[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 13104-13136]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                HIRE MORE HEROES ACT OF 2015--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next 40 
minutes be under the control of the Democratic side and that the time 
be equally divided among the following Senators: Reid, Boxer, 
Whitehouse, Markey, Schatz, and Schumer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Climate Change

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, at virtually every caucus we have, every 
Tuesday caucus, I have Senators report on what is going on in the world 
as it relates to climate change.
  I wish these were fun-filled presentations where people laughed, 
clapped, and smiled, but they are not. They are very downbeat because 
each Senator who makes a presentation--whether it is the senior Senator 
from New Hampshire, who talks about moose dying in her State because 
the fleas and ticks no longer die in the cold weather, she explained 
how about one-third of the moose are dead in New Hampshire, or whether 
it is the junior Senator from the State of Michigan talking about what 
is going on in that beautiful State of Michigan.
  Without going through the list of Senators who have reported what is 
going on as they see it with climate change, everyone within the sound 
of my voice should rest assured things are not good. Our world is 
changing and has already changed drastically.
  The Earth is undergoing a shift, a manmade climate change shift. We 
don't need to travel to the polar icecaps for proof, although if we 
did, we would see that too. There is evidence all around. Talking about 
the polar icecap, think about Alaska. Millions of acres are on fire as 
we speak--not a fire as we see in the forest or the range lands of 
Nevada, where you see fire flames flip up into the sky so high it is 
hard to believe sometimes. But this is burning underground at the 
permafrost. It is awful what is happening in Alaska.
  But let's talk about Nevada. Nevada is an unusual State in many 
different ways. We have over 32 mountains more than 11,000 feet high. 
We have one mountain we share with California that is 14,000 feet high. 
We have beautiful, beautiful wilderness.
  I have had the good fortune during my time in the Senate to 
legislate. When I came here, we had about 60,000 acres of wilderness. 
We are now approaching about 4 million acres of wilderness, and it is 
beautiful, beautiful country. There are beautiful mountains, antelope, 
and mountain sheep, of course. We even have mountain goats. It is a 
beautiful, beautiful State.
  We share Lake Tahoe with California--beautiful, beautiful Lake Tahoe 
that Mark Twain said is the fairest place on all the Earth. The water 
level this summer is at a record low. Water we used to take for granted 
that would come out of the lake isn't coming out anymore.
  Snowpack in the Sierra Nevada Mountains is a fraction of normal 
levels. A few decades ago, we used to have piles of snow that were 
unbelievable, tens and tens of feet of snow every winter--no longer. In 
fact, this past March, World Cup ski cross and snowboardcross races had 
to be cancelled. Why? We had no snow--no snow at a place where we had 
the Winter Olympics in Squaw Valley--no snow. They cancelled the races.
  As I have said on the floor, because it is so traumatic as far as I 
am concerned, many of our black bears aren't even hibernating. It is 
not cold enough. This past June, a few weeks ago--Lake Mead at one time 
was the largest manmade lake in America. It isn't anymore because of 
Lake Powell, which overtook Nevada for the largest manmade lake in 
America. Lake Powell is on the road to being eliminated. It is part of 
the great Colorado River program that allows the States of California--
all the upper Colorado States--Arizona, and Nevada, to survive.
  This past June, Lake Mead water levels sunk to record lows--record 
lows. Towns that were buried with the making of the Boulder, Hoover 
Dam, we can see them again. St. Thomas is an example. An early Mormon 
settlement there was buried in the water--no longer. Now they are doing 
archeological work on what was buried under Lake Mead previously.
  Now, that is only Nevada, and that is only a touch of what is 
happening in Nevada. Wildfires are devastating our State, wiping out 
native grasses and plants, causing endangered species that need to be 
listed as threatened or going extinct because, for example, if you have 
birds survive in our sagebrush, sagebrush is burned and no longer 
exists, you get these foreign species that come in, mainly cheatgrass, 
and it is no good for anything other than more fires. That is what we 
have in Nevada, devastating wildfires.
  Around the United States, massive floods are destroying life around 
the globe. The poles are melting. By the year 2050, scientists estimate 
the sea level will rise in the world by 16 feet.
  What will that do to Florida? Of all the major cities in the world, 
with virtually no exception, they are all in coastal areas. What 
coastal city in the world is going to be hit hardest in the world by 
this climate change, the rising of the seas? Miami, FL, the State of 
Florida.
  Massive floods are destroying life around the globe. Poles are 
melting. I repeat, ocean resources are being exhausted.
  Stunningly, Republicans in Congress are ignoring changes to our 
environment that we are all witnessing. They are here. They are in 
denial. They are in what I refer to as Koch denial because, remember, 
everybody, the two Koch brothers don't want us to do anything on 
climate change. Why? No. 1, it may prevent them from making more 
billions. They are heavily invested in tar sands in Canada, and, of 
course, their original fortunes were made in oil, gas, and coal in 
America. Republicans are in denial. They are in Koch denial.
  Last month House Republicans passed legislation that would rescind 
President Obama's action addressing air pollution and climate change. 
That legislation is not going to happen over here, but that is the 
mindset of the Republicans. Not to be outdone, Republicans here in the 
Senate are trying the same thing with the Senate Interior and 
Environment appropriations bill,

[[Page 13105]]

filling it with policy riders that are dangerous to the planet, 
dangerous to America.
  Republicans all know the planet is changing--I hope they do, but they 
don't. If a Republican knows this, they are a rare Republican and I am 
still waiting for them to step forward. Republicans don't admit it is a 
problem. Where is their solution? Well, they have none. They have no 
solution because they refuse to acknowledge there is a problem.
  Let's not fool ourselves as to why Republicans reject climate change. 
I have already said why. It is the Koch challenge they all have. Every 
Presidential candidate has to be very careful. There are certain 
things, and I don't know them all because I am not in attendance at the 
meetings, but No. 1 is that the Ex-Im Bank has to stay dead. Those 
165,000 people working in America, get rid of them. It is a government 
program, get rid of it--even though, as we speak right now, 40 other 
countries have working ex-im bank programs that are taking business 
away from American exporters. My Republican friends are unwilling to 
stand up to the oil barons who bring their filthy tar sands from 
Canada.
  Republicans have offered no legislation nor have they offered a 
single idea that would protect our world from climate change. The 
closest they came was to try to be funny here on the floor when it 
snowed and they brought a snowball into the Chamber, saying: It 
couldn't be climate change; we have some snow today. Well, we did get 
some snow, but that doesn't mean we don't have climate change.
  It is shameful to turn our back on the biggest dilemma the Earth 
faces. We must come together to arrest climate change.
  I am very happy that my friend the junior Senator from Rhode Island 
is here because he is focused on all kinds of issues relating to 
climate, and he has been the driving force in recognizing that one of 
the places climate change is devastating our world is our oceans. We 
can't see that very well because the oceans are so massive, but in 
places our oceans are already dead--not dying but dead.
  So it is shameful, I repeat, to turn our backs on the biggest dilemma 
the Earth faces probably in the history of our world. We must come 
together to address climate change.
  There are solutions that involve, among other things, clean energy. 
Just a few weeks ago, a solar company announced it would build a 100-
megawatt solar farm and sell the power to Nevada's utility. The 
electricity generated by that solar farm was described by the press as 
``not only the cheapest solar--it may be the least expensive 
electricity in the entire country.'' That is what solar does now. Think 
about that. The cheapest power being built in America today is solar 
and it is inexhaustible. It doesn't have to be in the desert, where the 
Sun shines all the time; it can be used where the Sun doesn't shine all 
the time, and used well.
  Solutions to address climate change are here. They are right here. 
Nevada has seen $5 billion in development with solar and geothermal and 
a little bit of wind. Solutions to address climate change are here, and 
they are affordable and become more so every day. They have created 
thousands of jobs. And I misspoke earlier. It is $6 billion in Nevada--
not $5 billion--that has now been invested in clean energy.
  Republicans should stop denying climate change. If they want to keep 
complaining about the solutions, they should offer their own solutions. 
But there can't be a solution if they do not see a problem, so I am not 
going to hold my breath that Republicans are going to change their 
ways.
  This is the No. 1 issue facing our world. The Defense Department is 
concerned about the resources they are going to get for manpower. If 
you ask the people who run the government's military, the Chiefs of 
Staff, they will tell you they are concerned about what this means for 
the security of this Nation.
  We cannot ignore this issue any longer. It is affecting the security 
of this Nation for lots of other reasons--namely, what it does to other 
countries that puts pressure on us.
  I appreciate very much my colleagues joining in this discussion we 
are going to have today because it is a discussion we have to have 
because the world is in trouble because of the climate change.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cassidy). The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, let me take a moment to commend the 
leadership of our minority leader on this issue. He has made it a 
priority in the caucus. He has seen its effects at home in Nevada, and 
he is an outstanding voice in this area. I am very grateful to him.
  I also thank and recognize my chairman on the Environment and Public 
Works Committee, Barbara Boxer, and no one is more forceful than she on 
the need that we have to address climate change and the carbon 
pollution we are emitting that is causing this.
  Mr. President, we are here just after the 6-month anniversary of an 
interesting statement that was made by the Republican chairman of the 
energy committee, the Senator from Alaska. Six months ago--January 22, 
to be exact--she said: What I am hoping that we can do now is get 
beyond the discussion as to whether climate change is real and talk 
about what do we do.
  That was January 22 on the Senate floor, 6 months ago. What have we 
seen from the majority party in the 6 months since their energy 
chairman said that we need to get to this question, we need to concede 
climate change is real, and that we need to address what to do? We have 
seen exactly nothing--that is to say nothing but complaints: Oh, the 
President's Clean Power Plan is no good. Oh, we should have massive 
resistance to the President's Clean Power Plan. Oh, we should defund 
the EPA.
  These are the thoughts the Republican majority brings as we face this 
question.
  So it is worth looking at some of the folks who are very clear that 
climate change is a real problem. Here is one--NASA, our scientists 
from NASA. They couldn't be clearer about the importance of climate 
change and about the role of carbon pollution. How smart are NASA 
scientists? They are driving a rover around on the surface of Mars, 
folks. They just shot a spacecraft by Pluto close enough to take 
pictures of it and send back data.
  What does the Republican majority have to say about NASA's position 
on climate change? That they are in on a hoax. They basically accuse 
NASA scientists of being dishonest, even though they are the ones who 
put our country on the surface of Mars and who put an American vehicle 
close enough to Pluto to take pictures of it.
  Look at Walmart. Just a moment ago, the junior Senator from Arkansas 
was presiding. Walmart joined with a dozen other companies yesterday at 
the White House to say climate change is real. These aren't leftwing 
companies. This was Walmart. This was Alcoa. This was GM. This was 
Coke. This was Pepsi. This was UPS.
  We have to start taking this seriously. But is there anything out of 
the State of Arkansas--Walmart's home State--on climate? Nope. Not a 
single thing.
  There was recently an article in Forbes magazine titled ``Climate 
Change Will Cause Increased Flooding in Coastal Cities.'' The picture 
is a satellite picture of the State of Florida. The little caption 
under the picture says: ``Flooding from climate change is threatening 
much of the coastline, including major cities in Florida.'' Yet we have 
two Presidential candidates from Florida on the Republican side, and 
what do they have to say about climate change? Nothing--nothing other 
than ``I don't know, I am not a scientist'' and all the usual dodges.
  Pope Francis wrote an encyclical--an extraordinarily important 
article in the Catholic faith--about the reality and the effect of 
climate change. What do our Catholic Republican Senators have to say 
about that? Nothing. We are not going to listen to him; he is not a 
scientist. Well, actually, technically he is. He is a trained chemist. 
But that is the line--not a scientist.

[[Page 13106]]

  What could possibly explain these strange anomalies? The biggest 
corporation in Arkansas knows climate change is a problem, and there is 
nothing from the Senators from Arkansas. The coastline of Florida is 
under immediate threat, according to Forbes magazine, the capitalist 
tool, and the Presidential candidates from Florida can't say a single 
thing about it. The Pope is calling on us----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I ask unanimous consent for a closing minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. The last thing I will mention is that there is a 
common thread that links all of this, and it is money. The Koch 
brothers are putting hundreds of millions of dollars into this 
election. One of their organizations--one--said that it was going to 
spend $889 million in this election and that anybody who crossed them 
on climate change would be at ``a severe disadvantage.'' Nice little 
campaign you got here; I would hate to put it at a severe disadvantage 
with my $900 million. So what we have is secret money and we have 
threats related to it that are obliterating what had been a good 
Republican response on climate change and on other environmental 
issues.
  We need to move on.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I want to talk a little about the 
particulars of the Clean Power Plan and address some of the questions 
that have been raised by some of the opponents.
  I think the first premise has to be that carbon is an airborne 
pollutant; that the Clean Air Act doesn't just give the EPA the 
authority to regulate airborne pollutants, it actually requires that 
all airborne pollutants that can cause a public health risk get 
regulated. That is the basis of the Supreme Court decision. This 
doesn't give the EPA the discretion--this doesn't give the Obama 
administration the discretion to regulate carbon pollution, it requires 
that they do so. So the only question is not a legal one. The legal one 
has been settled. The EPA is required to regulate pollution under the 
Clean Air Act. The only question remaining is, Is carbon a pollutant? I 
don't think there is anybody credible in this Chamber who thinks carbon 
is not a pollutant.
  Look, I think we are actually making progress. Over the last 6 to 12 
months, we have seen a sea change among Republican Members of Congress 
who are increasingly concerned, I think, about being on the wrong side 
of history, about being on the wrong side of science, about being on 
the wrong side of a whole generation of young voters--Republican, 
Democratic, and Independent--who understands this is one of the great 
challenges of our generation. So we are seeing some movement. We are 
seeing some openness to at least concede that this problem, in fact, 
exists.
  We have this incredible law in the Clean Air Act. We don't need to 
pass a new law. Of course, Senator Whitehouse and I have been working 
very hard with Senator Boxer and others on a carbon fee, but we also 
have the tools at our disposal to regulate carbon pollution. Like 
methane and other airborne pollutants, it is causing environmental and 
health damage.
  The Clean Power Plan is very simple. It is treating this as though it 
is the pollutant that it is. Originally, I think there were some 
legitimate concerns about how this thing was going to get administered. 
I will give a ``for example.''
  If you are in a very small rural State and you are going to regulate 
not a State's total carbon emissions but an individual powerplant's 
carbon emissions, that is a very tough sell. There are instances where, 
because of legacy infrastructure, because of distance--for instance, in 
Hawaii we have remote and relatively small islands. So it is very 
difficult to ask the island of Lanai, which is running on diesel-fired 
generators, or the island of Molokai, to, at an individual powerplant 
level, reduce carbon emissions. That is tough. They can make 
improvements in efficiency, but they may not be able to meet the 
standard. So the idea is to allow all of it to aggregate.
  What Hawaii did, we have a Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative, 
recognizing that there are going to be some places that will have 
incredible challenges economically and in terms of the financing of the 
projects, incredible challenges complying at the micro level, at the 
site level, at the power generation level, but if we provide 
flexibility to States--and I know in California with the Cap-and-Trade 
Program and the Northeast with the RGGI Program, there is a flexibility 
regionally or within States of energy systems to say that as long as 
you, in the aggregate, are making sufficient progress, we are going to 
allow you to figure out how to make that progress on your own. So we 
anticipate these rules will provide sufficient flexibility to allow 
economies to thrive.
  I will make one final point on this before hearing from the great 
Senator from California; that is, all of the hue and cry, all of the 
panic, all of the heartburn about what is going to happen to our 
economy doesn't have to be an abstract question anymore. We have States 
currently exceeding the anticipated thresholds in the clean 
powerplants. So we don't have to imagine what is going to happen to 
various economies if we comply because we have States such as 
California, we have the Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative.
  Two years ago, I was on the floor talking about the Hawaii Clean 
Energy Initiative with a 40-percent renewable portfolio standard, and 
the legislature in the last 3 or 4 months just passed the first 100 
percent clean energy statute in the United States. Our unemployment 
rate is 4 percent, and we have exceeded our previous goals. California, 
with its Cap-and-Trade Program, and all the hue and cry and panic about 
what would happen to our economy--California is booming. Hawaii is 
doing well. People still have their economic challenges, but it is not 
because of our desire to drive an innovation economy and to try to 
solve this great challenge of our time.
  We can create clean energy jobs. We can innovate into the future. 
America has an incredible opportunity to lead in this space. I am so 
pleased to be part of that innovation and part of that leadership. We 
are putting our marker down as a country. We understand this is going 
to take a global effort, but now America has the credibility to lead on 
climate.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor to the great Senator from 
California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, before the Senator from Hawaii leaves the 
floor, I just want to say what a breath of fresh air he is. That is 
something we say to compliment somebody, but in this case he is 
fighting for clean air. He is fighting for his kids and his grandkids. 
It has been an honor to work with him.
  The world understands this, Americans understand this; that we are 
facing a serious threat to our Nation--dangerous climate change. We 
absolutely need to act now. The evidence is all around us.
  I will highlight, in the brief time I have, some of the facts. These 
cannot be refuted.
  The evidence of climate change is around us. NASA and NOAA found that 
2014 was the hottest year around the globe since recordkeeping began 
134 years ago. How my colleagues could come to the floor and dispute 
this--if we were to ask people do you respect NASA, I would say 
everyone from our kids to our grandmas would say, absolutely, they are 
scientists.
  The American Meteorological Association, the society, reported that 
numerous key climate change indicators were at or near record levels. 
They found 2014 was the hottest year since recordkeeping began in 
1880--2014 was the hottest year since 1880--and sea surface 
temperatures and sea levels were at record highs.
  This is the problem: When we have these kinds of record temperatures, 
they come with a cost--a cost to wildlife, a cost to human life.
  I don't have time to go into what we are beginning to see, but about 
8 years

[[Page 13107]]

ago when I did take the gavel of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee, we held a hearing. Everything that was predicted by the 
scientists is coming true--everything.
  Here is the good news. Here is the great news. My State of California 
is a true leader in this area. With the leadership of our State 
legislature, our Governor, Jerry Brown, and leading activists in our 
States, such as Tom Steyer and many others, we are seeing California 
stand up and address this issue. And what has happened? What has 
happened? All the gloom and doom: Oh, my God. If we try to move away 
from dirty energy, it is going to be terrible for everybody.
  Let me tell you the good news. According to the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics, in 2011 California had over 360,000 green jobs, the most of 
any State, and in 2014 there were more than 2,094 solar companies at 
work throughout the value chain in California, employing 54,700 people. 
Let me say there are some days in California where we get half of our 
energy from the Sun--half of our energy from the Sun.
  Here is the other thing we have to know: California households pay 
the ninth lowest electricity bills in the country. So all the doom and 
gloom, we are going to have to pay more and all the rest, is so much 
talk.
  A long time ago, when I became aware of climate change, I looked at 
it and thought: Oh, my gosh. What are we going to do? But the longer I 
looked at it and the longer I studied it, the faster I recognized that 
if we address climate change in the right way, it will be a boon to our 
economy and it will be a boon to our health because we know for sure 
that asthma and respiratory ailments and cardiovascular disease are 
threats to our families, and they will go down--the risks will go down 
because when we clean up the carbon pollution, we clean up all the 
other pollutants that go along with it.
  Just this week one of our great leaders whom I mentioned, who was the 
leader of NextGen, the president and founder Tom Steyer, said the 
following: Our country needs bold leaders who will lay out a plan to 
achieve more than 50 percent clean energy by 2030, putting us on a 
pathway to a completely clean energy economy by 2050 and millions of 
new jobs.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the fact sheet from 
NextGen Climate be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

Fact Sheet: Powering America With More Than 50 Percent Clean Energy by 
                                  2030

       NextGen Climate is calling on candidates and elected 
     officials to tackle climate change--the defining issue of our 
     time--by producing a plan to power America with more than 50 
     percent clean and carbon-free energy by 2030, putting us on a 
     pathway to 100% clean energy by 2050. The transition to clean 
     electricity is urgently needed, technologically achievable, 
     economically beneficial, and politically popular.


       CLIMATE CHANGE PUTS AMERICA'S ECONOMY AND SECURITY AT RISK

       Left unchecked, climate change will have devastating 
     effects on America's economy and security.
       The International Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) 
     conservatively estimates that, without action, 1-5% percent 
     of global mean Gross Domestic Product is at risk due to 
     climate change, and in some localized places the risks even 
     higher.
       Intensifying seasonal weather patterns, extreme weather 
     events, rising sea levels, and increased illness and disease 
     will cost the U.S. economy billions of dollars a year in 
     property damage, increased costs, and lost productivity.
       We are already feeling the effects of climate change at 
     home. From 2010 to 2014 the United States experienced nearly 
     50 climate-related disasters with costs in excess of $1 
     billion each, and in 2013 alone the United States experienced 
     $125 billion in expenses from climate-related events.
       Climate change poses a grave national security risk as 
     well. Just last year, 16 retired three- and four-star 
     generals and admirals issued a report, National Security and 
     the Accelerating Risks of Climate Change, identifying climate 
     change as a ``catalyst for conflict.'' Additionally, the 
     Pentagon's 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review laid out that 
     climate change poses a serious threat and will aggravate 
     stressors abroad.


 TRANSITIONING TO A CLEAN ENERGY ECONOMY WILL PREVENT CLIMATE DISASTER

       It is not too late to avoid the worst consequences of 
     climate change--though time is running out. The longer the 
     United States, and the global community, delay the transition 
     to a clean energy economy the larger the economic impacts 
     will be. In order to help prevent climate disaster, the 
     United States must reduce carbon emissions by 83 percent 
     economy-wide by 2050.
       A plan to power America with more than 50 percent clean and 
     carbon-free energy by 2030 will put us on the path to a 100 
     percent clean-energy economy by 2050, accomplishing the 
     necessary carbon emissions reduction from the electricity 
     sector.


    MORE THAN 50 PERCENT CLEAN ENERGY BY 2030 IS A TECHNOLOGICALLY 
                            ACHIEVABLE GOAL

       The transition to a clean energy economy is already 
     underway. Clean energy technologies like wind and solar are 
     increasingly competitive with outdated fossil fuels on cost, 
     and are growing rapidly across America and around the world:
       Installed solar capacity in the United States increased 34 
     percent between 2013 and 2014.
       The U.S. has installed over 20,000 megawatts of solar 
     enough to power more than 4 million average American homes--
     and that is expected to double in just the next two years.
       Utility scale solar has reached cost parity with coal and 
     gas in many regions and is projected to be cheaper than 
     fossil fuels throughout most of the U.S. by 2017.
       Combined with significant technological cost breakthroughs 
     of clean energy technologies and the Obama Administration's 
     historic steps to stop the unlimited dumping of carbon 
     pollution into our air and water with the Clean Power Plan, 
     the U.S. electricity sector is beginning to transform to one 
     that is cleaner, cheaper, and more reliable.
       The Energy Information Administration projects that the 
     electricity mix in 2030 will be approximately 25% coal, 31% 
     natural gas, 1% oil, 18% nuclear, 7% hydropower, 12% wind, 
     3+% solar, and 3% other renewable sources. This means that 
     with no additional policies other than expected 
     implementation of the Clean Power Plan, nearly 43% of the 
     electricity produced is projected to be clean or carbon-free 
     in 2030.
       Though the transformation to a clean energy economy is 
     already underway, and accomplishing more than 50 percent 
     clean energy by 2030 is technologically possible, 
     policymakers must do their part to push us over the top. The 
     deck is currently stacked against clean energy, as subsidies 
     and other preferential treatment prop up outdated fossil 
     fuels, stifling American innovation and slowing the growth of 
     modern renewable energy sources.
       Our country needs bold leadership that accelerates the 
     transition away from fossil fuels that cause climate change 
     and towards America's clean energy future and the economic 
     benefits it will bring. By fully implementing the Clean Power 
     Plan and pursuing other policy solutions that will allow 
     energy sources like solar and wind to compete against fossil 
     fuels on a level playing field, our leaders can ensure we 
     transition to clean energy in time to prevent climate 
     disaster.


