holding 
     hands. We are not going to deal with these vexatious riders. 
     We feel comfortable and confident. . . .''

  He goes on to talk about the agreement.
  This is a Congress that is supposed to deal with contentious and 
vexatious issues. Why does anyone have the opportunity to say it is off 
the table? It happened in these budget agreements in which we were told 
dealing with mandatory spending is off the table. Yet it is one of the 
most important issues we need to address, and you ought not start 
negotiations by saying we are not even going to talk about an issue. In 
this case, ``off the table, not subject to discussion'' is the issue of 
contentious or environmental regulations.
  Congress--Republican and Democratic Members--ought to care about the 
power of Congress that is granted to us by the Constitution in our 
representation of the American people. We need the days in which the 
Congress and Members of Congress are not wedded to a Republican 
President or a Democratic President just because they happen to be 
Republicans or Democrats. We need to make decisions based upon what is 
good for the country, not whether we are backstopping a President who 
happens to be a Member of our political party. Where are the Members of 
Congress who say congressional authority is the constitutional grant of 
power to act on behalf of Americans?
  We need not only to establish priorities as a Congress when it comes 
to the spending process, but we need to make decisions when an agency 
or a department exceeds their authority, when they operate in ways that 
are contrary to what we believe is in the best interest of the country, 
in circumstances in which they are doing things that lack common sense. 
The role of Congress is to direct the spending. It is granted to us by 
the Constitution of the United States. We are saying that while we are 
pleased we have a budget agreement, we will not stand for Congress 
determining whether the money can be spent in a certain way, whether it 
can be prohibited from being spent in a certain way. We are taking 
vexatious riders off the table.
  This is our responsibility. It is just as important for us to 
determine whether money should be spent at all as it is for us to 
determine how much money can be spent on a government program. It is 
particularly true, I don't think there is any question but that this 
administration has been the most active, many of us would consider 
acting in an unconstitutional way in the development of regulations, of 
policies, of the bureaucracy of what the departments and agencies are 
doing. This is

[[Page 16877]]

an administration that cries out for congressional oversight, not for 
someone who says it is not even on the table to be considered.
  I would think Republicans and Democrats both ought to have an 
interest in determining how money is spent as well as whether we should 
tell an agency, a department they can't spend that money at all. Many 
of my Democratic colleagues have indicated they support a number of 
riders, including ones that are considered environmental.
  Waters of the United States is one that I have been told numerous 
times that my colleagues on the Democratic side of this Congress 
support the rider that is in the appropriations bill. Numerous times I 
have been told that many Democrats support reining in the regulations 
that are coming from the Department of Labor related to a fiduciary 
rule. Now we hear that vexatious environmental riders are off the 
table. We ought not allow that to stand. It is not that I expect every 
rider that I am for to receive approval of Congress, but those votes 
ought to be taken. That is our responsibility and majority rules.
  Again, the circumstance we now find ourselves in, this is nothing 
that we are even going to talk about. It is troublesome to me that 
those of my colleagues who have expressed support for those riders--I 
guess I should explain to Kansans and to Americans, a rider is a 
provision--language in the appropriations bill that oftentimes says no 
money can be spent to implement this idea, to implement this 
regulation.
  It is an absolutely important responsibility for Congress. It is not 
unusual. It is not something outside the boundaries of what we are 
supposed to be doing. It is absolutely a significant component of our 
responsibility. Now those who claim they are for a rider, say the 
Waters of the United States or the fiduciary rule that the Department 
of Labor is promulgating--we have colleagues who say they are for that. 
Now they will be able to say: I am for it, but I never had a chance to 
vote on it because it was off the table.
  I would again ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, don't 
fall into this trap in which we are here to support ad hoc, at every 
instance, the executive branch just because they happen to be a Member 
of our political party. When there is a Republican President, I hope to 
abide by those same rules. I am here on behalf of Kansans and on behalf 
of Americans, not on behalf of an administration regardless of their 
political party, and we ought to demand that Congress do its work. We 
had an election, the people of this country asked for something 
different, and once again we are back in the circumstance in which no 
longer are we able to move forward on legislation.
  I assume by what the former majority leader is saying that when he 
says it is off the table, he means there will not be 60 votes for us to 
even consider an omnibus bill in which those riders are included. Now, 
what I will say is that before long, we are going to be hearing about 
how Republicans are interested in shutting down government because they 
want these riders. Well, the reality is that the Senator from Nevada is 
indicating there is no discussion, and the blame ought not fall on 
those of us who actually wanted Congress to work. The allegation of 
shutting down government ought to rest on those who say: We won't even 
discuss an appropriations bill that includes vexatious or contentious 
riders.
  Who would want to be a Member of a Congress that is unwilling to deal 
with contentious issues? It is our constitutional responsibility. The 
American people ought to demand the opportunity for us to address 
issues of importance to them, and it ought not be off the table before 
the conversation even begins.
  Again, the point is that we have a constitutional responsibility that 
we failed to exercise. When the decisions are made, it is off the 
table. We need a Congress that works, and we need a Congress that puts 
the American people above defending a President, regardless of his or 
her political party.
  I yield the floor.