ACHIEVING MORE THAN 50 PERCENT CLEAN ENERGY BY 2030 WILL SPUR ECONOMIC 
                         GROWTH AND CREATE JOBS

       Today, clean energy jobs are significantly outpacing fossil 
     fuels jobs. In 2014, the number of people working in solar 
     power surpassed the number of people employed as coal miners. 
     As the technology landscape continues to change, clean energy 
     has the opportunity to be a significant driver of employment 
     in every city, state, and region. These jobs include 
     installing and operating clean energy, performing energy 
     retrofits, designing and researching new technologies, and 
     operating the clean energy businesses of tomorrow.
       Solar jobs are growing 20 times faster than the broader 
     economy.
       Solar energy creates eight times more jobs in construction, 
     installation, operations, and maintenance, than coal and 
     natural gas do across full project lifetimes.
       There are more than 500 wind manufacturing facilities 
     across the U.S. and there are currently more than 70,000 
     people employed in wind-related jobs.
       In this global race for clean energy, the nation that leads 
     on clean energy technology development will have a 
     significant advantage in creating the millions of clean 
     energy jobs that are up for grabs in this new energy 
     revolution.
       The United States is on the road to a clean energy economy. 
     Technology and economics no longer limit our ability to 
     realize this new energy system. With bold political 
     leadership, we can accelerate America's transition to a clean 
     energy economy, win this global clean energy race, strengthen 
     our economy, and help mitigate potentially trillions of 
     dollars of damages from climate change.

  Mrs. BOXER. After stating their key findings, I will complete my 
presentation.
  How many more minutes do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has consumed 5\1/2\ minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent for 1 more minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page 13108]]


  Mrs. BOXER. Here is what NextGen found: Achieving more than 50 
percent clean energy by 2030 will spur economic growth and create jobs.
  I agree.
  Second, most Americans support a goal of more than 50 percent clean 
energy by 2050.
  I think the polls bear that out.
  Third, climate change puts America's economy and security at risk.
  I absolutely agree with that. We have been told that by the defense 
establishment.
  Next, transitioning to a clean energy economy will prevent climate 
disaster.
  That is true.
  Lastly, they say 50 percent clean energy by 2030 is feasible.
  Although I haven't studied this myself, I can say the Energy 
Information Administration estimates that this can happen if we take 
the kind of steps President Obama is recommending and a lot of us in 
the Senate support, putting a price on carbon that will save us from 
devastating climate change. It will provide jobs and will make us a 
healthier nation.
  As I said, I rise today to talk about one of the most serious threats 
facing our Nation--dangerous climate change. We need to act now, but 
the Republican majority in Congress has no plan to address the threat 
posed to the American people.
  The evidence of climate change is all around us. NASA and NOAA found 
that 2014 was the hottest year around the globe since recordkeeping 
began 134 years ago.
  Earlier this month, the American Meteorological Society reported that 
numerous key climate change indicators were at or near record levels 
last year. 2014 was the hottest year since recordkeeping began in 1880; 
and sea surface temperatures and sea levels were at record high levels.
  And it is continuing--NOAA reported that January through June 2015 
has been the hottest first half of any year on record.
  We must act now to address climate change by reducing dangerous 
carbon pollution from the biggest source--power plants.
  The President's Clean Power Plan will help America lead the way to 
avert the worst impacts of climate change--such as sea level rise, 
dangerous heat waves, and economic disruption.
  By reducing carbon pollution, we can also cut many types of air 
pollutants that threaten human health.
  I often say, if people can't breathe, they can't go to work or 
school. According to EPA, the powerplant proposal will avoid up to 
150,000 asthma attacks in children, 3,300 heart attacks, 6,600 
premature deaths, and 490,000 missed days at school and work in 2030.
  The Obama administration clearly gets it, and so do the American 
people. A Stanford University poll from earlier this year found that 83 
percent of Americans, including 61 percent of Republicans, say if 
nothing is done to reduce carbon pollution, climate change will be a 
problem in the future. And 74 percent of Americans say the Federal 
Government should take action to combat climate change.
  Our businesses also get it. On Monday, 13 of the largest American 
businesses gathered at the White House to launch the American Business 
Act on Climate Pledge. These companies, including California-based 
Google and Apple, pledged to take steps to address climate change.
  But climate deniers in Congress still don't get it--they have made 
repeated attempts to block the Clean Power Plan and other commonsense 
steps.
  Last year, the EPW Committee heard from four former EPA 
administrators who served under Republican Presidents, from Richard 
Nixon to George W. Bush, and they all agreed that climate change 
requires action now. This should not be a partisan issue.
  President Obama has a plan, the American people want us to act, so I 
ask my Republican colleagues, what is your plan?
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, we are at a crossroads. We have a 
catastrophe that is looming for our planet. We have the world looking 
at the United States wondering if we are going to lead. We have the 
Pope coming to the United States and speaking out on this issue. We 
have the world gathering in Paris this November, this December, 
discussing this issue because it is now the focal point of the world; 
that is, the danger of ever-escalating, dangerous climate change, the 
warming of our planet, and the catastrophic consequences of the warming 
of our planet.
  The tides are rising. Snows are melting. In other places, the snows 
are greater than they have ever been before. Climate change--dangerous 
climate change--that is what is happening.
  What is the response from the Republican side of the aisle? We hear 
nothing. We hear denial. We hear essentially an argument that it is not 
our responsibility to deal with it, but the Pope is asking us to be the 
leader. The world is asking us to be the leader. The young people in 
our country, the green generation, are asking us to be the leader.
  The United States is a technological giant. We have the capacity to 
invent the technologies that are going to radically reduce greenhouse 
gases, not only in our own country but around the world: new renewable 
energy technologies, new battery technologies, and new ways of 
generating electricity in the 21st century. We do not have to be tied 
to 19th century technologies--oil and coal. It is the 21st century.
  In our country, in 2015 and 2016, we are going to generate 40,000 new 
megawatts of wind and solar. We ask, Well, what does that translate 
into? What are 40,000 megawatts? If we think of all the nuclear 
powerplants that have been constructed in our country over the last 70 
years, we now have 100,000 megawatts of electricity coming from nuclear 
power. In these 2 years, 2015 to 2016, we are going to add 40,000 in 
wind and solar. The experts did not think this was possible 10 years 
ago. The experts would have said: Oh, wind and solar, that is nice, but 
it can't replace the coal that has always been relied upon to provide 
our electricity going back to the 19th century. Impossible, they said. 
No. This new generation is rising up. And what is doing it? Well, we 
have put tax breaks on the books now for wind and solar. We are giving 
them the same breaks we always gave oil, we always gave coal. But what 
do we hear from the Republican Party? Should we eliminate the coal and 
oil tax breaks? Oh, no. You can't touch those. But when we say, well, 
let's renew the tax breaks for wind and solar, they say it is time for 
us to now allow these new industries to go it alone. That has been the 
problem all along; there isn't a level playing field. What we have done 
over the last 7 years is create a level playing field, so the new 
energy technologies can compete against these old tax breaks for coal 
and oil that have been on the books for generations. We can do it. We 
can solve this problem, but we can't create an unlevel playing field.
  The same thing is true with automotive technologies. All of that 
CO2 coming out of automobiles, coming out of trucks, people 
said we just have to live with it. The average for vehicles that 
ordinary families drove in our country just 6 years ago was 25 miles a 
gallon, essentially the same as 1975. The green generation, the young 
people in our country, say let's do better, let's invent new 
technologies. Let's have electric cars. Let's have plug-in hybrids. 
Let's have a generation of hybrids. No, says the industry. It is too 
difficult. We can't figure it out. It will cripple our industry.
  We pass new laws here on the Senate floor and on the House floor. 
What has happened? We have a revolution in automotive technology. We 
now have people driving around in computers on wheels. The dashboard 
looks like it is a spaceship. The cars are infinitely more efficient, 
and we are heading toward 54.5 miles per gallon. What did the experts 
say 10 years ago? Impossible. We cannot do it. These are the same 
people who said to President Kennedy that we cannot put a man on the 
moon in 8 years. President Kennedy said: ``We choose to go to the moon 
. . . and do other things, not because they are

[[Page 13109]]

easy, but because they are hard.'' We are the United States of America. 
We will invent the new propulsion systems. We will invent the new 
methods. We will invent all of the things we need so that America 
dominates the Soviet Union and not the opposite.
  The whole world is looking at this generation, this Senate. We have a 
plan. President Obama has a plan to control emissions coming out of the 
powerplants of our country. Our plan is one that moves toward renewable 
energy and away from these smokestacks of CO2 going up into the 
atmosphere and creating a blanket that holds in the heat and continues 
to dangerously warm the planet. That is what the greenhouse effect is. 
It holds in the heat, all of this pollution.
  When we move toward solar, when we move toward wind, when we move 
toward geothermal, when we move toward all the new technologies, the 
CO2 is cut radically and the planet is able to breathe, and breathe in 
a way that says to generations to come that we will have left this 
planet better than it was before.
  That is what the Pope is going to come and talk to us about--
dangerous climate change. That is what the Pope is going to come and 
ask the United States--to be the leader and not the lagger, to not 
allow the deniers of climate change to dominate our debate in the 
United States of America, to not allow the technologies of the 19th 
century dictate to the 21st century.
  Just 18 years ago, a small percentage of all Americans had a wireless 
device in their pocket. Do you want to know why? The experts said it 
was impossible; you can't do it. Today everyone is walking around with 
one of these in their pocket, including 700 million people in Africa. 
We can do it.
  In Kenya and in Ethiopia, they are moving toward geothermal, solar, 
and wind. They are skipping the landline delivery of telecommunication 
service in favor of wireless, and they are also skipping the landline 
system of generational electricity and moving to renewables. They are 
not relying on coal. They are moving on to the new. You can't eliminate 
it totally. You need some coal. You need some oil. But we can continue 
to reduce it year after year.
  What is the plan we hear from the Republican Party? How do we reduce 
the amount of greenhouse gases we are going to be sending into the 
atmosphere? What is their plan? They say they don't like President 
Obama's plan. Where is their plan? What are they going to do? What are 
they going to tell the green generation--all these pages on the floor 
representing tens of millions across our country? They are asking the 
question: Where is the plan? How do we do this? How do we solve the 
problem? How do we invent the new technologies, as we did with wireless 
technology, and spread it across the planet? How do we do it for 
climate change as well? That is going to be the essential debate.
  Shruggy says: I am not happy; I am sad.
  Where is the Republican emoji? Where is the one who says: We can do 
it; we are America.
  We are not going to allow the rest of the world to have a problem 
from which the United States is going to exempt itself because it is 
the only country that is denying climate change. The Senate has a great 
responsibility. We have an opportunity to be the global leader. We can 
save all of creation while engaging in massive job creation here in 
America. We now have 100,000 clean energy jobs in Massachusetts. It is 
a big job creator. It is an employer of Americans all across our 
country.
  We have a chance to do something special. We can begin this 
transition in a much more serious way--away from coal, away from oil, 
and toward this renewable solar era of the 21st century.
  Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, man-made climate change has evolved from a 
critical threat to an unavoidable reality. The reality of climate 
change has already shown its grim effects on our environment and our 
health.
  Today, I would like to speak about the impacts of climate change on 
this country's economic engine: our businesses. As temperatures and sea 
levels rise and as weather patterns become more severe, the costs of 
doing business go up. Droughts and heat waves drive up energy costs and 
have put incredible pressure on global food production. On a warming 
planet, floods and other natural disasters damage infrastructure and 
private property, driving up insurance premiums and increasing the cost 
of doing business.
  All of this creates uncertainty for investors, who increasingly want 
to know how climate change will affect the companies in which they 
invest. American companies are beginning to notice. General Mills' 
Chief Sustainability Officer Jerry Lynch said, ``The best available 
science tells us all the changes we are making to the planet as a human 
species are what's causing this.'' Last year, General Mills announced 
its commitment to increasing sustainability and reducing greenhouse gas 
emissions in its supply chains.
  Even oil companies realize what is happening: ExxonMobil's William 
Colton, Vice President of Corporate Strategic Planning, said, ``The 
risk of climate change is clear and the risk warrants action.'' 
ExxonMobil officials subsequently announced the company would put $600 
million into algae farms that would turn sunlight into automotive fuel. 
Its new focus shows that corporations across all economic sectors are 
realizing something vital: the negative effects of climate change hurt 
their bottom line.
  This week, some of America's largest companies such as Apple, Coca-
Cola, General Motors, Goldman Sachs, Google, PepsiCo, and Walmart are 
standing with the Obama Administration to launch the ``American 
Business Act on Climate Pledge''. By signing this pledge, companies 
demonstrate an ongoing commitment to having a climate action plan. The 
ongoing shift in official corporate climate policies from a burgeoning 
number of other large and small businesses demonstrates that taking 
action on climate makes strong economic sense. If these bastions of 
capitalism can develop and commit to climate action plans, why has not 
the Republican Party devised its own action plan? Denial simply will 
not cut it.
  The involvement of American businesses in climate policy is a welcome 
development but they must move even further by disclosing the risks 
they face from climate change to investors. These risks, which are 
passed on to shareholders, hit nearly every industry imaginable, from 
obvious choices like the oil and gas sector, to healthcare and 
financial services and transportation and hospitality. Disclosing 
climate risk through the Securities & Exchange Commission's, SEC, 
corporate reporting measures enhances transparency and allows investors 
to make smarter decisions, ultimately protecting and increasing 
shareholder value.
  As we continue to deplete our scarce natural resources and send their 
harmful byproducts back into our air, water and land, the cumulative 
impacts are changing the world. The rate of this change is 
accelerating; the status quo is untenable. By providing honest climate 
risk disclosure and establishing climate action policies to mitigate 
and reduce that risk, American companies are acting in everyone's best 
financial interests.
  Profit-driven corporate superpowers like Apple, Coca-Cola, and 
Walmart are taking concrete steps to reduce the impact of climate 
change. The message they are sending is clear: adapt, or fall behind. 
Other companies now have the opportunity to join in what American 
businesses do best: innovating and leading the rest of the world by 
their example. It is increasingly obvious that taking action to combat 
climate change is economically prudent. But more important, it is also 
the morally correct thing to do. I encourage more in the business 
community to take a stand on the right side of human history.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, we are continuing to make substantial 
progress on passing a multiyear highway bill. Thanks to the 
developments

[[Page 13110]]

of the recent day--I guess it was yesterday--we learned that the House 
is open to a conference committee to reconcile an authorization bill 
that they will likely take up soon and then to have a conference 
committee to reconcile those differences. Previously we had been told 
that the House would not take up the Senate bill and was insisting on a 
short-term patch to the December timeframe. I can tell you that I, for 
one, was reluctant do that because without a clear path forward after 
December, we would be looking at perhaps not just the 34th patch but 
the 35th patch and on and on.
  What this country needs is a long-term transportation bill, and that 
is what the Senate will likely pass tomorrow--our own 3-year bill--and 
then work with our colleagues in the House, as we usually do when the 
two bodies don't necessarily agree on everything, to work those out.
  I am thankful that the Members of this Chamber recognize how 
important this legislation is. I have to tell you, coming from Texas--a 
big, fast-growing State that needs this investment in our 
infrastructure--this is important for my constituents.
  The highway legislation we are putting forward is actually a 6-year 
authorization, and that is something to be celebrated. As I mentioned, 
this avoids the sorts of temporary patches we have had in the past.
  Although Chairman Hatch of the Senate Finance Committee came up with 
enough money--enough pay-fors in the jargon we use around here--to pay 
for this for 5 years, there was an attempt to work on a bipartisan 
consensus. Since all of those pay-fors were not acceptable to this 
consensus, we got enough pay-fors to pay for the first 3 years of this 
6-year bill. But that doesn't mean the work will end on trying to find 
a way to, in a fiscally responsible way, pay for the back end of this 
6-year bill.
  There is a popular bumper sticker found on cars and trucks in Texas. 
I know people sometimes get a little tired of Texans who are so proud 
of their State, as I am. But one of those bumper stickers said: ``I 
wasn't born in Texas but I got here as fast as I could.'' Indeed, 
people have been voting with their feet, coming from parts of the 
country where, frankly, the policies--whether it is tax or regulatory 
policies--or just the lack of jobs have caused people to look elsewhere 
for jobs, for an opportunity to provide for their families and to 
pursue the American dream.
  I have mentioned time and time again on this floor that our economy 
in Texas grew at a rate of 5.2 percent last year. Compare that to the 
national growth rate, which was 2.2 percent. So something is going on 
here, and I would argue that what is going on is that the policies that 
have been emanating from Washington, DC, have actually been a restraint 
or a wet blanket on job growth and economic growth. We ought to look to 
some of the States that have been successful laboratories of democracy 
for the kinds of policies that actually pay off. I am not just talking 
about for businesses; I am talking about for workers and families, 
particularly when it comes to wages and good jobs.
  My State is a growing, diverse State. I know sometimes people are 
surprised. They know we have a large Hispanic population. Roughly 38 
percent of Texas is Hispanic. But Vietnamese is the third most commonly 
spoken language in Texas. We have about a quarter of a million 
Vietnamese Americans. We are a very diverse State. Some estimates 
project our State to exceed 50 million people by the year 2050, 
potentially doubling our current population.
  There is no time to lose when it comes to maintaining and expanding 
our transportation networks to meet the rising demands from more people 
and more vehicles on our roads. That is why this multiyear bill is so 
important.
  For example, this legislation would help our State focus on improving 
roadways that impact the daily lives of Texans. That includes many of 
our interstates, such as Interstate 35. I don't know how many people in 
this Chamber have ever tried to drive down Interstate Highway 35 
through Austin, but it is almost like a parking lot. It runs the length 
of our State, starting in Laredo, TX, which is the largest inland port 
in America, where we have a lot of trucks and a lot of commercial 
traffic coming across. It starts in Laredo, but it goes through 
multiple population centers, such as San Antonio--my hometown--Austin, 
and then Dallas and Fort Worth, which are some of the fastest growing 
cities in America, before going on to Oklahoma. The interstate is more 
than 400 miles long in Texas alone, and because of our growth, it is 
incredibly congested. In fact, 18 segments of the interstate rank in 
the top 100 most congested roadways across the State. That growth isn't 
projected to let up anytime soon. As a matter of fact, it is going to 
continue at high levels.
  Employment levels in Central Texas alone--some of the fastest growing 
parts of the State--are projected to double or quadruple in the next 30 
years.
  We are not afraid of getting bigger. We are proud of our size, our 
growth, and the opportunity that provides to the people of Texas. But 
passing a long-term, well-funded highway bill becomes even more 
important when you come from a State such as mine with the sorts of 
transportation challenges we have now and will continue to have in the 
future.
  Building a stronger transportation network for a stronger economy 
means strengthening not only Interstate Highway 35, which I mentioned a 
minute ago, but also the vast existing networks of other interstates 
and upgrading routes to higher standards. This is ultimately about 
public safety. We need to have transportation infrastructure, highways, 
and interstates that allow people to travel at relatively high speeds 
in a safe way. That is why this is important as well.
  Because we understand the relationship between quality infrastructure 
and economic success, I introduced an amendment to the highway bill 
that would help our State connect more efficiently. I appreciate the 
bill managers for letting us take a close look at this and the 
potential benefit for my State and the transportation network as a 
whole.
  This amendment will provide for much needed improvements to high 
priority corridors in Texas, such as Interstate Highway 69. Congress 
first designated future segments of I-69 in Texas nearly 25 years ago, 
after leaders from the gulf coast region and East Texas said the State 
needed a new route to increase connectivity between land and sea ports 
and our existing interstate system. Fortunately, this is also a route 
that improves emergency evacuation capabilities--something I know the 
Presiding Officer can appreciate coming from Louisiana--and one that 
delivers an interstate to the Rio Grande Valley, which is the largest 
population center in the country previously unserved by the Interstate 
Highway System.
  Through years of outreach and public engagement--from Brownsville to 
Texarkana--we have identified upgrades and improvements to existing 
State corridors that could deliver a future I-69 throughout the State. 
We have made great progress since 2010. More than $1.3 billion has been 
expended toward corridor improvements throughout Texas, and since 2011, 
more than 200 miles of I-69 have been added to the Interstate Highway 
System, including the first segment in South Texas.
  This is still a work in progress, and it costs money. Upgrades are 
needed for more than 1,000 miles of designated roadways to complete it. 
I am reminded of what the chairman of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee, Senator Inhofe, has said to me privately, which I know he 
has also said publicly as well, about the importance of infrastructure 
and the Federal Government's role. Now, I happen to be one who believes 
that the Federal Government needs to do a much better job when it comes 
to prioritizing Federal spending and spending within our means, which 
the Federal Government has not been doing. But when we talk about 
priorities and things that only the Federal Government can do that the 
States and local government cannot do, as Chairman Inhofe likes to

[[Page 13111]]

say, there are two things that the Federal Government should do, and 
that is national defense and infrastructure. He said pretty much 
everything else is a lower priority item. I think that makes a lot of 
sense.
  When it comes to spending money, that is something that my 
constituents in Texas are leery of when it comes to the Federal 
Government. They realize that spending money on our infrastructure and 
the highway system just makes common sense. So with a multiyear highway 
bill such as the one before us, we can complete our interstate, I-69, 
and that will move us one step closer to reality. As I mentioned a 
moment ago, these and other modernization efforts also make our roads 
safer and help with more efficient freight movement, which means our 
businesses can deliver goods to customers across the State and 
throughout the country in a more expeditious fashion.
  I must also point out that this bipartisan bill is fiscally 
responsible and the pay-fors are not phony pay-fors, which sometimes 
occurs here in the Congress. It doesn't increase taxes or add to the 
deficit. So from my perspective, it is a win-win.
  I encourage all of our colleagues to continue reviewing it and to 
keep in mind the essential role infrastructure plays in our country and 
in our economy. Our economy, of course, is what produces jobs, and it 
allows people to find good work and provide for their families and 
pursue their dreams.
  So far 2015 has been marked by real steps forward in this Chamber, 
including essential legislation, such as the Defense authorization bill 
and a bill that will combat human trafficking. This highway bill 
continues in the spirit of accomplishment. Perhaps it is not a grand-
slam home run, but I would call them singles and doubles that we have 
been able to eke out so far this year. This bill will represent another 
solid accomplishment for the 114th Congress that we can be proud of on 
a bipartisan basis.
  I encourage all of our colleagues to continue the momentum and to get 
this bill passed soon, hopefully no later than tomorrow.
  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. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                  Strengthening Our Economic Recovery

  Mr. CARPER. Madam President, colleagues, I want to hearken back to 
last November's election. I thought for some time--and the Presiding 
Officer has heard me say this once or twice--that for this Senator 
there are three takeaways from that election. No. 1, the American 
people want us to work together in the Senate here in Washington; the 
American people want us to get things done; and most especially, the 
American people want us to get things done that actually strengthen our 
economic recovery.
  My own view is that one of the things we can do to strengthen our 
economic recovery is to increase exports. We work very hard in this 
Chamber, in the Senate and with the House and the President, to try to 
pave the way to create a large new trading block consisting of the 
United States and 11 other countries which, when put together, comprise 
about 40 percent of the world's customers. This is the trading block we 
call the Trans-Pacific Partnership. It is something that is sought by 
the President and is supported by myself, by Democrats, and by 
Republicans, and it is still being negotiated. But it is an important 
part in growing and strengthening our economic recovery.
  One of the other related areas is how do we finance exports. One of 
the ways we have done that for years in this country is through the 
Export-Import Bank. We have reached a point where the authorization of 
the Export-Import Bank has expired. The legislation that has passed the 
Senate would renew that authorization, and my hope is that when we 
finally find our way through the transportation gauntlet, we will also 
reauthorize the Export-Import Bank to again make available financing 
for business--not for every business large and small, but for quite a 
few. Other nations with whom we compete help finance their exports, and 
for us not to do the same puts us at a competitive disadvantage.
  Another thing we can do to strengthen our economic recovery is to 
better protect our international property--research and development--
whether it is from cyber security attacks, data breaches, or whether it 
is through simply the way we combat patent trolling. Folks come up with 
ideas and they are delayed. They end up in court, and research and 
development is stymied in some cases as a result of all that.
  We have worked in the Environment and Public Works Committee for 
years now on something called the Tax Exceptions Control Act which 
provides predictability and certainty for businesses, especially in the 
chemical industry, but also at the same time works to protect our 
health as human beings, especially among the most vulnerable--the 
young, the old--and at the same time it is good for the environment. 
That legislation may be coming before us as soon as next week.
  Many of us have sought to provide some certainty for businesses on 
the tax side through international tax reform, which is an idea 
supported by the President, by the House Republican and Democratic 
leadership, and by the Finance Committee working group led by Senators 
Portman and Schumer. It is not comprehensive tax reform, but it is a 
big piece of it that at least provides some certainty and 
predictability and would also provide, frankly, a couple hundred 
billion dollars over the next 10 years to be used for roads, highways, 
bridges, transit, rail, and so forth.
  The last thing I will mention in terms of strengthening our economic 
recovery is transportation. There is an outfit called McKinsey which is 
a major consulting company. They have something called the McKinsey 
Global Institute. Not long ago they reported that if we were to make 
the kind of robust investment in infrastructure sought by the President 
and supported by House Republican and Democratic leadership, and 
supported by our bipartisan working group on the Finance Committee--if 
we were actually to do that, we would grow, according to McKinsey's 
employment estimates, by as much as 1.5 million jobs over the next 
several years. A lot of these jobs are for people who are either not 
working or are working part-time. They would like to build something or 
rebuild something, and they could work on highways, bridges, our 
transit systems, and so forth. The folks at the McKinsey Global 
Institute go even further to say that if we were to make this kind of 
robust investment in transportation at large, we would not only put a 
lot of people back to work, but we would grow our GDP by as much as 1.5 
percent. That may not sound like a lot, but I think our GDP growth in 
the first quarter was zero. We struggled through a tough winter. It has 
bounced back nicely in the second quarter, but it is still only 2.5 
percent. The idea of being able to add 1.5 percent to that would give 
us a 4-percent GDP growth, and that is as strong as we have seen in a 
while. It would translate into a lot more jobs for people other than 
just building highways, bridges, and roads in our country.
  I have been asked, why would our GDP grow so much by making these 
investments in transportation? In one of several meetings I have had 
with industry groups, someone from a company said: We move a lot of our 
products overseas in order to sell our products. We don't export by 
air, but by ship. Most of the exports leaving this country go by way of 
ship. He went on to say: We send our products to ports and we have a 
narrow window of time. In his particular case it was a timeframe of 4 
hours. The ships coming into this

[[Page 13112]]

particular port needed to pick up their goods and products within 4 
hours. He said if they met that window, they were good. If they missed 
that window, they were not good. As it turns out, there are enormous 
delays in moving not just people in this country but in moving products 
and freight.
  One of the great things about the Environment and Public Works 
Committee's 6-year transportation reauthorization legislation was a 
freight provision. I give a lot of credit to Senators Boxer and Inhofe 
for including--we were among the people who strongly recommended it--a 
strong freight provision in the Transportation bill in order to help 
grow GDP to help grow jobs.
  As it turns out, part of the reason why it is difficult to get 
anything done around here on transportation is the issue of how we are 
going to pay for all these investments, although I have referenced some 
pretty good ideas. I mentioned one. One of the reasons it is difficult 
to pass legislation through is that multiple committees have 
jurisdiction over transportation. The Environment and Public Works 
Committee in which I serve is led by Senators Inhofe and Boxer. We have 
jurisdiction over roads, highways, and bridges. That is a big piece of 
our transportation system, but it is not all of it. The Banking 
Committee has jurisdiction over transit, which is significant. The 
Commerce Committee has jurisdiction over freight rail and interstate 
passenger rail and jurisdiction over safety in a lot of instances. They 
also have jurisdiction over a fair amount of what happens in the air 
for our country. Then the Finance Committee, which I am also privileged 
to serve on--which is called the Ways and Means Committee in the 
House--is heavily involved in how to pay for all the improvements we 
need to make--and how badly we need to make them.
  As it turns out, there are some folks who actually study the amount 
of time that we are delayed either sitting in traffic or moving very 
slowly in this country. The folks at Texas A&M put out an annual report 
on congestion in our country. They found the average U.S. commuter 
wastes 38 hours every year because of traffic congestion. There is an 
industry group that has something called The Road Information Program. 
They estimate the average driver in the United States pays $377 each 
year in additional vehicle costs as a result of poor road conditions. 
The World Bank, in a related report, has found that when a road is 
allowed to deteriorate from good to poor, each dollar we fail to invest 
in road maintenance will increase vehicle operating costs by between $2 
and $3. So among the many reasons we want to make these investments is 
No. 1, to grow employment for the many folks who are actually building 
and working on these projects--a lot of people. We want to grow our 
gross domestic product. We want to reduce the amount of time spent 
sitting in traffic or traveling very slowly in traffic. The 38 hours 
wasted in congestion are hours we lose in our lives every year. Lastly, 
we want to reduce the amount of money we spend on our own vehicles.
  I know my own vehicle, my Chrysler Town and Country minivan, went 
over 400,000 miles this week as we were driving in from Delaware the 
day before last. We were coming across the Chesapeake Bay Bridge last 
week when it topped out at 400,000 miles. Along the way people have 
asked: How do you get a vehicle to go that many years and that far? I 
tell them that every other week we wash it. That is pretty much all I 
do. Well, I actually do a lot more than that. I have replaced a lot of 
tires. There are a lot of potholes, causing a lot of realignments, and 
it adds up. The average is almost $377 a year, but the money adds up 
for us as it does for other people as well.
  I mentioned earlier that the Environment and Public Works Committee 
has jurisdiction over roads, highways, and bridges. The commerce 
committee has jurisdiction over ground transportation, including 
freight rail, passenger rail, and air; the banking committee has 
jurisdiction over transit; and the Finance Committee has jurisdiction 
over finance and how we actually finance these investments. That is one 
of the reasons it is difficult to put a package together with all the 
different pieces to find common ground and to come to an agreement on 
how to fund it.
  One of the other difficulties is--and I am not a huge advocate of 
earmarks, but one of the reasons people were willing to vote year after 
year, decade after decade, for a 6-year transportation bill was because 
they could point to certain specific provisions in the Transportation 
bill which helped their congressional district or their State. It is 
more difficult now for a representative or Senator to say these are the 
specific provisions that are good for my State or my district, and this 
is one of the reasons why I am supporting this legislation. It doesn't 
mean we ought to go back to earmarks, but it is one of the reasons why 
it is harder to build a super majority to move legislation like this 
through the Senate.
  So where are we? The House has passed legislation that says for the 
next 3 months we are going to fund transportation projects in this 
country--roads, highways, bridges, and transit. They have outlined a 
couple of ways to pay for that. They do not have enough money to pay 
for projects over the next 5 months. They have authorized the actual 
construction of those projects for the next 3 months. That is their 
bill, and I think they have pretty much passed it and said, kind of, 
take it or leave it. Previously, they said they wanted to extend for 5 
months the authorization and the appropriations for roads, highways, 
bridges, and transit until sometime in December to give us time between 
now and December to come to agreement on the administration's earlier 
idea embraced by House Democratic and Republican leadership and 
embraced by the working group in the Senate Finance Committee about 
international tax reform, which some would deem repatriation.
  We passed out of here today a different plan that I do not support 
but a plan that would appear to authorize projects for a 6-year 
transportation bill. As it turns out, the money is good for maybe 3 
years, not for 6. It comes from a lot of different sources, some that I 
would deem inappropriate. Others may differ with that. It is not the 
way I think we should do business, but it is the way we have done 
business.
  We passed a bill. We have different perspectives as to what we ought 
to do. My expectation is that the Senate will agree with the House-
passed bill and we will, in the meantime, go back to the drawing board. 
One of the things that I think has value in the House-passed bill is it 
sets the stage for us to get serious about the administration's 
proposal, again embraced by the House Democratic and Republican 
leadership, and by our bipartisan working group in the Finance 
Committee. It gives us time to actually find out if we can do that.
  There are some people who don't like that idea. Some people in pretty 
powerful positions around here don't like that idea, but there are 
others in equally high positions who think that is a very good idea. 
Among the benefits that it would provide--it doesn't address our 
transportation needs forever, but it certainly would provide a lot of 
money for the next 6 years.
  Why might that be a good idea? I think ultimately--and while for 
years we have used user fees, gas taxes, diesel taxes, to fund most of 
our road construction at the national level and for our road repairs--
to be honest with you, over time, our cars, trucks, and vans have been 
more energy efficient.
  My Chrysler minivan that I mentioned earlier gets about 24 miles per 
gallon on the highway, but there are vehicles today, including 
minivans, including trucks, that do a whole lot better than that. We 
have smaller passenger cars that routinely get 40 and even 50 miles to 
the gallon. To say that the diesel tax and the gas tax are forever the 
sole solution is probably not realistic. We have some vehicles on the 
road that are pretty much all electric. They do not buy any gas. They 
do not buy any diesel fuel. When they need a refill, they pull up and 
recharge their batteries. We have some folks who buy vehicles that are 
powered by fuel cells.

[[Page 13113]]

They run on hydrogen or natural gas, methane.
  So given the changing mix in the way we move ourselves and goods and 
services around the country, that sole reliance on user fees, by a gas 
tax and diesel tax, forever is not a good idea.
  Among the other ideas that are out there is tolling. People who come 
through my State on I-95 pay a toll. A lot of them use E-ZPass. They 
can go through our State on the highway using E-ZPass so they don't 
have to sit in line and wait. Their credit card accounts get charged 
for their travel. We have a similar kind of arrangement on State Route 
1, where a lot of people come through our State from I-95 heading south 
to our beaches or to Dover Air Force Base. We have highway-speed E-
ZPass there too. So tolling is part of the future.
  Another idea that is being experimented with by the States--it is 
referred to in different ways--but I think of it as vehicle miles 
traveled. Is there a way we can actually figure out how much, in terms 
of a true user--how many miles we are actually traveling in our 
vehicles and assess some kind of fee at the Federal level or maybe at 
the State level on those who are driving cars, trucks, and vans.
  Folks in Oregon have been working on this the longest. I think they 
started this effort about 10 years ago. They call it a road user 
charge. That is another way of saying vehicle miles traveled. I think 
at the end of the day--not the end of the day but in 10, 15, 20 years, 
we will have figured out how to actually do vehicle miles traveled/road 
user charges in a cost-effective way that is protective of people's 
rights to privacy.
  The other area that I think we will do a better job in is tolling, 
moving to more things like the highway-speed E-ZPass, so people who 
want to use a particular road will pay a toll and do so in a way that 
still expedites movement of traffic as we do through highway-speed E-
ZPass. Having said that, if we are unable to come to an agreement at 
the end of this year, if we are unable to come to an agreement on some 
kind of international tax reform, the idea of using a lot of cats and 
dogs to fund transportation improvements for the next 2 or 3 years--I 
don't think that is a good outcome.
  I am not a Congress of one. If I were, I would go back and say we 
should look at--at least for the next 6 years--user fees. We have been 
using user fees or taxing gas and diesel for a long time to provide for 
most of the Federal share for these transportation construction 
projects and improvements. I think the last time we raised the Federal 
gas tax was 1993. We raised it to 18.3 cents per gallon. We raised, at 
the same time, the diesel taxes to 24.3 cents per gallon. We have not 
raised either of those for over 22 years. Since that time, the cost of 
asphalt, the cost of concrete, the cost of labor, the cost of steel 
have all gone up, but the user fees, the gas tax and diesel tax, have 
not gone up at all.
  George Voinovich--former Governor, former U.S. Senator--and I worked 
together about 5 or 6 years on the Bowles-Simpson Commission to suggest 
an increase in the gas and diesel tax by a penny every quarter, by a 
penny every 3 months, for about 15 quarters. We were roughly saying 3 
or 4 cents a year for 4 years and then index the gas tax after that to 
the rate of inflation so we did not have to come back and re-address it 
every year or every 2 or 3 or 4 years.
  That is an idea that was actually adopted in the Bowles-Simpson 
report, but much of what the Bowles-Simpson report included has not 
been enacted. One of the things I am going to be doing--and I hope 
colleagues in the House as well as in the Senate--in the next day or 
two is introducing an increase in the gas and diesel tax of 4 cents a 
year for the next 4 years--that will be 16 cents over the next 4 
years--and then indexing the gas tax and diesel tax to the rate of 
inflation.
  What would that cost the average family, the average driver in this 
country? On a weekly basis, it would be about $2, actually less than 
$2. I don't know what people pay for a cup of coffee, but I am told you 
can buy--I bought a cup of coffee today for $1.70. Some people buy it 
for less. Some people buy it for $2 or more. But for roughly a cup of 
coffee a week, we could have better roads, highways, bridges--a whole 
lot better.
  By doing that, we would raise, over the next 10 years, $180 billion, 
maybe even more, to be able to provide for our construction needs, 
roads, highways, bridges, and transit. We have the system in place. We 
know how to do it. The price of gasoline--I bought gas the other day in 
Central Delaware, in Dover. I paid $2.53 a gallon. It was down by about 
20 cents over the last month. If the Iran deal actually goes through 
and is approved, the Iranians are expected to add to a world already 
awash in oil. So the price of oil is coming down. The Iranians would 
add, I am told, about another half billion barrels of oil to the 
marketplace and probably continue to push down the price of oil.
  I ask us to keep that in mind. Some people say we will never be able 
to get the votes for an increase in the gas or diesel tax, even if it 
is phased in for 4 cents a year for 4 years. But there were six States 
last year across the country--most of them with Republican Governors 
and Republican legislatures--that did something like this. They did not 
raise the gas tax by $1 or 50 cents or even 25 cents, but they raised 
it, in some cases, over several years.
  The question is, Can State legislators or Members of the Congress 
actually vote to meet our transportation needs? Can they actually vote 
for this stuff and get reelected? As it turns out, 95 percent of the 
Republicans in these six States and State legislatures--95 percent of 
the Republican legislators who voted for these user fee increases won 
their primaries last year and they won their generals. They were 
reelected.
  Among the Democrats who voted in those six States last year to raise 
user fees, 90 percent of them won their primaries, they won the general 
election. They were reelected. For people who say you cannot vote to do 
a tough thing and still get reelected, I would just say look at those 
six States from last year. Other States are going to follow in those 
footsteps this year as well.
  So the long term--I will wrap it up at this point in time. I see 
Senator Grassley is on the floor. But long term, the worst option is to 
do nothing. The worst option is to do nothing. I have a glass of water 
here. I am going to ask the pages to bring me a couple more glasses, 
just empty glasses, if they will quickly. Senator Grassley is waiting 
to talk. Bear with me. This is show-and-tell on the Senate floor. I 
don't think this is against the rules, but if it is, maybe the 
Presiding Officer will cut me a break.
  We will say this glass of water that is sitting right here is world 
capital markets, a lot of money, trillions of dollars. Some of it is 
from sovereign nations, some of it is from trust funds, pension funds, 
and so forth. This glass is empty. This is the U.S. transportation 
trust fund. It is empty.
  When we run out of money and we don't raise taxes or revenues to fill 
it, we turn to the general fund. We say let's take money out of the 
general fund and put some of it into the transportation trust fund. 
This glass is empty too. Our debt is down, our deficit is down--our 
debt is not down--our deficit is down, but we still are running a big 
deficit. There is no money in the general fund to refill the 
transportation trust fund these days.
  So what we do is we go out into the world capital markets--here, 
where there is a lot of money--and we borrow. We sell Treasury 
securities. So as it turns out, one of the best buyers for those 
Treasury securities is China. So we ask China: How about buying some of 
our Treasury securities? They do. Then when the Chinese turn around and 
start pushing around the Vietnamese or the Filipinos in the South China 
Sea, around the Spratly Islands and places I used to fly as a naval 
flight officer years ago--when the Chinese--and I don't think they are 
doing this so much anymore, but they manipulate their currency.
  When the Chinese are trying to maybe dump some of their products in 
this country illegally and we say you can't do that, China, you can't 
do that, for the Chinese, it is very easy to say I

[[Page 13114]]

thought you wanted to borrow money, and it puts us in a very awkward 
position as a nation.
  If things are worth having, they are worth paying for. I don't think 
the pay-fors that were used in the--not the 6-year authorization bill 
that passed here--the Transportation bill is really a 3-year. I don't 
think the idea of taking money away from Customs fees and different 
other sources to use for purposes for which it was never intended--for 
transportation purposes--I don't think that is the way to do this.
  The good news is this: The House is in one place, the Senate is in 
another. We have several months to figure this out. I hope we use these 
several months to drill down real hard on the idea of international tax 
reform, the deemed repatriation, which will provide hundreds of 
millions of dollars for transportation over the next 6 years. If that 
does not work, I want us to look at some other alternatives. The worst 
alternative is to get to December and say: Well, let's just borrow some 
more money or let's come up with some cats and dogs and patch this and 
kick the can down the road again.
  So I am going to work very hard as a member of the Finance Committee 
on the international tax reform piece. I know Senator Grassley, if I am 
not mistaken, is the senior Republican on the Finance Committee and 
somebody who is a key participant in trying to find common ground. He 
is good at that. I look forward to working with him on that.
  I will close with this. To me, the message from the American people 
in the elections from last November was threefold: People want us to 
work together. They want us to get important things done, and among the 
most important is to further strengthen an already strengthening 
economy. A big piece of that can be transportation. The American people 
expect us to make tough decisions. This is a tough negotiation, but it 
is one we have to have. We have to have a good outcome in the end.
  With that, I thank my friend from Iowa for his patience.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.


                            False Claims Act

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I often come to the floor to honor 
whistleblowers but more importantly to talk about their very important 
role in making government function.
  On July 30, 1778, the Continental Congress passed the very first 
whistleblower law in the United States. It read:

       [I]t is the duty of all persons in the service of the 
     United States . . . to give the earliest information to 
     Congress or other proper authority of any misconduct, frauds 
     or misdemeanors committed by any officers or persons in the 
     service of these states, which may come to their knowledge.

  Probably for the last 6, 7 years, I have been referring to this 
around the time of July 30.
  Going back to 1778, we have had recognition of the important role 
whistleblowers can play in making sure government is responsible. 
Whistleblowers have always been crucial in helping Congress and the 
Federal Government root out fraud and misconduct.
  It is simple common sense to reward and protect whistleblowers who 
report waste of taxpayers' money, fraudulent use of taxpayers' money, 
and outright simple abuse. The False Claims Act does that. In fiscal 
year 2014 alone, the Federal Government recovered nearly $6 billion 
under the False Claims Act. That makes more than $22 billion since 
January 2009 and more than $42 billion since I got the legislation 
passed in 1986. These recoveries represent victories across a wide 
array of industries and government programs. Those programs include 
mortgage insurance, Federal student aid, Medicare and Medicaid, as well 
as defense contracts.
  The Department of Justice credits whistleblowers for their important 
role in the success, for the money that has come back to the Federal 
Treasury, and for the carrying out of the False Claims Act. According 
to the Justice Department, whistleblowers accounted for $3 billion in 
recoveries under that act in just fiscal year 2014. In fact, over 80 
percent of False Claims Act cases are initiated by whistleblowers.
  Clearly, the False Claims Act is working very well. Of course, the 
act has no shortage of critics--typically in the groups where you find 
perpetrators of fraud. But we have learned our lesson that a weak False 
Claims Act is not in the taxpayers' best interests.
  In 1943, Congress bowed to the pressure to undo the act's crucial qui 
tam provisions. Amendments passed in that era of World War II barred 
actions where the government already had knowledge of fraud. The result 
was to block nearly all private actions. Congress assumed--and now we 
can say assumed wrongly--that the Justice Department could do a good 
job prosecuting fraud all by itself. As I said, they were wrong. 
Between 1943 and 1986, when the False Claims Act was amended, fraud 
against the government skyrocketed. Most of those accused went 
unpunished.
  A 1981 report by the Government Accountability Office said:

       For those who are caught committing fraud, the chances of 
     being prosecuted and eventually going to jail are slim. . . . 
     The sad truth is that crime against the Government often does 
     pay.