      Measure Discharged and Placed on the Calendar--S.J. Res. 20

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2159(i) and section 
601(b)(4) of Public Law 94-329, S.J. Res. 20 is discharged and placed 
on the calendar, 45 days of the review period having elapsed.
  Mr. MORAN. 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. 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.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, for the information of our colleagues, 
the cloture vote on the House-passed budget and debt limit package will 
occur an hour after we reconvene, which is at 1 a.m. under the regular 
order. Once cloture is invoked, the Senate will remain in session and 
on the message until we vote on passage.
  Senators will be permitted for up to an hour to speak postcloture. 
That is after 1 o'clock, under the rules. It is my hope that the debate 
time will be extremely limited and that we will be able to move to a 
passage vote almost immediately after 1 a.m. The timing, however, is up 
to any individual Senator who claims debate time after the 1 a.m. vote.


                  Orders For Friday, October 30, 2015

  So I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its 
business today, or at 11:55 p.m. today, whichever comes first, it 
adjourn until 12:01 a.m. on Friday, October 30; that following the 
prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of 
proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be 
reserved for their use later in the day; finally, that following leader 
remarks, the Senate resume consideration of the House message to 
accompany H.R. 1314, with the time until 1:01 a.m. equally divided 
between the two leaders or their designees.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


           Order For Recess Subject to the Call of the Chair

  Mr. McCONNELL. So if there is no further business to come before the 
Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand in recess subject to the 
call of the Chair, following the remarks of Senator Whitehouse.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 
10 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Health Care Costs

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, we are embarked on a significant 
budget agreement that has as one of its components adjustments to 
America's health care costs. In the case of this particular agreement, 
I support the adjustments that have been proposed--things such as 
preventing drug manufacturers from raising their costs higher than the 
rate of inflation. We have seen people come in and buy companies and 
jack up the costs 10 times because they can. They haven't added any 
value to the products; they have just raised the costs. I support that. 
Paying hospitals the rate for physician practices that the physician 
practices were paid before the hospital bought them--nothing changed in 
the physician practices; just ownership changed, and that shouldn't 
allow a windfall to the buyer. I think we have done well with what we 
have done to reduce health care spending in this particular bill, but I 
recall that in the sequester we did an across-the-board haircut right 
across Medicare. Whatever you were being paid before, you got paid 98 
percent of that afterward if you were a Medicare provider.
  I want to come today to offer a thought that I hope can percolate a 
bit,

[[Page 16878]]