  So in 1986 I coauthored much needed amendments to the False Claims 
Act. The 1986 amendments once again gave citizens the ability to help 
the government go after fraud in a meaningful way. For example, the 
amendments provided protection for whistleblowers and eliminated the 
impossible government knowledge bar. Essentially, a relator's suit was 
only barred where the fraud had been publicly disclosed. The amendments 
also clarified that the act covers false claims made not just directly 
to a government agency; it also covers fraud against grantees, States, 
and other recipients of Federal funds, whether or not the fund 
obligation is fixed.
  These provisions and others were intended to give the False Claims 
Act teeth again, and they did. However, as happens with a lot of 
legislation Congress passes, the courts chipped away at the heart of 
the False Claims Act and ignored the intent of Congress. The assault on 
the act came to a head in the Supreme Court's erroneous opinions in the 
well-known cases of Allison Engine and Totten. The Court held that the 
act required proof of intent that the government itself pay a claim and 
that a claim is presented directly to the government.
  The problem with that logic is it creates a loophole big enough to 
drive a truck through. A third party paid with government money would 
get away with fraud because a contractor, not the government agency, 
paid the claim. So in 2009 we passed the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery 
Act and made very clear that was not consistent with the original 
intent of the 1986 False Claims Act. The act reaches false claims for 
government money or property, whether or not the wrongdoer deals 
directly with the Federal Government. It was never the intent of 
Congress to give a free pass to subcontractors or other parties 
receiving government funds. In fact, those folks are some of the 
biggest perpetrators of fraud today.
  The inspector general for the Department of Health and Human Services 
has reported a 134-percent increase in complaints against Medicare Part 
D in just the last 5 years. By not stopping fraud against programs such 
as Medicare Part D, the government is hemorrhaging funds. Taxpayer 
money is taxpayer money. Fraud does not magically become OK just 
because a third party is involved.
  Of course, the issue of presentment to government officials is not 
the only sticking point. There has been pushback in courts and from 
lobbyists about all sorts of issues, such as the ``public disclosure 
bar,'' settlement practices, and award shares for relators. Through it 
all, Congress has had to stay vigilant in keeping courts and Federal 
agencies generally true to our original legislative intent.
  As an example, just recently the Justice Department tried to minimize 
a relator award in a Medicare and Medicaid fraud case. The relator 
contributed significantly to the case. The judge recognized that 
Congress intended that ``the only measuring stick'' for an award is 
``the contribution of the relator.'' Those are the

[[Page 13115]]

words the judge use, and that judge was right.
  Congress intended to empower, to protect, and to reward relators who 
identify fraud against the taxpayers. History teaches us that weakening 
the relator's rights weakens the government's ability to fight fraud. 
All that does is let wrongdoers off the hook, and it costs the 
taxpayers money. That is not the result we intended with the False 
Claims Act. And the Continental Congress, which was so concerned about 
identifying misconduct, fraud, and misdemeanors, would not have wanted 
those results I just talked about.
  I want to remind my colleagues to stand strong for the effective tool 
that we have to combat fraud.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. ENZI. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      50th Anniversary of Medicare

  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I remind my colleagues that tomorrow 
marks the 50th anniversary of President Johnson traveling to 
Independence, MO, to be with President Truman, who in the 1940s had 
attempted to push through Congress legislation to expand the Social 
Security Act to include what we now call Medicare. When President 
Johnson went to Independence, MO, he signed the legislation.
  The one we pay the most attention to is Medicare, which is health 
care for the elderly, but probably equally important and certainly very 
significant is the creation of Medicaid. Medicaid came out of several 
years of congressional debate where Congress understood that low-income 
people--especially low-income people who were working--didn't have 
insurance. It was for people who were poor, people in nursing homes, 
and it evolved for elderly people. Most of the money in Medicaid goes 
to take care of the elderly in nursing homes, and it has had such an 
impact on their lives.
  But think about what Medicare has done. Prior to 1965, this social 
insurance program--this program we call Medicare today--provided health 
care to almost every senior. Prior to 1965, only about half of the 
senior citizens in the United States of America had health insurance--
only about half. Huge numbers of the elderly lived in poverty. They 
lived in poverty partly because for a whole host of reasons they 
couldn't save enough and Social Security wasn't quite enough. Many 
lived in poverty because of their health care costs. They would go to 
the doctor and have to pay out of pocket. They barely could afford that 
and sometimes couldn't afford that.
  So what Medicare does is it provides 50 million seniors today with 
health insurance. It wasn't easy. A majority of Republicans in the 
House and the Senate opposed the creation of Medicare. The John Birch 
Society--we know it today as the tea party--the John Birch Society in 
those days opposed the creation of Medicare. Insurance interests and 
the medical interests opposed Medicare. It was a huge struggle. As I 
said, a majority of Republicans voted against the creation of Medicare. 
Just like the Affordable Care Act--Republicans didn't like the 
Affordable Care Act and don't like the Affordable Care Act today. 
Republicans didn't like Medicare a generation and a half ago and 
opposed it. Bob Dole--then Congressman Dole, later Senator Dole, later 
Presidential candidate, Republican nominee Dole--bragged about opposing 
Medicare, saying it wouldn't work. He bragged about that for a couple 
of decades after it took effect. But we know social insurance works.
  What is social insurance? Social insurance is where everybody pays 
into something. Whether it is Social Security, whether it is 
unemployment insurance, whether it is Medicare, people pay into a 
government program of some kind, and then when they need it, they get 
assistance. You pay into Social Security. If you become disabled, you 
get a benefit. Once you retire, you get a benefit. You paid into it. It 
is called social insurance.
  You pay into Medicare all your working life, but when you turn 65, 
you receive a Medicare benefit. You get health insurance; you get 
hospitalization; you get a doctor's benefit.
  You pay into unemployment insurance, which is another kind of social 
insurance. When you get laid off, you get assistance so you can 
continue to feed your family and go on with not as good a lifestyle but 
at least you will have enough to get along. That is why social 
insurance matters.
  What is troubling about all of this is there are still people in this 
country--particularly conservative Republicans--who just don't like 
social insurance. They don't like Social Security. They don't like 
unemployment insurance. They don't like Medicare. They will tell you 
they do. Very few politicians running for office say they don't like 
Medicare. But we know that because if, in fact, they get elected, we 
know what they do when they are in office. They try to privatize Social 
Security, as President Bush did. They try to voucherize Medicare, as 
the Republican Vice Presidential nominee in 2012, Paul Ryan, tried to 
do. And we know what so many Republicans--conservatives, the most 
conservative Republicans--thought about unemployment insurance when 
they tried to cut it back, when they tried to weaken it, and when they 
tried to undercut it.
  So while government isn't close to solving all of our problems, 
social insurance sets a safety net that protects the public. It 
protects you in your old age with Medicare. It protects you if you are 
disabled with Social Security. It protects you if you are laid off with 
unemployment insurance.
  That is why, when people hear my colleagues--particularly, again, the 
most conservative Republicans, who have never supported these 
programs--go after these programs, understand what privatization means 
and understand what vouchers mean. It means shifting costs of health 
care to seniors instead of this program taking care of those seniors. 
It means privatizing Social Security.
  In my State of Ohio, half of the senior citizens rely on Social 
Security for more than half of their income. So think what would have 
happened if a decade and a half ago President Bush had actually been 
successful in trying to turn Social Security over to Wall Street, which 
is what he wanted to do. If he had been successful in turning Social 
Security over to Wall Street, think what would have happened to 
people's Social Security checks in 2007, in 2008, in 2009, in 2010, and 
in 2011, when the bottom fell out of Wall Street and our financial 
systems. That is why these social systems are so important.
  That is why tomorrow, when we commemorate the 50th anniversary of 
President Johnson traveling to Independence, MO, to the home of 
President Truman and his signing the Medicare bill, and how much it has 
meant to generation after generation--my parents, my grandparents, and 
the parents and grandparents of so many of us in this body and in the 
gallery--that matters so much to us.
  So I wanted to stop by the floor to say happy birthday to Medicare--
happy 50th birthday. We want to see another 50 years where Medicare 
makes a huge difference in the lives of so many Americans.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tillis). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the multiyear 
surface transportation bill before the Senate. The current 
authorization is set to expire this Friday when the highway trust fund 
will be depleted to levels that can no longer fully reimburse States 
for construction that has already been completed. Unfortunately, it 
looks as though we are going to have yet another short-term extension, 
rather

[[Page 13116]]

than immediately enacting a longer term bill, as the House of 
Representatives is preparing to send the Senate a 3-month extension.
  This is a critical time of year for many States, particularly for my 
home State of Maine, where peak construction work occurs during a very 
short construction season. It would be irresponsible for Congress not 
to pass a bipartisan bill this week and keep those projects moving 
forward.
  I hope this fall we will finally be able to come together with our 
colleagues in the House to send to the President a multiyear surface 
transportation bill.
  The State of Maine currently receives $170 million of Federal highway 
funds annually, and the Maine Department of Transportation needs and 
obligates every single dollar. Under the multiyear bill before the 
Senate, Maine would do even better and would receive nearly $190 
million the first year, increasing to nearly $215 million. The 
legislation before us also prioritizes bridge reconstruction and 
safety. This funding is critical, as 364 of Maine's bridges have been 
rated as structurally deficient.
  The commissioner of Maine's Department of Transportation tells me 
that if the highway trust fund is not fixed by July 31, the department 
will have to stop construction projects midstream within weeks. This 
would be devastating for the State's economy, for the people employed 
in these well-paying construction jobs, and for the transportation 
infrastructure in desperate need of repair and rehabilitation.
  The lack of consistent multiyear funding for the highway trust fund 
makes it so difficult for States to plan, causes construction companies 
to delay hiring workers, and costs the government more in the long run 
due to the uncertainty of funding. According to the American 
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, the States 
of Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee, Utah, and Wyoming are among those that 
have already postponed bidding on major transportation projects due to 
the uncertainty of Federal funding.
  While I feel I have no choice but to support a short-term patch to 
prevent the highway trust fund from expiring later this week, this 
short-term approach is not the answer. It needs to stop being the norm. 
It epitomizes Congress's failure to govern sensibly--to govern in a 
cost-effective way, to govern in a way that allows for the creation of 
good jobs in this country, and the renovation, repair, and 
rehabilitation of our vital transportation system.
  We in the Senate have the opportunity to pass a multiyear surface 
transportation bill that reauthorizes our highways, transit, rail, and 
safety programs, while keeping the highway trust fund solvent for the 
next 3 years. This legislation gives State departments of 
transportation the certainty they need to continue planning, investing, 
and constructing thousands of highway and infrastructure projects that 
the entire Nation relies upon. These investments create jobs, boost our 
Nation's economy, and keep us competitive in the global marketplace.
  The legislation maintains the Federal-aid highway formula program 
structure. This funding is not only crucial for building new highways 
and bridges but also to maintain and repair our Nation's crumbling 
infrastructure, including, as I mentioned, the thousands of deficient 
bridges across the Nation.
  With the consideration of this important bill, we are one step 
further to responsible investments, steady investments in 
infrastructure that millions of Americans count on every day. That is 
why I am so disappointed that instead we will do yet another short-term 
patch. We need to get away from that method of funding the highway 
trust fund.
  I also wish to highlight today the importance of the national 
infrastructure investment grants, otherwise known as the TIGER program. 
While this program was not included in the underlying bill, Senators 
Murray, Reed, and I have filed an amendment, along with Senators 
Cochran, Shelby, and others, that would authorize this highly 
successful TIGER grant program. This program has been such an effective 
initiative. It has helped to advance critical transportation 
infrastructure projects across our great country. It is one of the most 
flexible transportation programs in which State and local authorities 
can apply for funding. Every Senator here has seen firsthand how TIGER 
projects create good jobs and support economic growth in our home 
States. The program has supported highway, bridge, port, rail, and 
transit projects from this highly competitive program.
  In fact, let me give my colleagues some idea of the demand for the 
TIGER grants. To date, the TIGER program has received a total of $4.6 
billion through appropriations from fiscal year 2009 through 2015, 
awarding 342 projects in all 50 States. Here is how many applications 
were submitted. Remember that 342 projects were actually funded. There 
were 6,700 applications that were received by the Department, totaling 
nearly $134 billion in funding requests. So my colleagues can see that 
the pent-up demand is just enormous. This demonstrates how 
oversubscribed the TIGER program is and how much it is needed by our 
State and local governments. I have received numerous letters of 
support for our amendment, some of which include Transportation for 
America and more than 150 elected officials, State departments of 
transportation, metropolitan planning organizations, and chambers of 
commerce. You name it; they have endorsed our amendment to authorize 
this important program.
  This is just one of the many ways my colleagues and I would like to 
work to improve this bipartisan bill. Our TIGER grant amendment is 
widely supported on both sides of the aisle, and I believe it would 
pass were we able to get a vote.
  It has been a privilege to work very closely with my colleagues, 
Senator Murray and Senator Reed, both of whom I have worked with on the 
transportation-HUD subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee, as 
well as Republicans such as Senator Cochran and Senator Shelby at the 
full committee level on this program. But, most of all, it is important 
that we act and act quickly to pass a multiyear surface transportation 
bill that will create jobs and on which our country can depend.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Boozman).
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am delighted to join the Senator from 
Maine on the floor today to speak about this critical infrastructure 
program called TIGER. She and I have worked together for many years on 
transportation infrastructure, and I so appreciate her leadership and 
her tremendous enthusiasm in making sure that our country does the 
right thing. It is a delight to be here today with her, as well as with 
my colleague from Rhode Island, who is now the ranking member on the 
transportation appropriations subcommittee. I thank them both for 
coming to the floor to speak about a program that we created several 
years ago and that has been so effective.
  We all know that investing in our Nation's infrastructure is a 
critical part of broad-based and long-term economic growth. As we can 
see today, this is not a partisan issue. Democrats and Republicans 
agree that infrastructure investments get workers back on the job, help 
our economy grow in communities across this country, and make sure our 
transportation systems work in a 21st century economy. That is why I am 
so proud to be a strong supporter of this bipartisan amendment that we 
are offering today. It has 29 cosponsors from both sides of the aisle. 
What it does is it continues the popular competitive grant program 
known as TIGER.
  TIGER grants have made an impact in every corner of this country, and 
they represent exactly the type of investment our country should be 
making--addressing our Nation's short-term and long-term transportation 
issues while creating good-paying

[[Page 13117]]

jobs--American jobs, I would add--and working to grow our economy from 
the middle out, not just the top down.
  We have all seen firsthand the difference the TIGER program can make 
in our States. So that is why I fought, along with my colleagues, to 
get this amendment included in the final Transportation bill.
  Since its creation, TIGER has awarded $4.1 billion directly to 
communities to support more than 340 innovative, multimodal projects in 
every State. For example, TIGER grants are increasing the flow of 
commerce and trade between Maine and New Hampshire because of 
improvements to the Memorial Bridge. In New Mexico, TIGER grants are 
being used to make critical safety improvements to a major trucking 
route where the fatality rate has been more than three times the State 
average. In my home State of Washington, $204 million has gone to 13 
critical infrastructure projects across my State, from Seattle to 
Spokane to Vancouver.
  Demand for TIGER funding is intense. Applications always exceed the 
amount of funding available, sometimes by as much as 20 to 1. It is 
clear that we can and should be doing so much more to help communities 
carry out these projects that make our transportation system safer and 
more efficient.
  Though we hit some unfortunate and unnecessary barriers in passing 
the TIGER amendment, I know that Senator Collins and Senator Reed are 
going to continue fighting along with me to support this critical 
program. I hope more of our colleagues will join with us in boosting 
regional economies and in improving our Nation's infrastructure, 
because this type of program is so important to our States and our 
local agencies as they work to tackle the complex transportation needs 
of our communities.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, let me begin by commending Senator Collins 
and Senator Murray for their extraordinary leadership on this TIGER 
program in particular but in so many different aspects, particularly 
with respect to transportation policy. They have done an extraordinary 
job, and today is no exception. I am delighted to be able to join them 
on their amendment to increase resources for TIGER grants.
  I am disappointed, as are my colleagues, that this is merely, in some 
respects, a discussion amendment--we can't bring it up for a vote--
because I think this is an effort, as Senator Collins pointed out, that 
would be supported strongly by both sides of the aisle.
  Since 2009, the TIGER program has helped State and local governments 
make critical investments in their infrastructure all across this 
country. In many respects, it is the final piece of a puzzle of how we 
get needed, necessary infrastructure in place. It has been that 
catalyst that has brought private funds and State funds and local funds 
together to accomplish something that makes sense to our economy and to 
the efficiency and productivity of our States.
  TIGER is able to leverage additional resources. It is a program that 
has been wildly popular to construct roads and bridges, public transit, 
ports, and passenger and freight railroads. It is very flexible. Its 
flexibility, its adaptability, and its ability to coalesce other 
resources has been remarkable. As a result, it has been extraordinarily 
popular.
  Through the TIGER program, the U.S. Department of Transportation has 
supported more than 340 different projects in all 50 States and in the 
District of Columbia. These projects have improved safety, they have 
connected workers to jobs, and they have supported economic 
development. By the way, they put people to work right away in an 
economy that needs people to be working right now.
  As Senator Collins pointed out, the demand has far outstripped the 
resources: 6,700 applications for the roughly 300 grants. We can do 
more. The appetite is there, the need is there, and the competitive 
process ensures that these needed resources are targeted to 
extraordinarily important programs. So for many of these reasons this 
is one of those programs that is just win-win-win. Unfortunately, we 
cannot bring it forward on this legislation. This funding is absolutely 
necessary.
  I have seen in my home State of Rhode Island that without the TIGER 
grant we would not have been able to jump-start a project which is the 
Interstate 95 viaduct. It sounds interesting, but it is actually 
critical. It is the center of I-95 in Providence, RI, which is the 
major north-south highway in New England. If this viaduct project could 
not be funded, then essentially there would be a roadblock on I-95. 
TIGER has helped this project move forward. We have to do more, but it 
has helped to move this project forward.
  It has helped ports in Providence and at Quonset Point. All of these 
are so necessary because they improve our economic competitiveness 
globally, regionally, nationally; they put people to work, and they 
prepare us for much more complicated issues in the world economy. As I 
said before, we are all disappointed that because of this process we 
can't have a debate and have a vote. We are also disappointed because 
we bypassed in this process the committees that typically do these 
things--the Banking Committee for transit, the Finance Committee for 
the pay-fors for this legislation. Again, I am disappointed we could 
not have done it the old fashioned way, through the committees and 
bring it to the floor. If we had that approach, we could have improved 
the offsets that we are using to pay for these programs. We could have 
considered amendments like this. We could have done a lot of things.
  Now we all have additional amendments that we are filing, but we 
won't be able to take them up. I have got one in terms of pay-fors that 
would produce $55 billion over 10 years--robust funding for a score of 
highway programs--and it is by capping the deduction of publicly traded 
corporations for employee salaries over $1 million. I think most 
Americans would say if someone is getting over $1 million we shouldn't 
be subsidizing that with tax reimbursement. They very well may be worth 
that money, but that is a judgment the corporation should make, and if 
they think it is worthwhile, they are the ones who should put the money 
up, not with a subsidy from the tax code. That is just an example of 
some of the ways we could generate real resources.
  Again, let me say how strongly I support this amendment, how much we 
really owe the determination, the vision, and the thoughtfulness of 
Senator Collins and Senator Murray. I must also thank Senator Inhofe 
and Senator Boxer for their work on getting us at least this far. We 
have got to go further, but they have got us at least this far.
  It looks as if, given that the House is leaving, this bill will not 
be enacted this week. Certainly, we have got a template which I hope we 
can improve on as we spend the few months' extension that will be the 
ultimate result of this week. In that time I think one of the measures 
that will be improved is the TIGER program and other things that we can 
and must do.
  Let me conclude where I began and thank very sincerely Senator 
Collins and Senator Murray.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I will yield 5 minutes to Senator Leahy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
California. I am sure I won't take that long.


                           Planned Parenthood

  Mr. President, I will speak further on the efforts to defund health 
services for women later on, but I am concerned about those Senators 
who are attacking women's health with a renewed effort to eliminate 
health centers that thousands of Vermonters rely on every day. Across 
the country we have millions of low-income women who depend on Planned 
Parenthood health centers

[[Page 13118]]

for lifesaving preventive treatments and care, including annual exams, 
cervical and breast cancer screenings, and HIV screenings and 
counseling. These clinics are the primary source of health services for 
many women. Eliminating Federal funding for Planned Parenthood health 
centers would deny women access to these critical services. They will 
force women to find medical care elsewhere or, more devastatingly--or 
more probable--to simply go without.
  The partisan bill that was introduced yesterday in the Senate is the 
latest attempt to score political points. It is bumper sticker politics 
at its worst. Needlessly jeopardizing the health care of millions of 
Americans who depend on these preventive care services is a bid to 
rally a base that is as irresponsible as it is offensive to this 
Senator. I know women in Vermont who tell me they go for their health 
care, their cancer screening, to the Planned Parenthood centers because 
they feel they have people they feel comfortable with. They can bring 
their daughters, their children there. They know they are going to be 
cared for. They know people will care for them. They don't care whether 
they are Republicans or Democrats, they are women who need health care, 
and I will strongly oppose the effort that is going to be before us in 
this body to cut off health care for women.
  I yield the floor, and I thank the Senator from California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Scott). The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont, the 
ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, for his remarks. I agree 
with him, and I will be speaking later on today on the same topic.
  I want to go back to speaking about the Transportation bill. I want 
to thank my colleagues for the strong show of support we had on this 
bill. We had 65 colleagues voting to end debate and get to a vote. We 
do expect a good vote tomorrow, but I have to say that the reaction of 
the House Speaker took me aback. Remember that the bill we passed was 
totally bipartisan, with a majority of Democrats and a strong majority 
of Republicans. Senators Inhofe, McConnell, Boxer, Durbin, and a host 
of others worked very hard on this bill. Why would the Speaker of the 
House be so negative about it? As a matter of fact, his comments that 
were reported in the Politico online version today were such that I 
can't repeat what was said on the floor of the Senate because I would 
be breaking the rules. I will leave it up to everybody to see exactly 
what he said about our bipartisan bill. Actually, the name on the bill 
is that of the Republican leader of the U.S. Senate. Yet the Speaker of 
the House demeans our bill.
  I want to be clear that I defend freedom of speech and I defend the 
right of Speaker Boehner to say whatever he wants; therefore, I can say 
whatever I want. What I would like to ask is why on Earth would you 
oppose a bill that is so bipartisan, that received 65 votes, and that 
the Republican leader has put his name to? Why would you do that?
  Another question is this--and I put up this chart. Where is the House 
bill? One could argue that you don't like our bill. Where is your bill? 
What have you done? Where have they been?
  We have known about this transportation crisis for a long, long time. 
The Presiding Officer and I have worked hard together on getting a 
strong bill, even though we disagree on so many things. The bill was 
voted out of the Environment and Public Works Committee 20 to 0. Yet 
the Republican Speaker of the House condemns the bill. Where is the 
House bill?
  We are about to pass the third extension since the last 
Transportation bill expired in 2014. There have been dozens and dozens 
of extensions--more than 30. We know that when the highway trust fund 
is extended for just a couple of months at a time--and Senator Inhofe 
has taught me this because I was not aware--it is administratively very 
expensive to do, and on the ground what is happening is States are 
shutting down their projects.
  Let's look at the seven States that have essentially canceled or 
delayed projects because there has been inaction. Arkansas has canceled 
or delayed highway projects, as well as Delaware, Georgia, Montana, 
Tennessee, Utah, and Wyoming. Why have these States done this? Because 
they are concerned that we don't have a long-term highway bill. That is 
why we are so excited about the bill that looks like it is on its way 
to passage because it is a 6-year authorization with a full 3 years of 
funding. Again, I ask the Speaker rhetorically what is it about the 
bill that he doesn't like?
  Let's go to the highlights of the bipartisan Senate bill. I will 
discuss them. I would put up the chart which asks ``Where is the House 
bill?'' because that is the common question I want to ask today. It is 
easy to throw darts at someone else and say I don't like what you did. 
What you did wasn't good enough. Where is your answer? They have 
nothing--nothing but another paltry extension. Why did they do that? 
Either they don't have an idea in the world as to how to proceed or 
they want to go on a 5\1/2\-week break.
  The American people--most of us--work. I ask rhetorically: How many 
people in America who hold down a job get a 5\1/2\-week break, which is 
called the August break, which begins in July, and they get that break 
without taking care of pressing business? I think your boss would say: 
You know what. You have a lot of problems here, so stay another couple 
of days. Oh, no, they want to get out of town. They originally were 
going to get out of town tomorrow. My understanding is they are trying 
to get out today. That gives them a 5\1/2\-week break without taking 
care of business.
  I think anybody who is watching this who really cares about the 
highway trust fund, transportation, and bridges collapsing--let's look 
at this one that happened in California. This is a frightening view of 
a bridge that collapsed. We were so lucky. We thank God that nobody was 
killed. California now has a bridge that has collapsed, and people have 
to go 400 miles out of their way to go from California to Arizona or 
Arizona to California. We are hoping to fix it with emergency funds, 
but we can't rebuild the part that fell that quickly. We need a long-
term bill.
  I say to the Speaker: Don't go home. I say to the majority whip over 
there, my friend from California: Don't go home. Stay and do your job. 
The American people are not going to think very highly of you if you 
leave with this highway trust fund going broke on Friday.
  The Senate has passed a bill. It is a good bill. The Speaker has used 
some words I cannot use on the floor to describe it.
  I want to ask the Speaker what it is that he doesn't like. What is it 
that he doesn't like? Is it the $55 billion a year for 6 years, the 
first 3 years being fully paid for with every State getting more 
funding, including his State, for highways and transit? Does he not 
like that? Does he think we shouldn't spend funding on fixing up our 
bridges, roads, and highways? Does he not like the two new programs--
the freight program, which would provide funds for States to improve 
the movement of goods? Does he not like the assistance for major 
projects, a program which is going to help our States when they know 
there is a real problem in their community and they want to build a 
project?
  Does the Speaker not like the fact that we have tripled safety fines 
so when a Takata airbag problem happens the companies have to step up? 
Does he not like the fact that there is a new law in there that says 
consumers should be protected from renting a car that is under recall? 
We stopped that. Does he not like the first-ever commuter rail fund for 
positive train control, where we can actually help our computer 
railways put in positive train control so we will not have those 
tragedies that happened?
  Why doesn't he like this bill? It has a long list of supporters. 
Let's look at the supporters. I guarantee you it is rare that you see 
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce agreeing with the International Union of 
Operating Engineers. It is rare that the Laborers' International Union 
of North America agrees with the AAA, which agrees with the Conference 
of Mayors, which agrees with the United Brotherhood of

[[Page 13119]]

Carpenters, which agrees with the Association of State Highway and 
Transit Officials, which agrees with the Mothers Against Drunk Driving, 
which agrees with the American Council of Engineering Companies. It 
goes on. It goes on. It is rare to see it. The American Highway Users 
Alliance, the American Public Transportation Association, the American 
Road & Transportation Builders, the Society of Civil Engineers, the 
trucking association, the equipment distributors, the general 
contractors, the equipment manufacturers, the Metropolitan Planning 
Organization, the National Asphalt Pavement Association. It goes on and 
on and on. This is America.
  The National Association of Counties--I used to serve as a county 
supervisor. It is hard to get us to agree. They agree. Pass the bill. 
The National Association of Manufacturers, I understand they scored 
this vote. The National Association Of Truck Stop Operators, the 
National Governors Association, the League of Cities, the ready mixed 
concrete people, the stone, sand, and gravel people, the owner-operator 
independent drivers, the Portland Cement Association, the retail 
industry leaders.
  The AFL-CIO sent a statement yesterday to the House: Take up this 
issue. If they do not love our bill, I--it is fine. I do not expect 
them to, but I do say: Where is your bill? Where is it? You can stand 
on the Capitol steps and say: I don't like this about it. I don't like 
that about it. I don't like the pay-fors. I don't like what is on page 
50 or page 150. That is your right and I respect it. I support your 
right to say this is not a good bill, if you don't think so.
  Where is your bill? Where is the House bill? Get it together. Do not 
go on vacation. Wait until you finish this job because I will tell you 
what happens when you do go on vacation. The first person in your State 
to see you who was laid off--because States are cutting back. We know 
from the Association of General Contractors that these States lost 
construction jobs last month because we have not acted on a long-term 
bill: Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, 
Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New 
Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode 
Island, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and 
Wisconsin.
  Just last month the General Contractors told us that construction 
workers were laid off because we have not acted. I want to say to the 
Speaker, Ohio is on the list. You lost jobs in Ohio. What are you doing 
by just saying you don't like this bill? Stay in. Do your work. You 
have terrific people on both sides of the aisle on your Transportation 
and Infrastructure Committee. I had the privilege of working on both 
sides of the aisle with Chairman Shuster, with Ranking Member DeFazio, 
and many other members of that committee. I know the Speaker has told 
me he wants a 6-year bill. I believe him, but why put it off?
  We have the Inhofe-Boxer McConnell-Durbin product. It passed 
overwhelmingly. Take it up. Here is what the Committee for a 
Responsible Federal Budget said: It is refreshing to see Congress focus 
on a multiyear solution instead of another short-term patch. They say 
of our bill: This is a fiscally responsible bill that relies on solid 
offsets.
  Let me be clear. I did not love every offset. I see my friend from 
Maryland. He knows we tried desperately to get better offsets. There 
may be a lot of people in the House who don't like the offsets. Why 
don't you come together and figure out another way? Why don't you see 
if you can fully fund a 6-year bill? We fully funded a 3-year bill. So 
I ask the question of the Speaker: What is it about our bill that you 
don't like and where is your bill?
  Yesterday Chairman Shuster over there issued a statement: The House 
also needs to make its voice heard and put forth its own priorities. He 
is right. So why are you going home for a 5\1/2\-week break when the 
Senate is going to be in session next week? Put off your little break 
here--or your long-term break here, 5\1/2\ weeks. I do not know too 
many American workers who get that kind of a break in the summer.
  I say it is time to see your bill. I think we can get it done. I have 
a lot of faith in the people over there. I served in the House for 10 
proud years. I know how things get done. It gets done a lot easier than 
over here because here we have rules that are very old, which can allow 
one person to hold up a bill for days and days, but they don't have it. 
They don't have that kind of situation. They can come together, go 
through the committee, come out with a rule, bring the bill to the 
floor, and get it done.
  Let me quote from the Washington Post editorial:

       The Senate bill authorizes 6 years of spending on 
     transportation projects under a sensible plan Senators Boxer 
     and Inhofe worked out. The bill provides 3 years of 
     guaranteed funding for the spending plan, raised from a 
     variety of sources.

  They basically say--they don't love the process, neither did any of 
us. But they say it is a ``significant improvement from what Congress 
has done for the past decade or so, as lawmakers fumbled from short-
term funding patch to short-term funding patch, a non-strategy that 
often relied on budget gimmicks and made it difficult for 
transportation officials to conduct long-term planning.''
  So we have an opportunity. The Senate has worked its will. We have a 
good bill. Is it great? Is it perfect? No. Are the pay-fors great and 
perfect? No. Is every policy in it perfect? No. But as Amy Klobuchar 
told me, we stood our ground, all of us, but we found common ground. 
That is important. We stood our ground, but we found common ground. 
That is how we are supposed to do things around here.
  I look at my friend who is going to speak shortly from Maryland. I 
know he set the pace with Senator Corker in working out some very 
difficult issues in the Foreign Relations Committee, on which I am so 
proud to serve and so proud of my leader on that committee, Senator 
Cardin. They set the pace over there.
  Then Patty Murray, working with Lamar Alexander--they came out with 
an education bill. Then I worked with Senator Inhofe, and he worked 
with me. Mitch McConnell worked with Senator Durbin. We came out with a 
product that is supported by a majority of both caucuses. I am proud of 
the product. I know it is not perfect. I know if I had my way, I would 
have drawn up a very different bill. So would Senator Inhofe. So would 
Senator McConnell. So would Senator Durbin.
  But here is what is at stake. I will show you the bridge again. This 
is what is at stake. This is the face of what we are doing. It is 
bigger than our egos. It is bigger than our taking a 5\1/2\-week break. 
I served as a county supervisor. We knew the building we were in was 
earthquake deficient. It is still beautiful, Frank Lloyd Wright's last 
built-out government building. I served in that gorgeous building. When 
I found out it could collapse in an earthquake and the five county 
supervisors found that out--we were told many, many years ago it was 
possible we could be held liable because we knew absolutely that this 
could crumble around us.
  I am not saying for one second that any colleague is liable if 
something like this happens again, but I will tell you I think it is in 
fact a moral question for us. How long can we put this off? I guarantee 
you a 3-month patch is not going to give the States the confidence to 
enter into any long-term agreements to fix any of the 60,000-plus 
bridges that are deficient and 50 percent of the roads that are not up 
to par.
  So I say to the House, if you don't stay here and you go home after 
passing a short-term extension and someone comes up to you and says, 
Congressman or Congresswoman, I just got laid off. I am a construction 
worker--I guarantee you are going to have a hard time explaining why 
you left and took a 5\1/2\-week break, August break, and you left 
before even August 1. It is the first time the House will have done 
that in 10 years. They have not left before August 1 in 10 years.
  There is a lot on our plates. Instead, we are going to talk about 
Planned

[[Page 13120]]

Parenthood. Fine. I welcome the argument because to me it is the same 
old, same old argument about interfering with women's health. I will go 
there with you. I will be there with you. I will fight that battle for 
the people of America, the women of America. I don't mind that, but we 
have to do this. We have to do this in the House. We have to pass a 
bill.
  So I hope the House will change its mind. The Republican leadership, 
they know they control the schedule. They should cancel their recess 
and stay in an extra week. In that extra week, we can work together. If 
the Speaker does not like our bill, he can write his own bill. We will 
go to conference, we will start working on it, and we will get that 
bill. That is my ask today. My ask is, Where is the House bill? I am 
asking the House in the nicest way I know how: Please don't leave 
tonight or tomorrow on a 5\1/2\-week break with your desk a mess with 
this issue. It is a mess with this issue.
  The highway trust fund is going bust on Friday. If the best you can 
do after knowing about this for months and months and months is give us 
a paltry 3-month extension, then shame on you. The Senate has proven, 
on a very bipartisan basis, that we can do better--not a 3-month 
extension but 3 years of a paid-for bill, 6 years of an authorized 
bill. Surely you can meet us and we can get this done together.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, first I want to thank Senator Boxer. It is 
a privilege to serve on the Environment and Public Works Committee with 
Senator Boxer, under her and Senator Inhofe's leadership. The bill we 
reported out, a 6-year bill, is a bill that deals with the surface 
transportation needs in this country.
  It was put together in a very bipartisan manner. It respected and 
reflected different views. I had certain views with regard to 
alternative transportation programs. Not everybody agreed, but we were 
able to come together on that issue so we can help local governments 
with their priorities.
  We need a 6-year bill. The Senator is absolutely right. I must tell 
the Senator, I could not agree with her more. We have been talking 
since the last extension, the extension before that, and the extension 
before that, that we need to have a 6-year reauthorization. The Senator 
was able, working with Senator Inhofe, to deliver a bill that does 
that. We have yet to see a 6-year bill from the House of 
Representatives. We are prepared to make the hard decisions. We are 
prepared to sit down with our House colleagues and work out the 
differences, but we need a 6-year reauthorization, not another short-
term extension. They are talking now about 3 months. Another short-term 
extension provides no predictability. I have programs in Maryland, and 
I know the Senator from California has programs in her State, that you 
cannot plan with a 3-month partnership with the Federal Government. You 
need to have the multiyear commitments.
  What Senator Boxer was able to do in the Environment and Public Works 
Committee--we need to duplicate that and get this done and get a bill 
to the President's desk. It is more important than the recess. I thank 
my colleague for taking the floor and for her extraordinary work in 
that regard.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


               50th Anniversary of Medicare and Medicaid

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, this week--tomorrow, to be precise--we 
will be celebrating the 50th anniversary of Medicare and Medicaid, 
which then-President Lyndon Baines Johnson signed into law on July 30, 
1965.
  I take great pride in the Medicare and Medicaid Programs, which fall 
under the Social Security Act, because they are so successful, but also 
because--as I think most of my colleagues know--the headquarters for 
both the Social Security Administration (SSA) and for CMS, the Centers 
for Medicare and Medicaid Services, are located in Maryland. The men 
and women who work at SSA and CMS are doing incredible service to carry 
out some of the most important programs in our country: Social 
Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
  For the past 50 years, our seniors and our most vulnerable citizens 
have been able to rely upon Medicare to provide access to affordable, 
high-quality health care.
  Let me underscore how important Medicare is to our country, to our 
seniors and those who suffer with disabilities. It allows them to be 
able to get quality health coverage, affordable care, without having to 
deal with the difficulties of obtaining and paying for private 
insurance. Private insurance makes money by insuring people who make 
fewer claims. As you get older, your health care needs become more 
intense. Therefore, private insurance companies aren't exactly excited 
to have people who make a lot of claims in their health insurance pool. 
That is why we developed Medicare. We developed it so our seniors would 
be able to have quality coverage.
  Before we had Medicare, one out of every two seniors had no health 
insurance. Our seniors are now able to get health care coverage. Today, 
only 2 percent of adults aged 65 and older lack health insurance. 
Before we had Medicare, nearly 60 percent of seniors' health care costs 
came out of their pockets. Today, that is down to 13 percent. So we 
have seen significant improvement over time. Before we had Medicare, 1 
out of every 3 women aged 65 or older lived in poverty. Today, that 
number is 1 out of 10.
  All of the indicators that we have show that Medicare, Medicaid, and 
Social Security have accomplished their objectives. Now we are 
celebrating the 50th anniversary of Medicare and Medicaid.
  With regard to the Medicare Program, those seniors who have 
disabilities and who qualify are allowed to have full coverage--again 
without having to worry about being discriminated against in the 
private insurance marketplace. In Medicaid, 33 million children are 
covered, more than 1 out of every 3 in our Nation.
  Over time we have improved these programs. The Medicaid program has 
been improved by the passage of the Children's Health Insurance 
Program, a bipartisan bill that was passed by this body. It 
significantly improved access to care for our children, particularly 
our low-income children.
  We have also improved access to coverage through the passage of the 
Affordable Care Act. The Affordable Care Act has strengthened and 
improved Medicare and expanded Medicaid Programs to cover more low-
income Americans. To date, thanks to the ACA, 9.4 million Medicare 
beneficiaries have saved more than $15 billion just on prescription 
drugs. In Maryland alone, our seniors have saved more than $230 million 
on their prescriptions.
  I am particularly pleased that over the 50-year history of Medicare, 
we have changed the program, improved it, and built upon it over time. 
When it was first enacted, it was there mainly to cover seniors' needs 
when they were injured and ill. It was an insurance program for when 
they got sick or had an injury. Well, we have changed that focus to a 
wellness program to keep seniors healthy.
  I am particularly proud that when I was in the House of 
Representatives, I authored the bill that expanded Medicare to cover 
preventive health care, including screenings for colorectal cancer, 
diabetes, and osteoporosis, and mammographies. Those tests were added 
in legislation that I authored in the House of Representatives. We have 
come a long way since then, culminating with the Affordable Care Act 
that eliminated all the copays for preventive health care.
  Today, Medicare is keeping our senior population healthier. Seniors 
know that their preventive health care is covered and that they can 
detect diseases at an earlier stage and live healthier lives as a 
result.
  Over the past five decades, our Nation has seen incredible, positive 
change as a result of the Medicare and Medicaid Programs. On the 50th 
anniversary of the passage of this landmark legislation, let us 
celebrate the

[[Page 13121]]

progress we have made and work together to try to find ways to build 
upon that progress by further improving our Nation's health care system 
to ensure that all Americans have access to affordable, high-quality 
health care and are able to live healthy, productive lives.
  This is particularly timely because I believe next week we are going 
to see an attack on women's health care. I urge my colleagues to 
recognize the historical discrimination we have had against women's 
health care in this country. We dealt with that in the Affordable Care 
Act, some of the historical discriminations against women. But we need 
to be very careful about this because there is going to be an attack on 
Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood is particularly important for 
women's health care needs. Yes, it does deal with contraceptive 
services--that is very important for women--but it also deals with 
preventive health care, screenings, and primary health care. So many 
women get their health care needs met through Planned Parenthood.
  As we celebrate the 50th anniversary of Medicare and Medicaid, as we 
celebrate how we have been able to make progress in providing 
affordable, quality health care to all Americans--whether they are our 
seniors, our disabled population, our children, those of low income, 
those groups who have been historically discriminated against--I urge 
that we look to try to build upon those programs and make them even 
stronger and not weaken the programs that are available.
  President Johnson's Vice President, Hubert H. Humphrey, famously said 
that ``the moral test of government is how that government treats those 
who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the 
twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of 
life, the sick, the needy, and the handicapped.'' While we still have 
work to do, we are closer to passing that moral test because of the 
creation of Medicare and Medicaid 50 years ago and, more recently, the 
enactment of the Affordable Care Act. Let's continue to make progress 
so that all Americans have accesses to affordable, quality health care.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Toomey). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Nuclear Agreement With Iran

  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I rise today to express my deep concerns 
with the nuclear agreement negotiated between the United States and 
other world powers and Iran.
  In May, Congress acted in a bipartisan way to enact the Iran Nuclear 
Agreement Review Act. The Senate passed the legislation 98 to 1, and 
the House passed it 400 to 25. The bill was signed into law by 
President Obama.
  This critically important legislation provides Congress, as the 
representatives of the American people, the ability to examine and vote 
on an agreement that will have tremendous impact on the future security 
of the Middle East and the world.
  When the Senate passed the legislation in May, I said the bill would 
allow Congress to hold the administration accountable for negotiating 
an enforceable and verifiable agreement that would stop Iran's progress 
toward a nuclear weapon.
  Negotiators have completed their work. Review of the agreement is 
underway. Committees are holding important hearings. We had one this 
morning. After the August recess, Congress will have the opportunity to 
vote on a resolution that approves or disapproves of the deal reached 
with Iran.
  I believe the agreement is flawed in several ways. First, the 
agreement fails to provide for an inspections regime that is strong 
enough to prevent Iran from fulfilling its nuclear ambitions. Any 
agreement with Iran should include rigorous and immediate inspections 
of suspected nuclear sites. There has been much talk and hope of an 
anywhere, anytime inspection regime, but anywhere, anytime inspections 
are not what this agreement provides. Instead, under this agreement, it 
could take 24 days, and potentially longer under the Joint Commission 
process, before inspectors have access to a suspected nuclear site. It 
is obvious Iran could hide elements of a nuclear program, such as the 
construction of centrifuges, before inspectors could ever gain access 
to a suspected nuclear site.
  Iran has already failed to meet the transparency requirements of the 
interim Joint Plan of Action. The International Atomic Energy Agency, 
or IAEA, consistently warned of Iran's failure to meet those standards 
of full transparency and in its June 2015 report stated that ``the 
Agency remains concerned about the possible existence in Iran of 
undisclosed nuclear-related activities involving military related 
organizations, including activities related to the development of a 
nuclear payload for a missile.''
  Given Iran's lack of transparency, I believe the content of this 
agreement does not contain strong enough mechanisms to prevent Iran's 
clandestine development of a nuclear weapon.
  Second, I find it more troubling that Congress--or even the 
administration--has not been given access to the understanding between 
Iran and the IAEA regarding how Iran's compliance with the agreement 
will be implemented. This has been the subject of great discussion.
  Third, I am concerned the agreement will provide Iran with financial 
resources that they could use to continue to fund terrorist groups that 
put Americans and our allies at risk. We know they were doing it in the 
past. We know of their desire to do it in the future. It is troubling 
that when the sanctions against Iran are lifted, the nation will 
immediately receive approximately $150 billion in assets. As a 
designated state sponsor of terrorism for over 30 years, Iran has 
funded proxy wars across the region.
  These wars range from Shia militias in Iraq to Houthis insurgents in 
Yemen. Iran further threatens our allies through funding Hezbollah and 
Hamas and propping up the regime of Bashar al-Assad, who continues to 
slaughter his own people.
  While no one knows for sure how Iran will spend the signing bonus it 
receives from sanctions relief, the regime's prior behavior provides 
the best evidence of how it will act in the future. I hear the argument 
that the internal infrastructure of the country has fallen into 
disrepair because of the sanctions and because of the lack of the 
economic activities. Yet we have to look at Iran as still funding 
terrorist activity while allowing their own country's infrastructure to 
become failed and compromised.
  What makes us think that with the new flush, $150 billion signing 
bonus, Iran is going to change their priorities all of a sudden? I 
personally have trouble with that.
  Finally, I am worried the decision to lift the embargo on 
conventional arms and ballistic missiles sold to Iran will allow Iran 
to present a greater threat to its neighbors. In addition, it could 
precipitate a military buildup in the region, which will in turn 
increase volatility in an already volatile region. Despite these 
questions and concerns, the administration has argued that our only 
options are to accept the deal or to go forward with Iran.
  To accept this binary choice is to say the American people should 
accept this deal, regardless of how one-sided it may be, in order to 
avoid a military conflict with Iran.
  As a newspaper in my State, the Charleston Gazette-Mail, 
editorialized yesterday, this argument ``paint[s] a simplistic picture 
that allows [its proponents] to gloss over the very real problems with 
this deal.''
  The Gazette-Mail continues:

       The deal's many critics have consistently made the case 
     that there are other possible paths. The problem is that this 
     administration doesn't want to take them.

  Even the President's top general agrees that this is a false 
proposition. Just this morning, when asked if the choice was binary--
accept the Iran agreement or go to war--GEN Martin Dempsey, Chair of 
the Joint Chiefs, said that ``we have a range of options and I always 
present them.''

[[Page 13122]]

  All of us would prefer a diplomatic solution in Iran, but a good 
agreement with Iran is one that will truly cut off Iran's path to a 
nuclear weapon and improve the security situation in the Middle East.
  The sanctions passed by this Congress, together with the sanctions 
that were built in concert with our foreign allies over the course of a 
decade, were what brought Iran to the negotiating tables in the first 
place. These sanctions should be kept in place and strengthened until 
Iran is forced to accept a deal that actually makes the region safer. I 
believe a better deal is possible than the leverage provided by 
sanctions, and I am not alone. A CNN poll released yesterday found that 
52 percent of the American people want Congress to reject this deal, 
while only 44 percent believe the agreement should be approved.
  A majority of Americans didn't say they oppose this agreement because 
they want war with Iran. Absolutely not. Instead, the poll reveals that 
a majority of Americans want a better deal, one that cuts off Iran's 
path to a nuclear weapon and makes the Middle East more secure.
  There are legitimate arguments on both sides of the debate about the 
Iran deal. I accept that the President and his administration truly 
believe the deal they have negotiated is in America's best interest, 
but the claim that those who have a different view want war with Iran 
is an inappropriate attempt to short-circuit the legislative debate 
about this agreement.
  Congress must stand up against a threat to national security and 
ensure that a monumental agreement contains the necessary verification 
and enforcement measures to protect future generations from a nuclear 
Iran. I stand with all of our allies in the region that have put their 
trust in America to negotiate a deal that will protect them 
indefinitely from the threat of Iranian nuclear weapons.
  The posterity of our Nation and our allies depends on the critical 
policy decisions made by this Congress and this administration. Now is 
the time to carefully consider the nature of Iran's threat toward 
Israel and America, the history of Iranian-funded terrorism, and the 
consequences of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. America does 
not have to accept a bad deal.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.