and if we go back and look at those costs again I would like to get 
this thought into the conversation. The backdrop of this is the 
extraordinary increase of health care costs that we have seen more or 
less in my lifetime.
  This chart shows 1960, and it is a $27 billion American expenditure 
on total health care. Here it is in 2013, with $2.9 trillion, an 
increase of more than 100 times over those years in what we spend on 
health care. And as we have done that, what we have done is we have 
become the most expensive per-capita health care country in the world--
and not by a little but by a ton. Over at the far side of the chart is 
the United Kingdom, then Germany, Japan, Switzerland, France, the 
Netherlands, and here is the United States. Again, this is 2013 data. 
We are way above the most expensive competitors that we have. So there 
is something that can be done here with this excess cost, because 
people aren't getting bad health care in Germany. They are not getting 
terrible health care in the United Kingdom. They are not suffering in 
Japan or Switzerland or France or the Netherlands. These are 
competitive systems with ours, but ours costs half again as much. There 
is a big target in savings here.
  Here is another way of describing it. If you look at the cost and you 
compare it to a quality measure, here the quality measure is life 
expectancy in years, how long people can expect to live in these 
different countries, and this is the same per-capita cost information I 
showed in the last bar chart. What you see is that most of the 
countries that we compete with are grouped right up in here, as shown 
on this chart--Greece, Great Britain, Japan. Most of the EU is right in 
here. As you run up the cost curve you get to Switzerland and the 
Netherlands. They are the two most expensive countries in the world in 
per-capita health care, not counting us. Look where we are. We are out 
here. Our costs are about half again as much as the least efficient 
health care providers in the industrialized world. We are more 
inefficient by nearly a factor of a third than the least efficient 
health care providers in the industrialized world. That is not a prize 
we want to own. We want to be able to move this back.
  If you look at this gradient of life expectancy, we compare with 
Chile and the Czech Republic. Where we want to be is up here. Where we 
are is here. So once again, it proves there is enormous room for 
improvement in our health care system and we know that because other 
countries are doing it. They can do it. Darn it, we ought to be able to 
do it too.
  Now we change the scope of this a little bit. This chart shows the 
American health care system State by State. Each State is marked as one 
of the dots on this graph. This graph has the same thing across the 
bottom--Medicare spending per beneficiary. The last one was national 
spending, and this is Medicare spending per beneficiary. Here are the 
quality rankings of the States. There are a variety of quality 
rankings, and this assembles them into a consolidated quality rating.
  What you see is that within the United States of America you have the 
States. This goes back a bit. This is an old ranking that the Journal 
of the American Medical Association produced. It shows that there are 
some States that were just under $5,000 per capita. They were doing 
something right. There are other States here, including an outlier, all 
the way over to $8,000 per capita. But there is a bulk of States here 
that run about $7,000 per capita. That is a $2,000-per-Medicare-
recipient difference between this group of States and that group of 
States. That is interesting. Why is it that there is this big 
difference?
  Here is another interesting factor. Look who is doing better on 
quality--the States that spend less. The lesson from this is if you are 
delivering high quality health care, you can deliver it less 
expensively than if you are delivering low quality health care. At a 
$2,000-per-beneficiary increase in costs, these States are way at the 
bottom on quality compared to the others. The relationship between 
quality of the care people receive and the cost it takes to deliver it 
to them is reversed. This isn't like Lexus and Mercedes, where you pay 
more and you get a better car. This is the opposite. You have a really 
crummy car and it costs more to run it, it doesn't work, and it is 
expensive because it is not working well. It is backward. It is 
interesting that way.
  If you bring that forward, this shows a recent graph from the 
Commonwealth Fund that shows the same thing, overall quality score 
relative to the U.S. median and costs in total Medicare spending. Here 
is the average right here for cost and the average for quality, and 
here you have these States down here in the bad box. They are way out 
here in costs. They are very expensive States. They are all above 
average. Some of them here are way above average--25 percent above 
average, 15 percent above average, 20 percent above average. Look what 
their quality measure is. They stink. They deliver terrible quality 
health care. Over here you have a bunch of other States that are way 
above the quality median and at the same time they are way below the 
cost average. So the principle from that first graph back in 2000 still 
holds true, according to the Commonwealth Fund.
  With that background, here is another way to describe it. These are 
the 10 worst States in terms of highest cost per capita, and these are 
the best 10 States. I know we have a country with 50 States. This is 
only 20. We leave out the middle 30. These are the worst 10 in terms of 
cost, and these are the 10 best in terms of cost.
  Here is the idea. Why should we be reimbursing above average the 
States that have a per-capita cost above average, instead of the way we 
did it on the sequester, by taking a 2-percent cut on everybody across 
the board that nobody can do anything about--just a cold, wet blanket 
of funds denial? Why not look and say this is the most that a State 
would get paid--whatever the cost would be--if it were at the average. 
The rest, you just take it back per capita across the entire 
reimbursement for that State.
  This is what would happen with these high cost States. The very next 
meeting of the State medical society, the very next time the State met 
with the Governor, the very next time the Medicaid program got 
together, they would be hollering, saying: What on Earth? I do a good 
job. I am going to get my reimbursement cut because of that?
  No, we have to fix this. It would give them a massive incentive to 
stop behaving like this and start behaving like this. If we built in 
some lead time so they had the chance to actually get there, they might 
actually never have to cut. They might not ever have to face that cut 
because what they would have done in the time leading up to when the 
cut was scheduled to be imposed is begin to behave like the States that 
have lower costs than average.
  We know this could be done because so many States are already doing 
it. Why would we ever again look at an across-the-board Medicare-
provider cut when we have an enormous discrepancy between these high-
cost, low-quality States and these low-cost, high-quality States--like 
this one all the way over here? Oh, my gosh, it is a bargain there; it 
is top quality care.
  That is my point for the day. I hope that anybody listening who is 
looking at the proposed cuts in the budget and who is looking at the 
need to manage this exploding health care cost curve that America has 
had for the last 50 years--steepening health care cost curve--starts to 
think about ways to do not just dumb and bloody cuts, but smart cuts--
smart cuts that give the States that are costing us much more money 
than their peers the inventive to actually start behaving like their 
peers and bring down the cost for everyone. That is what I would 
consider to be a serious win-win.
  I look forward to continuing this discussion. We have a couple of 
years before we are going to face this again with any luck, but I think 
this is an idea that is worth considering.
  Once again, if you give the States enough warning within the 10-year 
budget period so we can score it but with enough warning that they have 
got the chance to react--I encourage anybody to read Atul Gawande's 
last

[[Page 16879]]

article about Texas. He wrote an article about the terrible cost 
differential between--I think it was El Paso and a town called McAllen, 
TX--huge. Then they brought in the ObamaCare affordable care 
organizations--accountable care organization models and down came the 
price in McAllen.
  So it can be done. We have seen it being done.
  With that, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________