                           Wasteful Spending

  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, once again, I am on the floor for the 
``Waste of the Week.'' Each week since February, I have come to the 
floor to discuss an issue of waste, fraud, and abuse--misspent taxpayer 
money identified by neutral agencies of the Federal Government that 
didn't have a partisan bone to pick in this or by inspectors general of 
various agencies or by the agencies themselves.
  In February, I said I am going to come here every week throughout the 
duration of this session, and I am going to try to achieve a goal of 
$100 billion of waste. I wasn't sure we could reach that goal, but 
today is a very special day because we are going to highlight by the 
end of my speech over $100 billion of waste, fraud, and abuse that the 
taxpayer is covering with hard-earned pay at home.
  Over the past several months, I have highlighted a variety of 
examples from the serious, such as the illegal procurement practices at 
the Veterans' Administration, to the ridiculous: taxpayer funding, 
under grants, for massages of rabbits to determine whether a massage 
after strenuous exercise made them feel better. I don't think we needed 
to gather a bunch of rabbits and pay, with a $387,000 grant to an 
organization to mechanically massage the backs of rabbits.
  I think if you stop anybody on the street and ask: Do you think a 
good massage would make you feel a little bit better, especially after 
a strenuous exercise--I think the answer would be yes. Actually, I 
thought I might want to sign up for this until I found out that when 
the experiment was over, they killed the rabbits. So I didn't want to 
put myself in that position.
  Then, from the young taxpayers who receive (improper and fraudulent 
child tax credit refunds) to the old, the active Social Security 
numbers that were assigned to individuals over the age of 112. 
Obviously there aren't too many people in the country, if any, over 
that age. These people had obviously died many years before--on and on 
it goes.
  We are deluged with examples of waste, fraud, and abuse, which brings 
some chuckles and brings some ``Can you believe we are actually doing 
that?'' But the bottom line is that people are working hard every day 
to make ends meet to pay the mortgage, to buy the groceries, to save 
money to send the kids to school, and they are sending taxes to 
Washington and the bureaucracy is doing stuff like this.
  It is a bad break for taxpayers, and it is shameful for government 
not to take measures to stop this waste, fraud, and abuse from 
happening. I am trying to disclose to the public this is how your 
taxpayer money is being spent so they will put pressure on their 
Members and say clean it up. Fortunately, we have been able to do some 
of that, but there is a long way to go.
  Today I want to discuss errors with payments under the earned-income 
tax credit. Let me go back and explain this. The earned-income tax 
credit is a refundable tax credit that offsets income tax owed by low-
income taxpayers. Congress originally approved the earned-income tax 
credit in 1975 to offset the burden of Social Security taxes for low-
income workers and provide an incentive for them to work. It is a good 
motive. To some extent, it has worked. The way it works is this: When 
the credit exceeds the amount of taxes due, it provides a lump-sum 
payment, after you file your taxes, to those who qualify for the 
program.
  People who work and earn less than a certain income level qualify for 
this refund from the government. According to the Congressional 
Research Service, this tax credit is the largest need-tested, 
antipoverty cash assistance program the Federal Government runs. So 
whether you think this is a right program or not, the questions are: 
How is it being run? And is it efficient and effective or is it making 
mistakes?
  We are talking about Big Government. Mistakes are usually big 
mistakes, if there are some. In 2011, the IRS identified more than 6.6 
million potentially erroneous earned-income tax credit claims that went 
to households that didn't qualify. Individuals were telling the 
government they are working and earning and therefore eligible for the 
earned-income tax credit bonus check, but at the same time they were 
telling other agencies, such as the Supplemental Social Security 
Program, that they are not earning that much or not working or don't 
have income. Some are getting double checks--one for which they're 
qualified and one for which they're not.
  When we add all of that--the latest year that has been identified is 
2013, and the tax credit costs to taxpayers during that year amounted 
to $60 billion. Of those, $14.5 billion were erroneously sent out 
checks by the agency, the IRS. If we can put in place measures that can 
provide accountability and verification to this program, we could save 
the taxpayer up to $14.5 billion a year. So with that, we add to our 
gauge an additional $14.5 billion.
  As everyone can see on this chart, this gauge is climbing up each 
week. This chart shows the amount of money saved through the various 
programs we have identified. We have now eclipsed the $100 billion 
level, and we are just a little ways past the middle of the year.
  I could take the charts, stick them in the back closet, and say: 
Thank you. I made it to my $100 billion mark, and I have made my point. 
But I will keep on going. Every week the Senate is in session for the 
remainder of this year, I will be back down here for the latest ``Waste 
of the Week'' so we can embarrass, disclose, and let agencies know that 
they are wasting taxpayers' dollars, and we, as a Congress, need to do 
something about that.
  Some people may say that $100 billion in comparison with the total 
Federal budget is a drop in the bucket, but $100 billion is almost 
incomprehensible. Maybe Donald Trump understands what $100 billion is, 
but I don't. In terms of that magnitude of money, it is a small portion 
of what we spend here.

[[Page 13123]]

  We can do so much more in terms of identifying issues and programs 
that will save the taxpayer money. Federal spending is out of control. 
We know that, and this highlights some of that. The real issue is much 
worse. While States such as mine, the State of Indiana, have created 
balanced budgets, eliminated debt, and provided surpluses, which they 
can use to return to the taxpayers or save for a rainy day, the Federal 
Government has not done that. This is a huge challenge in front of us. 
This is just a small piece of trying to identify some of the problems 
and challenges that we have, and by identifying them, we can save the 
taxpayer money by making reforms to these various programs.
  With that, I will yield back the floor, but you can count on me being 
here every week for the rest of this session with the ``Waste of the 
Week'' for as long as the Congress and Senate are in session.
  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. DAINES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Tragedy on Crow Reservation

  Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to share some 
remarks on what is going on with Planned Parenthood. Prior to sharing 
those remarks, I wish to inform my colleagues that we received some 
tragic news that has come out of Montana. I literally just got off the 
phone with Chairman Darrin Old Coyote with the Crow Tribe in Montana. I 
wish to take a moment to discuss the reports of a tragic shooting that 
has occurred on the Crow Reservation in Montana.
  This afternoon we received word of a shooting in the community of 
Pryor, MT, on the Crow Reservation. I literally just got off the phone 
with Chairman Darrin Old Coyote before I got to the floor just to see 
how things were going and to be informed of the latest developments. 
There are two confirmed fatalities and at least one other injured 
individual who has been life-flighted to Billings.
  My wife Cindy and I are deeply saddened by the news of today's tragic 
shootings in Pryor. Our thoughts and prayers go out to the Pryor 
community, and the families of all victims are in our prayers. I 
understand this was a couple who had children and grandchildren and are 
well known in Pryor.
  I am staying in close contact with Crow leaders, with local law 
enforcement, Federal officials, and community leaders during this time. 
It is our understanding and it has been confirmed that the suspect has 
been apprehended and is in custody.
  My staff and all of the staffs here in Washington stand ready to help 
those affected by this tragedy. Our hearts break for the victims and 
for their families.
  I ask my Senate colleagues to join the Montana delegation and all 
Montanans in keeping the community, the victims, and their families in 
their thoughts and prayers.


                           Planned Parenthood

  Mr. President, 655,306 kidneys is more than $49 million, which 
equates to 256 Lamborghinis; 327,653 hearts is more than $24.5 million, 
which equates to 128 Lamborghinis; 1,310,612 arms and legs is $98 
million, which equates to 512 Lamborghinis--this is the envisioned 
price tag were every one of Planned Parenthood's 327,653 abortions 
performed last year to provide body parts and organs to harvest.
  The utter callousness of Planned Parenthood in discussing the price 
of baby parts, as if handing over a menu, is clear evidence of the 
culture of an organization enriched through ghoulish and disturbing 
practices. This is a culture which protects tissue over life and lays 
out harvested organs as financial milestones toward a new car.
  Planned Parenthood has worked its way into the American lexicon, 
becoming synonymous with women's health but hiding its abortion 
practices.
  Planned Parenthood received $528 million of Federal taxpayer money 
last year alone. And when asked on the street, so few even know that 
Planned Parenthood does abortions. But now the veil has been lifted, 
exposing inexcusable and unconscionable behavior.
  This organization, Planned Parenthood, performs more abortions than 
any other organization in our country. But now our own calloused 
hearts--the heart of our Nation--are shocked out of apathy, and we have 
a choice. We cannot accept the destruction and the selling of our 
children, to stare clearly into the face of the appalling and do 
nothing. We can allow our consciences to be moved and then remove the 
public endorsement of these actions. We can remove Federal taxpayer 
funding of the organization that has perpetuated such horrific actions.
  I am proud to join Senator Joni Ernst and Leader McConnell, as well 
as 23 of my Senate colleagues, in the introduction of legislation to 
protect women's access to health services and defund Planned 
Parenthood. This bill ensures that funds allocated to Planned 
Parenthood will be redirected to other eligible entities to provide 
women's health care services.
  Let me be very clear, so the information is clear about what this 
bill does and what it doesn't do. This bill ensures there is no 
reduction--not $1 of reduction--in overall Federal funding available to 
support women's health. This bill ensures the preservation of Federal 
funding for women's health services which include important services of 
relevant diagnostic, laboratory, and radiology services, for well-child 
care, for prenatal and post partum care, for immunization, for family 
planning services, including contraception, sexually transmitted 
disease testing, and cervical and breast cancer screenings. Let me say 
again, this bill ensures the preservation of Federal funding for these 
very important services for women. This bill does not reduce any 
funding for women's health services.
  This bill does not allow any Federal funds to go toward Planned 
Parenthood to continue its practice of trafficking baby parts. We 
bristled when we heard of an abortion doctor that left babies born 
alive to die, and we sensed justice when that same doctor was sentenced 
in a court of law for his crimes. Similarly, we shuddered as parents. 
Cindy and I have been married for 29 years. We have four children, two 
boys and two girls. We shuddered as parents at the idea of baby parts 
being harvested and sold in the context of equating that value to 
purchasing a Lamborghini. Will we see this to the same end?
  We are a society. We are a nation that values life so much that in 
our Declaration of Independence it is clearly articulated that all have 
the right to life. We Democrats, Republicans, and all Americans must 
stand strong in the defense of those who are most vulnerable. We must 
advocate and be a voice for those who do not have a voice, for the most 
vulnerable in our society, including the unborn.
  Over the last year, we have cringed at terrible images coming out of 
the Middle East. We have seen horrible images coming across social 
media, and we have called loudly for action. That was on soil thousands 
and thousands of miles away from America.
  Today we cringe at terrible images that have occurred on our own 
soil. Nothing, not even a Lamborghini, is worth the lives of our 
children. Planned Parenthood has clearly articulated the value they 
have placed on babies' organs and limbs, but what they have failed to 
acknowledge is the value the American people know full well, and that 
is the value of our children, which is priceless.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). The Senator from California.


                           Planned Parenthood

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, thank you very much. It is so interesting, 
coming away from the Transportation bill where we saw such cooperation 
between the two sides, and now we are headed back to our corners with 
the vast majority of Republicans attacking an organization that helps 
millions of Americans get fundamental health care. It is the same old 
sides again.

[[Page 13124]]

  My friend from Montana may not like Planned Parenthood, and he can 
tell his family and his friends not to go there, but he doesn't speak 
for the American people. They trust Planned Parenthood, an organization 
that has been around since 1916. Its founder was thrown in jail because 
she wanted to give birth control to people.
  Let's be clear. My friend and those who are writing this legislation 
state that they are not attacking health care. Yet they try to defund 
the one organization in the country that people trust to deliver that 
health care. It is interesting because it is part of the attack on 
health care that we see from my friends on the other side of the aisle.
  We celebrate the 50th anniversary of Medicare and Medicaid which have 
provided millions of Americans with accessible, affordable health care. 
This week we heard one of the leading Republican Presidential 
candidates talk about how it is time to end Medicare. This isn't a 
fringe candidate. I heard Newt Gingrich say years ago that Medicare 
will wither on the vine. They have been after Medicare forever and ever 
and ever. They don't like Medicaid. Some Republican governors are not 
providing their poor people with health care because they don't like 
Medicaid. These are lifelines that from their start have been attacked 
by Republicans. I have proof. I have spoken many times and quoted 
Republicans from past years going after Medicare, going after Medicaid, 
and now again going after Planned Parenthood and women's health care. 
This is an ideological attack, and it would put women's health and 
women's lives at risk. It is attacking women's reproductive health 
care, an issue that was resolved in 1973.
  I want to say to my friends on the other side--and they are my 
friends--why don't you just keep moving us forward like you did on the 
Transportation bill. We set aside our differences and we are moving 
forward. Now you are reopening, again, the attacks on health care. You 
tried to repeal ObamaCare more than 55 times now in the House. It 
didn't work. You tried it here the other day; it didn't work. You have 
attacked Medicare. You have attacked Medicaid, and now you want to take 
away women's health care provided by an organization that is chosen by 
millions of women and men every single year for lifesaving and 
preventive services.
  This legislation is being driven by an outrageous and potentially 
illegal act of an extremist group. It is just the latest chapter in the 
long history of attacks on Planned Parenthood and their health care 
providers who work there, and on the women and the men they serve.
  Again, one can go back to the beginning of Planned Parenthood, when 
America's first birth control clinic opened before women could vote. We 
forget that women got the vote in 1920. If we have a woman in the White 
House in 2020--something that I personally hope will happen--we will 
celebrate the fact that 100 years after women got the right to vote 
there is a woman in the White House. The point is that on the very day 
the clinic opened 100 years ago, dozens of women waited in line. Do you 
know what they wanted? Lifesaving birth control information. They 
wanted to plan their families. They wanted to avoid unplanned 
pregnancies and the options that they would face if they had an 
unplanned pregnancy. What was the response? The clinic was raided, the 
clinic was shut down, and nine days later its founder was thrown in 
jail. Planned Parenthood has been a target of attacks by extremists 
since 1916, and that attack continues on the floor today.
  Despite the effort of extremists, our country has come a long way 
since the days when a woman could be jailed for advocating birth 
control. We can't go back. We can't turn back the clock on women's 
health, and we still have people that are saying women shouldn't get 
free birth control through ObamaCare. They want it to go over the 
counter. We can't turn back the clock on women's health, but that is 
what is about to come.
  With all the problems facing us--we still have work to do on 
transportation, we still have work to do to avoid sequester and all the 
deep cuts to our military and to our domestic programs such as the FBI, 
Homeland Security, food inspection, and border patrol. All of that is 
going to be cut, but, oh no, we don't turn to that to fix that. What do 
we turn to? Another attack on Planned Parenthood, another attack on 
women's health.
  We know this extremist group went undercover and secretly taped 
people. That is what they did. If you approve of those tactics that is 
fine, but what I approve of is women getting health care. I think that 
when you scratch the surface, what you will find is that a lot of my 
colleagues don't think women should be able to plan their families. We 
are still debating birth control. You have got to be kidding.
  You have to look at the work Planned Parenthood does: cancer 
screening, STD tests, and other lifesaving health care. They want to 
deny women this health care.
  Do you know what I really find extreme? So many of my Republican 
friends tell me day after day, keep Uncle Sam out of our private lives. 
How true. I agree. Some of them even call themselves Libertarians. When 
you look up the meaning of Libertarian in Wikipedia, it is defined as 
one who ``seeks to maximize the autonomy and freedom of choice, 
emphasizes political freedom, voluntary association, and the primacy of 
individual judgment.'' The primacy of individual judgment--that is the 
definition of Libertarian. Yet my colleagues decided they don't like a 
certain organization so they should say to everybody in the country 
follow us. No. No. It is not right. Planned Parenthood is the safety 
net for women's health care, and it has been so. This attack on women's 
health care is the opposite of liberty.
  I hope if this bill does come forward, we will debate it and debate 
it and debate it, because I don't think the people in this country want 
women's lives used as a political football. Women's health is not a 
game. It isn't something you should gain or lose votes on. Women's 
lives are not a game. We all have women in our lives, all of us, whom 
we adore regardless of our political party--our moms, our wives, our 
daughters, our sisters. Why would anyone in the Senate or anywhere else 
want to take away the health care that has benefitted one in five women 
in America, and more than 800,000 patients in my State every year? Why 
would anyone want to deny birth control to more than 600,000 
Californians each year? Why would anyone want to deny women in my State 
100,000 breast exams?
  Instead of listening to these extreme voices, Republicans should 
listen to women in their States. I will tell you about a woman in my 
State, Nicole Sandoval of Pasadena, CA. Planned Parenthood was there 
for Nicole when she needed it most. When she was 23 years of age, she 
had no insurance before ObamaCare. Planned Parenthood caught her 
cervical cancer early enough to treat it and to save her life.
  Instead of listening to these extreme voices, Republicans should 
listen to women such as Heather Penman of Concord, CA. Planned 
Parenthood was there for Heather when she needed it most, providing her 
with a cancer screening. They found precancerous cells, and it helped 
her get the lifesaving surgery she needed. She didn't say what my 
colleague said, standing up and attacking an organization that saved 
her life. She said, ``I might not be alive today'' without their help. 
She told me that a few years ago. She said, ``Planned Parenthood is 
about taking care of women's health and it shouldn't be reduced to some 
political argument.''
  Imagine what would have happened if Planned Parenthood hadn't been 
there for Nicole or Heather. That is what Planned Parenthood does. 
There are millions of Nicoles and Heathers across America, each with 
her own story of how Planned Parenthood has been there for her. We are 
not going to allow Republicans to take away their health care. No, we 
are not. We are not going to allow Republicans to undermine the vital 
research that is helping treatments for Parkinson's, Alzheimer's,

[[Page 13125]]

multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injuries, HIV, and birth defects.
  The research has led to public health breakthroughs, including 
vaccines for polio, chickenpox, rubella and shingles. Instead of 
attacking this research, we should be supporting it. That is something 
we should all agree on. Republicans are pushing an extreme, dangerous 
agenda--an agenda that is out of touch with most Americans.
  We had a breather from that agenda when we had that Transportation 
bill. How excited was I. Then we turn around, we do this bill, we work 
together, and we are back in our corners again, with Republicans 
attacking women's health and Democrats defending women's health. A new 
poll released this week shows that a strong majority of Americans 
opposes defunding Planned Parenthood, even after these videos--these 
edited videos--have been put out.
  The American people are paying attention to this story. Women are 
paying attention to this story. We know this is a political attack on 
women's health. We know the group went in and secretly filmed people 
for 3 years. We knew what their objective was--to hurt women's health, 
women's reproductive health. We know because that is where they stand.
  They want Uncle Sam to tell a woman what her rights are. Well, I have 
to say that I am a Senator. I have strong views. I do not impose these 
views on anyone. I want people to choose the way they feel and make 
decisions between themselves, their family, their doctor, their God. 
That is up to them. I do not want any Senator in this body telling my 
family what to do or your families what to do because it is up to them. 
I respect their families. They will discuss it with their families.
  This is a political attack on women's health. We know it is an attack 
on a group that saves lives every day. This is a fight they have picked 
before. They come out here with this, as if this were the first time 
they have ever attacked Planned Parenthood. Well, we won it before, and 
we will win it again. I heard my colleague, Senator Murray, recall that 
in 2011--she thought it was 2011--the Republicans threatened to shut 
down the government because they wanted to defund Planned Parenthood. 
They were going to shut down the government. She said: You know what; 
we are not going do this to women's health. If that is what you want to 
do, shut it down. We will take this case to the American people. They 
backed off. We won that fight. We will win this fight as well.
  We are going to fight. We are going to fight to make sure that Nicole 
and Heather and women across America can continue to get the services 
they need: the birth control, the cancer screenings, STD screenings. 
That is what we are fighting for. We are going to make sure that 
Planned Parenthood is still there for the millions of women and 
families who depend upon it.
  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. THUNE. 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. THUNE. Mr. President, I want to speak to the highway bill today, 
legislation before us that hopefully by tomorrow we will report out of 
the Senate favorably and send it to the House of Representatives. My 
understanding is that the House will, sometime in September, report out 
their own version of the highway bill, hopefully a multiyear bill, in 
which case we would go to conference with them and hopefully get 
something we can get to the President on his desk that would be more 
than a short-term extension, but instead be something that provides the 
certainty that those who are involved in building roads and bridges and 
making sure that freight and people move across this country will have 
the infrastructure in place to do that, and that we can get about the 
process of creating jobs and growing our economy, which is what 
infrastructure is all about.
  I want to speak specifically to some of the rail provisions in the 
legislation. I want to say that thanks to the leadership of Senators 
Wicker and Booker and the bipartisan contributions of the members of 
the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, the legislation 
before the Senate today includes critically important provisions from 
the bipartisan Rail Reform, Enhancement, and Efficiency Act that our 
committee passed by voice vote last month.
  This bill reauthorizes Amtrak through fiscal year 2019, while 
increasing rail safety, improving infrastructure, cutting redtape, and 
empowering local officials. Following the tragic May 12 derailment of 
Amtrak 188 in Philadelphia that resulted in eight fatalities, Senators 
Wicker and Booker added additional rail safety provisions that were 
approved by the committee.
  The bipartisan rail bill that passed in committee and is included in 
the multiyear transportation bill before the Senate today would also 
advance the deployment of positive train control technology for 
averting accidents. I am proud to note that we recently amended the 
multiyear transportation legislation to expand this authorization. 
Never before has the Senate authorized robust, dedicated, and mandatory 
funding for positive train control implementation.
  The amendment accepted by the Senate earlier today would authorize 
$199 million in PTC grants and loan financing for commuter railroads in 
fiscal year 2016. This is the highest single-year authorization for PTC 
ever. Using the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing 
Program, commuter railroads will be able to leverage this funding for 
$2 billion in loans, necessary to cover the PTC capital needs.
  In addition to advancing the deployment of PTC, the Wicker-Booker 
bill would require speed limit action plans for all passenger railroads 
to address automatic train control modifications, crew communication 
practices, and other measures to prevent overspeed derailments while 
positive train control is being implemented. It would also require 
grade crossing action plans to improve State grade crossing safety 
efforts, and it would consolidate grant programs to focus resources on 
critical safety and infrastructure needs.
  Building on the work of the commerce committee's ranking member, 
Senator Nelson, the bill would increase the rail passenger liability 
cap for inflation from the $200 million level set in 1997 to $295 
million, with inflation adjustments every 5 years. The bill applies a 
new higher cap retroactively to the date of the Amtrak accident in 
Philadelphia, thereby raising the potential compensation available to 
victims and their families.
  This legislation also includes a measure from Senator Peters to 
require a thorough examination of Amtrak's postaccident response 
following the Philadelphia derailment, ensuring a close look at whether 
Amtrak addressed the needs of families and passengers involved in 
tragedy.
  Senator Peters' work will make meaningful improvements to Amtrak's 
emergency preparedness going forward. As we worked on the legislation 
before our committee's adoption, I included a requirement for all 
passenger railroads in the Nation to install inward- and outward-facing 
cameras on their locomotives.
  This fulfills an outstanding recommendation of the National 
Transportation Safety Board. These cameras will not only help with 
accident investigations, a need that we saw following the Philadelphia 
derailment, but they will help monitor each passenger railroad's 
compliance with critical safety requirements. Last week I received a 
letter from NTSB Chairman Christopher Hart stating:

       I applaud the recent passage of the passenger rail safety 
     bill. I was pleased to see the inclusion of recommendations 
     regarding inward and outward facing audio and image 
     recorders. Thank you for your support of the NTSB.

  The bill also includes extensive contributions from Senator 
Blumenthal to improve passenger rail safety, including redundant signal 
protection to increase roadway worker safety, potentially preventing 
tragedies such as the one in West Haven, CT, in 2013.

[[Page 13126]]

  Senator Blumenthal also made important contributions on provisions 
covering alerters, signage, and track inspections. The bill includes 
his proposal for the Federal Railroad Administration to increase 
oversight of needed safety improvements at Metro-North.
  I call my colleagues' attention to the following document: the 
Federal Railroad Administration's ``Operation Deep Dive Report'' 
outlining the safety concerns at Metro-North and setting forth specific 
directed actions. The bill before the Senate would require the FRA to 
follow up on that report and its recommendations.
  I also call my colleagues' attention to Emergency Order No. 29, which 
was issued after terrible derailments in the Bronx, Bridgeport, CT, and 
West Haven, CT. This bill would apply the emergency order's speed limit 
action plan framework to the entire passenger rail network, reducing 
the risk of future overspeed derailments.
  I would also like to include a statement from Senator Blumenthal 
following the news that 13 current and former Metro-North employees had 
been accused of cheating on licensing exams. The statement reads: ``My 
amendment was accepted into the bill, which was voted out of the 
committee favorably, and I urge the Senate to take up the measure 
swiftly so we can ensure Metro-North is implementing true safety 
reforms.''
  I echo Senator Blumenthal's statement on Metro-North, and I ask 
unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                                    June 30, 2015.

          Blumenthal Statement on Metro-North Cheating Scandal

       Hartford, CT.--U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) 
     issued the following statement today regarding news that 13 
     current and former Metro-North employees have been accused of 
     cheating on exams to become licensed conductors and 
     engineers:
       ``The scale and scope of these revelations are sweeping and 
     shocking--yet another searing indictment of Metro-North's 
     safety training programs and procedures. Metro-North owes the 
     public a better explanation to this apparent serious criminal 
     conduct, and I will call for congressional hearings to compel 
     them to do so.
       Over a year ago, the Federal Railroad Administration 
     conducted a Deep Dive investigation of Metro-North and found 
     deeply disturbing flaws in Metro-North's training program. 
     The news today that 13 employees have been indicted for 
     cheating on a training exam raises more troubling questions 
     about whether the training program at Metro-North remains 
     weak, ineffective--or worse, susceptible to criminal conduct. 
     These procedures must be improved and the flaws discovered by 
     the FRA must be addressed. That is why I pushed last week for 
     an amendment to a rail bill in the Commerce Committee that 
     will require FRA to provide Congress with quarterly reports 
     on the nearly 30 recommendations outlined in the Deep Dive 
     report. My amendment was accepted into the bill, which was 
     voted out of the committee favorably, and I urge the Senate 
     to take up the measure swiftly so we can ensure Metro-North 
     is implementing true safety reforms,'' Blumenthal said.

  Mr. THUNE. I urge the Senate to ensure Metro-North and other 
railroads improve safety by voting in support of the bill before the 
Senate.
  Working with Senator Cantwell, who has been a strong advocate for 
crude-by-rail safety, we have also included in the bill new 
requirements for real-time train information to aid emergency response 
officials in the event of an accident. Senator Baldwin worked last week 
to ensure emergency officials have advance notice of crude oil and 
ethanol unit trains traveling through their jurisdictions.
  This bill also includes a provision for comprehensive oilspill 
response plans to ensure railroads are prepared and have resources 
positioned to respond to worst case scenarios, another priority from 
our colleague from Washington State, Senator Cantwell.
  Further, aiding emergency response efforts, Senators Booker and 
Menendez included provisions that prohibit the withholding of train 
information from first responders. Their work will also examine the 
sufficiency of response information carried by train crews addressing 
issues raised in relation to the 2012 derailment in Paulsburo, NJ.
  Senator Manchin worked to ensure tank car owners and shippers 
annually report on their compliance with the new tank requirements 
requiring stronger oversight for those important safety upgrades. In 
addition, Senator Manchin and I have agreed on the need for a real-
world derailment test of electronically controlled pneumatic, or ECP, 
brakes. As this testing moves forward, the existing Department of 
Transportation requirements will be kept in place unless the real-world 
testing and evaluation show the requirement is not justified.
  Enhancing the bill's grade crossing safety provisions, Senator 
Gardner added stronger oversight of the Federal Railroad 
Administration's actions pertaining to the use of locomotive horns at 
highway-rail grade crossings.
  Senator Klobuchar included timely provisions to help address issues 
with the blocking of crossings as a result of idling trains. The bill 
also incorporates the work of Senator Roy Blunt, whose TRAIN Act, 
cosponsored by Senators Manchin, Heller, and myself, will streamline 
the permitting process for rail improvements, making our critical 
infrastructure dollars go even further.
  Senator Daines included provisions to improve Amtrak's operations 
through the study of new station development options where Amtrak would 
turn a profit, potentially increasing private sector investment in our 
Nation's passenger rail system. The reforms extend to project 
financing, and Senator Booker's embedded RRIF bill, cosponsored by 
Senators Heller, Carper, and Kirk, will create a faster and more 
flexible RRIF Program.
  I also applaud Senator Kirk for his contributions to the RRIF reform 
bill, improving the loan process and facilitating more timely and 
transparent decisions. These RRIF loans can be used for safety 
improvements, including positive train control. It also explains why 
its inclusion in the broader surface transportation bill is strongly 
supported by Transportation for America, the States for Passenger Rail 
Coalition, the National Association of Railroad Passengers, the 
American Public Transportation Association, and the Southern Rail 
Commission.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the statement 
from Transportation for America.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                   Transportation for America,

                                    Washington, DC, July 14, 2015.
     Hon. John Thune,
     Chairman, Senate Commerce Committee, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Thune: We write to thank you for your 
     leadership on the Comprehensive Transportation and Consumer 
     Protection Act of 2015, which authorizes the federal 
     passenger rail program with the transportation safety and 
     freight provisions under the jurisdiction of the Commerce 
     Committee through 2021.
       The Comprehensive Transportation and Consumer Protection 
     Act of 2015 authorizes the passenger rail program as part of 
     the broader surface transportation program for the first 
     time. The bill incorporates the Railroad Reform, Enhancement, 
     and Efficiency Act (S. 1626) that already received unanimous 
     approval from the Commerce Committee on June 25, 2015. The 
     passenger rail bill would provide sustainable funding and 
     enhancement opportunities for a unified national passenger 
     rail program, while also improving the safety of the rail 
     system. This is an important step in supporting a truly 
     multimodal approach to providing people improved mobility and 
     access to destinations.
       The Comprehensive Transportation and Consumer Protection 
     Act of 2015 also makes progress to improve the movement of 
     freight and enhance U.S. economic competitiveness by 
     improving freight transportation serving agriculture, 
     manufacturing, energy, retail and other sectors. Freight 
     movement is inherently multimodal and multi-jurisdictional. 
     It requires a program with broad eligibilities and a 
     competitive approach to guarantee that limited funding is 
     targeted to the projects with the greatest impact. This 
     proposal moves the federal transportation program in the 
     right direction in addressing the nation's freight needs.
       We look forward to working with you and your committee to 
     address remaining concerns with the bill, such as the future 
     of the TIGER program; however it is clear that passage of the 
     Comprehensive Transportation and Consumer Protection Act of 
     2015 would be an important step forward in creating a 
     transportation program that will boost the

[[Page 13127]]

     nation's economy and ensure future prosperity.
           Sincerely,
                                                    James Corless,
                                                         Director.

  Mr. THUNE. Transportation for America wrote that the committee-
reported legislation would be an important step forward in creating a 
transportation program that will boost the Nation's economy and ensure 
future prosperity. It also stated that the bill would improve the 
safety of our Nation's rail system.
  Building on the work of the commerce committee, the multiyear 
Transportation bill also includes a bipartisan extension to the PTC 
deadline. The bipartisan extension is a rigorous case-by-case approach, 
with enforceable milestones and metrics.
  The Secretary of Transportation approves or disapproves of the dates 
in a railroad's updated implementation schedule, including the hard end 
date for implementation. Under no circumstances can the Secretary 
approve a date for full installation and activation that is later than 
2018. The Secretary also has the authority to identify and require 
changes to deficient schedules that do not show safe and successful 
implementation as soon as practicable.
  Multiple government reports, including from the Government 
Accountability Office, the DOT, and the FRA, have concluded that the 
vast majority of railroads will not meet the December 31, 2015, 
deadline for PTC implementation. This extension will not delay safe and 
successful implementation of positive train control technology. Rather, 
it offers a realistic approach to ensure this important technology is 
implemented as quickly as possible without risking shutdowns of rail 
service that will not meet the current deadline no matter what the law 
says. This proposal is not novel. Senate bill S. 1006, with original 
cosponsors Blumenthal, Schumer, and Gillibrand, would extend the 
deadline to 2018 on a case-by-case basis in 1-year increments. Despite 
good-faith efforts from railroads, the Blumenthal extension recognizes 
the deadline in current law simply is not attainable.
  Similarly, in its GROW AMERICA proposal, the administration requested 
giving the Secretary of Transportation discretion to extend the 
deadline on a case-by-case basis without any constraints on the dates 
the Secretary may approve.
  We follow this model but add explicit constraints on installation and 
activation by 2018, while allowing the Secretary discretion in 
overseeing testing to ensure that PTC works as intended.
  Recently, railroads from across the country explained the potential 
disruption caused by the current unattainable deadline. Virginia 
Railway Express, or VRE, wrote to me stating that ``VRE commuter rail 
operations could be suspended after December 31, 2015'' and has 
requested more time to ensure that PTC works as intended.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the July 28, 
2015, letter from Virginia Railway Express.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record as follows:

                                     Virginia Railway Express,

                                    Alexandria, VA, July 28, 2015.
     Hon. John Thune,
     Chair,
     Hon. Bill Nelson,
     Ranking Member,
     Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Thune and Ranking Member Nelson:  This letter 
     supports the deadline extension for certification and 
     interoperability of Positive Train Control (PTC) to December 
     31, 2018 being incorporated into the Surface Transportation 
     Authorization bill (DRIVE Act) now being considered in the 
     U.S. Senate. The Virginia Railway Express is concerned that 
     without an extension to the PTC deadline, VRE commuter rail 
     operations could be suspended after December 31, 2015 even 
     though VRE has done everything in its control to comply with 
     the requirements for PTC established in the Rail Safety 
     Improvement Act of 2008.
       The extension for PTC represents a common sense, bi-
     partisan approach and it allows sufficient time for VRE and 
     it host railroads to test, commission and certify PTC for 
     compliance. VRE is also supportive of the Rail Technical 
     Grant program that provides $199 million to leverage 
     financing and provide direct grants to install PTC or for 
     interoperability between rail operators.
       Approval of the PTC deadline extension to December 31, 2018 
     gives VRE assurance that commuter rail operations will not be 
     disrupted. I ask that you please support its passage.
       Sincerely,
                                                       Doug Allen,
                                                              CEO.

  Mr. THUNE. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway, one of the freight 
railroads that collectively have spent over $5 billion in private funds 
on implementation, recently sent a letter to the Surface Transportation 
Board that stated the possibility that ``if Congress has not extended 
the deadline for PTC operations, as of January 1, 2016, neither 
passenger nor freight traffic would operate on BNSF lines that are 
required by Federal law and regulation to have an interoperable PTC 
system as of that date.''
  Critically, as I have noted, this extension is now paired with 
robust, dedicated, and mandatory funding for PTC implementation among 
commuter railroads. Recently, the American Public Transportation 
Association, or APTA, surveyed its commuter railroad members and found 
that over 50 percent were deferring maintenance to install PTC and only 
29 percent had a shot at installation by the end of the year. That is 
why APTA, the National Association of Railroad Passengers, and rail 
labor support the inclusion of this critical funding in this underlying 
measure.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the letter from the American Public Transportation Association.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                   American Public


                                   Transportation Association,

                                   Washington, DC, July 28, 2015. 
     Hon. John Thune,
     Chairman, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and 
         Transportation, Washington DC.
       Dear Chairman Thune: We understand that the manager's 
     amendment on the Commerce Committee title of the bill 
     authorizes $199 million in funding that can be used by public 
     commuter railroads for grants, or to leverage financing, for 
     the implementation of positive train control (PTC) systems. 
     These funds are of critical importance as commuter railroads 
     address the $3.5 billion in costs associated with installing 
     PTC systems under the new deadline and process also included 
     in the bill. APTA appreciates the committee's effort to 
     support implementation.
       APTA's commuter railroads support the implementation of PTC 
     on all commuter and intercity passenger rail lines, but we do 
     not believe that PTC can be implemented on the entire system 
     by the current statutory deadline, despite good faith 
     efforts. The funds provided in the bill, in conjunction with 
     the authority for the Secretary to oversee implementation of 
     PTC systems by the end of 2018, will help ensure that PTC is 
     safely installed as quickly as possible. We do not think it 
     makes sense for commuter railroads to cease operations on 
     January 1, 2016 because they were unable to install PTC by 
     the current deadline, despite their best efforts to implement 
     this new technology.
       Thank you for consideration of our views. We remain 
     committed to PTC implementation and we look forward to 
     working with Congress as it advances this important 
     transportation bill. If you have questions, please contact 
     Brian Tynan of APTA's Government Affairs staff at 
     [email protected] or at (202) 496-4897.
           Sincerely,
                                             Michael P. Melaniphy,
                                                  President & CEO.

  Mr. THUNE. APTA wrote: ``These funds are of critical importance as 
commuter railroads address the $3.5 billion in costs associated with 
installing PTC systems.''
  The National Association of Railroad Passengers wrote: ``Just as 
important as the level of the authorization is the structure of the 
eligibility . . . RRIF could potentially be used to leverage the amount 
provided by the DRIVE Act by a factor of ten.''
  The Senate has an important opportunity to advance deployment of 
positive train control and help commuter railroads get over the finish 
line.
  In sum, this is a national rail safety and infrastructure improvement 
bill.
  Amtrak provides service to over 30 million per year, with stops in 
over 500 communities and in 46 States. New York has about 6 million 
riders, Pennsylvania about 3 million, and States such as Florida, 
Virginia, and Washington all have over 1 million riders.

[[Page 13128]]

  This bill also improves the safety of commuter railroads, which 
collectively have nearly 500 million boardings per year. Metro-North, 
serving New York, Connecticut, Long Island Railroad, and New Jersey 
Transit each have 80 million boardings per year. These passengers 
deserve the critical safety and infrastructure improvements put forward 
in this bipartisan legislation.
  The failure to pass this bipartisan DRIVE Act, which includes these 
passenger rail investments and safety improvements, would be a 
significant loss to the traveling public who utilize passenger rail 
systems across the country.
  I would simply conclude by adding that this is a copy of all the 
letters of support we have received regarding provisions in this 
legislation, regarding the legislation in its entirety, and I encourage 
Members of the Senate to support it.
  In addition to the letters I have already included, there are 
literally probably hundreds of letters in here from organizations that 
are impacted, affected by, and benefit from provisions in the DRIVE 
Act.
  So I hope when this comes to a final vote, which I believe it will 
sometime tomorrow, that we will demonstrate in a big bipartisan fashion 
our support for this legislation, not only for what it does for roads 
and bridges but what it does for freight transportation in this country 
and specifically many of the things I have just mentioned that we have 
included as part of the rail provisions in this bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Planned Parenthood

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am on the floor this afternoon to talk 
about something I have had to talk about far too many times--extreme 
Republicans pandering to their extreme base by attacking women's 
health.
  My Republican colleagues have picked this fight over spending bills, 
over the debt ceiling, and the list goes on. In fact, they even tried 
last week to attach political riders attacking Planned Parenthood to a 
bill that was supposed to help seriously wounded veterans start 
families. So we know how far they are willing to go to appeal to the 
tea party, and what we are discussing today is more of the same.
  Republicans are using undercover attack videos, produced by a 
radical, rightwing organization dedicated to taking away a woman's 
right to choose, to once again on the floor try to defund Planned 
Parenthood and take away critical health services from women.
  As Republicans try once again to get in between a woman and her 
health care, my colleagues are on the floor today to make one thing 
very clear: This bill is a nonstarter. We are standing up to be the 
voices for millions of men and women across the country and to say we 
are not going to let Republicans hurt women and take away their health 
care--not on our watch.
  Mr. President, 2.7 women and men visit Planned Parenthood each year 
for health care. One in five women will visit Planned Parenthood at 
some point in her life. These women and their families are looking for 
everything from cancer screenings to birth control, to basic primary 
care, and the bill some of my Republican colleagues have introduced 
would take all of that away. It would leave women without the providers 
they know and the providers they trust.
  I don't think women want the tea party making their health care 
decisions for them, but under this bill that is exactly what would 
happen and that is why it is not going anywhere. Republicans can go 
ahead and try for the umpteenth time to turn back the clock on women's 
health and score political points with their extreme base. They can 
pander to the tea party instead of working with us on the real 
challenges this country faces. We need to be creating jobs, growing our 
economy, and actually expanding access to health care.
  We want them to know we are going to be right there as this comes to 
the floor, fighting back to make sure women come before politics and 
not the other way around. We have fought this battle before and again 
and again and again. Battles we all thought were settled, that women 
across the country thought they had won decades ago keep coming back. 
And each time we have made it clear: We are not going away.
  Republicans can keep trying to attack women's health care, they can 
put new spins on old ideas, they can try talking about it in a 
different way, and they can look for any opportunity they want to bring 
this back up, but they should know we are not going to be fooled and 
they will not fool women across the country. Women in this country 
should be able to make their own decision about their own health care. 
Our government should be investing in women's health, helping more 
women get access to care, not moving in the opposite direction.
  I very much hope Republicans finally learn their lesson and move on 
to the other things, but, if not, we need them to know we are going to 
be here ready to stand and fight for women in this country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleague from 
Washington State, a very distinguished and dedicated colleague, and 
others such as she who are championing this cause of defending Planned 
Parenthood. I am proud to stand with Planned Parenthood in advocating 
and championing the cause of women's health care in this country.
  Planned Parenthood needs no defense and, indeed, this body should not 
be spending valuable time and energy in this attack on women's health 
care that is epitomized by an effort to defund Planned Parenthood.
  Let's be very clear. Planned Parenthood provides countless women 
across this country with STD testing, breast cancer screening, funding 
research in strengthening women's health care, and contraception. None 
of these activities is involved in abortion. They are entirely 
unrelated to abortion. They are about women's health care. The effort 
to defund Planned Parenthood is, in fact, an attack on women's health 
care.
  Planned Parenthood should need no defense from any of us because its 
activities immensely benefit women who depend on it and rely on its 
professionals for basic screening, testing, and other activities that 
protect them from the ravages of cancer and other kinds of diseases 
that will cost more to this Nation if we deny Planned Parenthood that 
funding.
  Planned Parenthood is under attack. It is under siege from a 
sensationalistic and disingenuous kind of publicity that is based on 
undercover videos. People are offended by them, and Planned Parenthood 
has in fact spoken to the merits of them. I encourage Planned 
Parenthood to continue speaking to those videos. Another was released 
just yesterday.
  Planned Parenthood needs no defense from us because the American 
people support it. American women do because they know the reality, 
which is different from what is depicted in those videos. The reality 
is that Planned Parenthood provides funding for women's health care. So 
the funding of women's health care by defunding Planned Parenthood 
should not be the goal or the effect of anything we do in this body.
  I am proud to stand and urge my colleagues to reject this attack from 
the most extreme members of the anti-choice movement, which seeks to 
undermine critical access to health care through Planned Parenthood. My 
hope is that congressional opinion, like American public opinion, will 
continue to be, as we are, on the side of Planned Parenthood.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.


                          Veterans Health Care

  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I will be joined on the floor by the 
distinguished Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Blumenthal, who is the 
ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee;

[[Page 13129]]

Senator McCain of Arizona, who is the leader behind the Choice movement 
that took place last year in August; and Senator Roy Blunt from 
Missouri.
  As we speak, at this very moment the House is voting. They are voting 
on a 3-month extension of the highway bill. But more importantly to us 
on the Veterans' Affairs Committee and to our veterans, they are voting 
on a bill we have agreed to, to fix the problem at the VA with regard 
to the funding of our hospitals and health care, and to open up a new 
day in terms of Veterans Administration services to the veterans of our 
country.
  I was pleased to be joined by Senator Blumenthal at the VA a couple 
of weeks ago where we had a heart-to-heart, 4-hour meeting with 
Secretary McDonald, Sloan Gibson, and others about the false-intended 
press release that was sent out of the VA saying they were about to run 
out of money, health care was going to be stopped in certain places, 
and some hospitals might be closed. That was a misleading press 
release. It was meant to create a crisis that didn't really exist. The 
crisis was not in not having the money. The crisis was in addressing 
the money and having to organize it in such a way it could meet VA's 
needs. What is attached to the highway bill and coming over here is the 
following: redirection of $3.348 billion in the Choice money which was 
appropriated last year into a central fund for health care, just as the 
funds for non-VA health care and regular health care are. Now all of 
the money for veterans' benefits is in the same pie. And the 
limitations on the paying for benefits that were in the Choice bill are 
not going to be there any longer, so all the money can be used for what 
it was intended, and that is to pay for the benefits for our veterans 
who have earned them.
  In addition, there will be an addition to the 40-mile rule to say 
that any veteran who lives further than 40 miles away, or inside of 40 
miles but can't get the services they need for their health care, can 
use Choice to get to a health care provider of their choosing.
  Choice was passed to react to the terrible crisis in the VA in 
Arizona when the Phoenix, AZ, hospital had veterans die because 
appointments weren't kept, veterans couldn't get services, and mental 
health issues couldn't be handled. The Choice Act was engineered by 
Senators Burr and McCain, who did a good job.
  We are proud to be modifying it in this highway extension to be sure 
we do not run out of funding and not appropriate an additional dime 
other than what we already have. For Members who are listening to these 
remarks and will vote tomorrow, I want them to understand quite clearly 
that when they read the bill it will show money as emergency funding. 
That doesn't mean it is new or additional money. It just means the 
money that was appropriated last year as emergency funding for VA 
Choice will be able to be used only for benefits for veterans in terms 
of health care no matter what program they are in--non-VA, regular VA 
or VA Choice.
  We want to see to it that Choice is a force multiplier, Choice is the 
way we get our veterans' timely appointments, Choice is the way we 
utilize and maximize the ability of our country to meet the needs of 
our veterans and bring private sector participation into service for 
our veterans without diminishing or taking away the services our 
veterans get from the VA.
  I appreciate Senator Blumenthal and the contributions he made in the 
meeting 2 weeks ago. I want to commend Chairman Miller and Ranking 
Member Brown in the House for all the work they did, and Speaker 
Boehner, who was instrumental in making this come about.
  I now yield to Senator Blumenthal, then Senator McCain, and then 
Senator Blunt.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Committee 
on Veterans' Affairs, who has correctly and appropriately stated what 
our goal is in seeking the transfer of funding--a goal that will be 
fulfilled by the bill coming to us from the House. It is, in fact, 
coming to us from the House, but as Chairman Isakson has very correctly 
stated, it is the result of an initiative that he--and I have been very 
proud to join him in this effort--initiated with the VA Secretary at 
our meeting last week. And the leadership of the House has joined in 
that effort.
  I am proud and honored to be his partner in this effort, which is 
absolutely necessary to continue the VA's health care programs. This 
transfer of $3.4 billion is required by the fact that the community and 
care programs of the VA will in effect exhaust their revenue streams 
unless we enable the VA to use some of this Choice funding in this 
effort. It is necessary to permit VA programs and veterans to have 
access to money that is there. It is for the same purpose as the 
community and care programs. They are, in fact, identical programs in 
terms of their basic efforts and goals.
  The meeting we had--that Chairman Isakson had last week--was very 
productive and important in reaching a consensus, a bipartisan 
consensus, and I urge my Democratic colleagues on this side of the 
aisle to join this effort to enable VA programs to go forward and to 
make sure we continue to keep faith with our veterans. We should leave 
no veteran behind when it comes to health care. We must make sure that 
we fulfill our obligation to all of our veterans in mental health care, 
in physical health care, in primary health care, and all the 
specialties that are served by this program.
  I thank my very good friend from Georgia for his leadership in this 
effort. I am proud to be his partner in serving this goal.
  I yield the floor, and I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lee). The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Blumenthal and 
also my friend from Georgia, the distinguished chairman of the 
Veterans' Affairs Committee, who is ensuring we continue strong 
oversight and accountability at the VA. It is much needed.
  There are a lot of problems, but what the Senator from Georgia has 
done on a bipartisan basis is to continue the funding to add billions 
of dollars on top of the VA's request. We have approved of every single 
increase for funding that has been requested, and yet I am disappointed 
the administration is seeking to use funds originally allocated for the 
VA Choice card to pay for hospital and medical treatment needs.
  Thanks to the work, though, of the Senator from Georgia and our other 
colleagues, including Chairman Miller in the House of Representatives, 
we will ensure the VA health care will continue without any funding 
interruptions through the summer and into the new fiscal year. We will 
do this to ensure that our disabled veterans do not suffer from the VA 
bureaucracies' mistakes and mismanagement.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a brief colloquy 
with the Senator from Georgia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. I would ask the Senator from Georgia if he would agree 
the Choice card was really a major breakthrough in concept, in that at 
least a certain portion of our veteran population, rather than having 
to go a long distance in order to get VA care, would be able to go to a 
local provider?
  I wonder if the Senator from Georgia would discuss for a moment, or 
comment on, whether that program has been viable, whether it is 
accepted or not accepted by our veterans population, and whether we 
need to make it permanent or not.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona for his 
question. It was the Senator from Arizona who initiated the Choice Act 
movement in August of last year when we had the terrible crisis in 
Phoenix where appointments weren't made for veterans in trouble and, in 
some cases, some of them died.
  We created Choice to be sure if a veteran needed an appointment 
within 30 days, or immediately, if it was mental health or other 
things, and the VA medical facility couldn't provide it, they could use 
Choice to go to a local provider, either because of distance or service 
offered. That was initiated in November of last year, and it has

[[Page 13130]]

grown almost every single month in utility and use because it gives the 
VA a way, when they are backed up, to meet the needs of a veteran 
without just saying we cannot help. It is becoming more and more 
popular.
  Not only is it helping veterans to get services on a timely basis, it 
is a force multiplier for the VA. Every time we can use a local 
Medicare-approved physician, which is what Choice does, we are saving 
the VA having to hire another physician, having to build another 
hospital room, and having to provide another service. Yet the VA has 
control of the services going to the veteran.
  We have 6.5 million American veterans who have received Choice cards 
since November of last year. The numbers started out slow, but they are 
picking up every single month because veterans like the fact that they 
can go closer to home for what the VA can't offer, they can get the 
service they need if the VA can't offer it, and they can be served in a 
timely fashion.
  I thank the Senator for his initiation of this whole movement last 
August and for being a part of getting this addition passed today.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Georgia, and I 
would ask two more questions.
  One is, how important is it that we make it permanent, and maybe even 
look towards expansion of eligibility for the card; and second of all, 
I know the Senator from Georgia has already discussed it, but when we 
have a $1.7 billion cost overrun on the construction of one VA 
hospital--and we see cost overruns literally everywhere throughout the 
VA on their construction projects--how do we fix that?
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, we are fixing it, and I appreciate both 
questions.
  On question No. 1, we need to repeal the sunset of Choice, which is 
in 2 years, and make it permanent. Choice is a force multiplier for the 
VA, which is good, and it is an added service for our veterans, which 
is also good. I commit to you as chairman that I am going to work 
towards eliminating the sunset so Choice is permanent in VA health 
services from now on.
  As far as hospital cost overruns, the Senator is right. Denver was 
$1.732 billion--a 428-percent overrun--but look at Orlando, FL, and 
look at three other hospitals we have built, all of them being two or 
three times the original estimate. The VA needs to be taken out of the 
business of building hospitals, and we are doing that and transferring 
it to the Corps of Engineers, who are the people who know how to build 
something.
  The VA needs to manage the health delivery system for our veterans. 
That is what they need to be providing. They do not need to be building 
buildings. They don't need to be keeping us out of their business. They 
need, instead, to find private sector solutions wherever they can and 
do what they were chartered to do, which is to provide services for 
veterans who fought and sacrificed for our country.
  Mr. McCAIN. In other words, from now on, if there is a new VA 
facility to be built, that will be supervised and constructed by the 
Corps of Engineers?
  Mr. ISAKSON. Exactly. With one exception. If it is a modification to 
a CBOC or a clinic or something like that, that is a smaller allocation 
or a smaller appropriation. Maybe anything under $25 million, they 
might do, but anything over $25 million, such as a hospital, they won't 
do it. The Corps of Engineers will do it.
  Mr. McCAIN. Well, I am sure it is probably a dumb question, but has 
anybody been held accountable? I am sure that is a stupid question.
  Mr. ISAKSON. It is the most intelligent question anybody can ask. The 
press questioned me in Denver, when I went there, along with Ranking 
Member Blumenthal, and we looked at the situation firsthand. After 
looking at it and interviewing the VA people, we were asked by the 
Denver Post how we could explain this mess, and I asked them very 
simply if they knew what a camel was. They said no. I said that is a 
horse built by a committee. Well, the Denver hospital is a camel--a 
horse being built by a committee, most of whom have left and are not 
there to be held accountable anymore.
  It is unconscionable and irresponsible for that hospital to be 
costing what it has cost. We have finally put our arms around it. We 
have finally put people in place with accountability, and the Corps of 
Engineers is now overseeing the completion of that hospital so we don't 
have more overruns like we had. It was a matter of nobody being in 
charge and everybody being in charge--too many chiefs and not enough 
Indians. We had people in charge of health care building buildings, and 
that wasn't what we needed.
  Mr. McCAIN. I think they must have gotten some of those bureaucrats 
from the Pentagon.
  I want to thank both Senator Blumenthal and you, Mr. Chairman, for 
the great work you are doing. As you know, this whole scandal began in 
Arizona at the Phoenix VA, where allegations remain that over 50 
veterans died while awaiting care. Obviously all of us have an 
obligation to all of our veterans, but I know my colleagues can 
understand the special aspects of where this whole thing began.
  I am very grateful, and on behalf of the veterans of my State, I 
thank both of you for your leadership and your commitment. I will be 
going back to my veterans community, and I will be having townhall 
meetings and meetings with them and ensuring them that at least we 
think we are taking measures that put us on the right track.
  I thank the Senator from Missouri for his patience while we engaged 
in this colloquy.
  Mr. ISAKSON. I want to acknowledge the fact that Choice would have 
never happened, and this would have never happened, had the Senator 
from Arizona not immediately responded when the crisis first started 
and fixed this. We appreciate his leadership, and we are glad to follow 
him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I thank our friend from Arizona, the 
distinguished cosponsor with me of the Clay Hunt Suicide Prevention for 
American Veterans Act, for his great work in this area as well as on 
health care generally for our veterans. He has raised one of the most 
profoundly important as well as intelligent questions about 
accountability--accountability for the debacle and delays in health 
care and cooking the books that led to the Choice program, but also 
accountability for the cost overruns in the construction of the Aurora, 
CO, facility--$1 billion at least over budget, and months, if not 
years, of delays, as well as in other construction facilities.
  I would just say to my friend from Arizona that the chairman and I 
are focused on the accountability issue, and we are working together in 
a bipartisan way on a legislative measure that will meet the test of 
constitutionality as well as effectiveness in holding accountable past 
and future officials at the VA for these kinds of mismanagement and in 
other areas. So I thank him for raising this issue.
  I apologize to my colleague from Missouri for delaying him from 
taking the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I join Senator McCain in thanking Senators 
Isakson and Blumenthal for the package we are putting together and 
talking about. And I join them in thanking Senator McCain for coming 
forward and giving reality to this idea that many of us have advocated 
for some time--more choices for veterans, more competition to see who 
serves veterans. I think the numbers Senator Isakson has used here 
today would indicate that every month veterans are embracing this idea 
of more choices.
  It makes common sense that there are a few things the veterans health 
care system should be better at than anybody else. They should be 
better at post-traumatic stress, dealing with that unique battle 
situation so many of our veterans are facing right now. It is not a 
disorder; it is a problem veterans have because of what we ask them to 
do and where we ask them to do it. They should be better at IEDs, the 
explosive devices, dealing with the injuries that come from those kinds 
of attacks, eye injuries and others. They

[[Page 13131]]

should be better, in all likelihood, at dealing with prosthetics 
because in the history of military service, so many of our people who 
serve have lost arms and legs. The VA has been good at prosthetics 
because of that.
  But, frankly, I don't know very much else we should argue that they 
should be better at than the place we probably drive by to get to their 
facility. There is absolutely no reason to think the Veterans' 
Administration should be a better place to get heart bypass surgery 
done or a better place to get renal cancer dealt with or a better place 
to do almost anything else. If, in fact, there is a unique VA location 
that has become better at those things than anybody else, that is a 
great place for veterans to go. But our goal should be to get veterans 
the choice they need to go to the location that works best for them.
  In looking at veterans mental health, Senator Stabenow and I last 
year proposed the Excellence in Mental Health Act. Particularly young 
veterans want to have more choices. They want more choices that work 
better with work and work better with their families and let them 
access those kinds of facilities and that kind of assistance in an 
easier way.
  Seeing the steps this bill begins to take is something we should all 
embrace.
  We should also hold the VA accountable for doing everything they 
could--it appears to me--to resist the concept Congress wanted them to 
embrace. This bill addresses some of those obstacles.
  I joined with Senator Moran in a bill he had so the Veterans' 
Administration could no longer say: Well, the way we read the law, in 
the strictest possible sense, if you are within 40 miles of a 
facility--no matter whether your health care problem can be dealt with 
there or not--you don't meet the 40-mile criteria. Well, of course the 
intention of Congress wasn't that they meet a 40-mile criteria. This 
piece of legislation, with the help of Senator Blumenthal, Senator 
Isakson, and Chairman Miller in the House, begins to clarify that.
  I had a bill the House passed some time ago--Hire More Heroes--that 
allows veterans to have some advantage with companies that hiring that 
are right at 50 employees, and because of the difficulties of the new 
health care requirements for employers, those employers don't want to 
get to more than 50. The Hire More Heroes provision of this will let 
veterans who have TRICARE--who have veteran-provided care of one kind 
or another--be hired by an employer and not count toward the 50 because 
they don't need to be counted in terms of who needs health care because 
they already have it. That is what this does.
  So I would like to see a better job done. The Cochran facility in St. 
Louis--I think one of the more troubled facilities in the country right 
now--the big VA hospital there is about to get its eighth Interim 
Director in 2 years. Now, there is some serious management problem when 
one of our major facilities with some significant problems as an agency 
is now looking forward to its eighth Interim Director in 2 years. No 
problems are going to be solved by half a dozen Interim Directors. The 
head of the VA needs to understand that just like everybody else does.
  The waiting list for getting a VA appointment is longer than 30 days 
and is more than 50 percent bigger than it was a year ago.
  So the choice aspect of this--looking for more flexibility in how to 
apply the ability of veterans to get their health care where they want 
to get their health care--is a good thing.
  I am certainly disappointed that we are looking at another short-term 
extension of the highway bill, but if we have to put something with 
that short-term extension of the highway bill that moves veterans 
choice and competing for who can provide health care to veterans in the 
best way, as this addition does, I think it is a great step in the 
right direction.
  I certainly want to work with Senator Blumenthal, and the chairman's 
pledge to do everything he can to make this competitive environment, 
where veterans can get their health care where they want in the best 
way, a permanent part of veterans health care--that is something I want 
to do.
  One of my good friends introduced me at a meeting at a VA hospital 
about a year ago. He said: Senator Blunt has been telling me for about 
10 years that we need to have more choice. I have been telling him the 
VA could do the job. I am now convinced that more choice is what we 
need.
  Many of our veterans and their families have had great experiences at 
Veterans' Administration facilities, but every one of them should have 
a great experience, the best possible experience at whatever facility 
they go to in gratitude of the service they provided us.
  I am glad these additions are in the bill. I look forward to working 
with my colleagues as we try to make competition work better, as we try 
to ensure that it is permanent, and as we try to make the Veterans' 
Administration work for the veterans instead of being focused on 
working for the Veterans' Administration.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his support, 
and I appreciate the comments made by Senator Isakson and Senator 
McCain. We had bipartisan support for this initiative to make sure our 
veterans continue to receive health care that is necessary because 
funds will be terminated at the end of August if we fail to act. It is, 
in effect, a short-term fix that is necessary because of the present 
structure of funding within the VA. I think we can take this step and 
leave for another day the question of how long the Choice Program 
should be extended, if it should be extended at all.
  My hope is that accountability and funding will focus on making the 
VA even better than it is. The reason for accountability is to make 
sure VA hospitals and providers are giving our veterans world-class, 
first-class health care.
  I welcome the focus of the Senator from Missouri on what the VA does 
well. I hope it does everything well that it is doing. From primary 
care, to women's health care, to all of the clinics that are, to the 
initiatives it is taking in telemedicine, the VA ought to be providing 
the best health care available in the world to our veterans. They need 
it and deserve it. We need to make sure we keep faith with those 
veterans.
  I am proud we are taking this step on a bipartisan basis to address 
the short-term challenge of $3.4 billion that must be transferred from 
the Choice Program to other accounts in the VA and to make sure the 
money is available to provide this funding and keep health care going 
for our veterans.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Planned Parenthood

  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, here we go again. Once again, Planned 
Parenthood is under attack. A bill is before the Senate that would once 
again attempt to defund Planned Parenthood. And once again, we are 
seeing the Republican majority putting their partisan agenda ahead of 
the health of women.
  For 100 years, Planned Parenthood has been a trusted provider of 
health care services. Last year alone, Planned Parenthood of Northern 
New England served 12,000 women in New Hampshire. Most of them are low 
income. For many women in my State of New Hampshire, the full range of 
health services offered at Planned Parenthood is the most affordable 
and accessible way for them to get the care they need. Ninety-four 
percent of the services provided by Planned Parenthood in New Hampshire 
are prevention-related. We can see on this chart that it is well-women 
visits, cancer screenings, vaccinations, birth control, breast exams, 
and HIV tests. Planned Parenthood

[[Page 13132]]

provides the health care so many women need to ensure that they can 
live their lives in a way that gives them opportunities and gives them 
reassurance that they are going to have their health.
  I oppose the legislation that has been introduced to defund Planned 
Parenthood. It would make it harder for millions of women--as I said, 
12,000 in New Hampshire last year alone--to get the high-quality, 
affordable care they need.
  This attack on women's health is politically motivated. It holds 
hostage the millions of women and families who depend on Planned 
Parenthood.
  The highly edited videos that have been circulated are disturbing. 
Planned Parenthood has apologized, and the secretly taped videos and 
Planned Parenthood's practices are under review by the Department of 
Justice. That is appropriate. But make no mistake about it--the group 
who is responsible for these deceptive videos is motivated by a single 
purpose: to limit access to abortion services. Its three officers are 
prominent in the anti-abortion movement. They have ties to many other 
politically motivated groups who are working to take away a woman's 
right to choose. They have been tied to organizations that harass 
medical providers, doctors, and patients, try to limit access to 
women's health care clinics, and they actively work to limit the 
reproductive health care decisions a woman can make.
  Federal dollars are already prohibited from being used to pay for 
abortion under the Hyde amendment except in cases of rape, incest, or 
when the health of the mother is threatened.
  This is not a vote to defund abortion; this is a vote to defund 
preventive health care for women, the kinds of things that are outlined 
on this chart--the cancer screenings, the vaccinations, the breast 
exams, HIV tests, and birth control.
  If you don't like abortion, then you should support family planning, 
which is one of the things Planned Parenthood does.
  By targeting Planned Parenthood, this politically motivated attack on 
women's health will limit access to health care services that I think 
we all agree should be available, the kinds of services that are listed 
on this chart.
  On behalf of the millions of women who are served by Planned 
Parenthood, and the thousands of women in New Hampshire, I oppose and I 
will continue to oppose any attempt to defund Planned Parenthood, an 
organization that is absolutely a critical component of women's health 
care.
  Mr. President, 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. PETERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Vehicle Technology

  Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, the United States is a world leader in new 
technological advancements, and in no sector is that better illustrated 
than the auto industry.
  We find ourselves at a critical juncture in terms of vehicle 
technology. Advancements such as super-lightweight materials and 
vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure communications are 
rapidly coming to market and changing the way Americans get to work, 
travel on vacation, and move goods and services across the country. 
With a shared goal in maximizing the potential of these technologies, 
we must get ahead of the curve and think strategically about how to 
seamlessly weave them together in a way that will best increase public 
safety, fuel efficiency, and vehicle performance. That is why I am 
excited to be leading two bills that will provide the tools 
researchers, engineers, manufacturers, and others need to create the 
next generation of cars and trucks built in Michigan and in States all 
across the country.
  The Vehicle Innovation Act builds on the Department of Energy's 
innovative work to improve vehicle fuel economy and minimize petroleum 
use. The Vehicle Innovation Act is bipartisan, with strong support from 
my lead cosponsors, Senator Alexander and Senator Stabenow. Thanks to a 
team effort, it passed as an amendment to a bipartisan energy bill in 
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources yesterday by a vote of 20 
to 2.
  The need for this legislation is clear. Oil dependency is driven by 
transportation, particularly cars and trucks. Transportation is 
responsible for 66 percent of U.S. petroleum usage and 27 percent of 
greenhouse gas emissions. America's dependence on oil poses significant 
economic, energy, and environmental risks to the United States, and the 
Department of Defense has recognized that our reliance on oil puts our 
men and women in uniform at greater risk.
  We have 240 million light-duty vehicles on the roads in the United 
States, and it will take decades of sustained effort to turn over that 
fleet.
  It is absolutely critical that we develop the advanced technologies 
now in order to achieve fuel savings in the future and become truly 
energy independent. The Vehicle Innovation Act establishes a consistent 
and consolidated authority for the Department of Energy's Vehicle 
Technologies Program, which promotes partnerships with the public and 
private sector to improve fuel efficiency in vehicles. Through this 
program, the DOE will collaborate with light-duty automobile and 
medium- and heavy-duty commercial truck engineers, manufacturers, and 
suppliers to conduct cutting-edge research that will help us advance 
the future of fuel-efficient cars and trucks.
  DOE's sustainable transportation initiatives are already making great 
strides in vehicle efficiency, and VIA will continue to strengthen 
those activities while providing new authorities to expand their work.
  The SuperTruck Initiative is a great example of this. Industry 
partners have achieved and exceeded the program goal of a 50-percent 
improvement in overall freight efficiency on a heavy-duty, class 8 
tractor-trailer. Some have even reached over a 100-percent improvement. 
My bill ensures that the DOE will be able to continue working with the 
industry on supertrucks.
  Another example that the Vehicle Innovation Act will build on is the 
work on multimaterial, lightweight vehicles. Holistic vehicle and 
manufacturing design improvements for reducing vehicle weight can 
result in weight reduction and fuel economy gains of over 20 percent.
  The Vehicle Innovation Act is technology neutral. It develops and 
strengthens the toolbox for auto experts without picking winners and 
losers. It also directs the Department of Energy to continue its 
investment into multiple transformational technologies, such as 
hydrogen and batteries. DOE research and development has cut costs for 
fuel cell systems by 50 percent since 2006. My bill will build on this 
success and expand DOE's focus into the near-term deployments that will 
result in major savings for the national fleet.
  The Vehicle Innovation Act also includes new research authorities on 
vehicle-to-vehicle--or V2V--communications systems. This technology 
allows cars to talk to one another and recognize dangers that a 
vehicle's radar, cameras, and other sensors can't detect.
  As we are working to develop these features in new vehicles, we must 
also ensure that we are keeping pace with technologies in our 
infrastructure.
  Vehicle-to-vehicle infrastructure--or V2I--technology allows vehicles 
to communicate with the road and has the ability to help prevent 
collisions, relieve traffic congestion, and reduce unnecessary energy 
consumption. That is why I introduced another bill to promote 
investments in V2I technology by authorizing States to use existing 
surface and highway transportation funding to invest in V2I projects as 
they upgrade highway infrastructure.
  An example of V2I in action is a monitor on a bridge that will tell 
approaching drivers if there is a dangerous ice buildup on it. Other 
examples include traffic signals that warn vehicles of stopped traffic 
or sensors that warn of nearby emergency vehicles for work zones.
  In 2013 the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration found that 
more

[[Page 13133]]

than 32,000 people were killed in vehicle crashes. According to NTHSA, 
V2V and V2I--the two technologies being developed--will be able to 
eliminate up to 80 percent of vehicle accidents involving nonimpaired 
drivers once they are fully deployed.
  I am pleased that my V2I legislation is included in the overall 
highway bill the Senate is considering this week, and I look forward to 
working in the fall during the conference to make sure this funding 
eligibility language remains in the bill.
  V2V and V2I technologies are part of the auto industry's future, and 
these technologies will be readily available in the near term. That is 
why it is so important that we make these investments in our 
infrastructure now to ensure that we can start using these lifesaving 
technologies as they become available.
  Taken together, these two bills represent the type of forward-
thinking policymaking that Congress should be focused on every day. 
Investments in research and development have demonstrated the ability 
to transform our society for the better, and I am determined to make 
sure the United States is the country that is driving forward advanced 
technology instead of putting on the brakes and being left behind.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.


                           Planned Parenthood

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak about the 
importance of protecting women's health and protecting their access to 
their health care, in other words, their choice. I strongly oppose what 
is becoming a major effort to defund Planned Parenthood. Planned 
Parenthood has ensured women receive the health care they need for 
almost 100 years now. That was before women even had the right to vote. 
Its founder was thrown in jail for making birth control available, and 
it has been under near-constant attack since then.
  I think the Senate needs to stand up on behalf of millions of women 
across this country and vote no on any amendment that would defund 
Planned Parenthood. This organization is the primary health care 
provider for millions of American women. One in five women in this 
country has been to Planned Parenthood.
  I have received hundreds of emails and calls from women in California 
about their support for and experiences at Planned Parenthood. They 
told me that doctors there listened to them, the nurses became their 
friends, and they felt valued as patients. Before they went to Planned 
Parenthood, they were worried about their health. They didn't know if 
they would be able to get the care they need, and they didn't have the 
information to make smart, healthy lifestyle choices.
  One young woman from Santa Barbara told me about a health care scare 
she had when she was 20. Precancerous cells were discovered during her 
annual exam. Planned Parenthood didn't have the equipment to perform 
the followup procedure she needed, but that didn't keep the clinic 
staff from helping her. They connected her to the only OB/GYN in the 
city who accepted low-income patients, and she got the care she needed.
  She said: ``Since that early detection and intervention, I've been 
healthy and would not be where I am today without Planned Parenthood.''
  Another young woman from Victorville, CA, told me it was hard to get 
information about how to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted 
diseases and access contraception. Three girls she knew in high school 
became pregnant. It wasn't until she visited Planned Parenthood in 
college that she felt she could make responsible health care decisions.
  Another young woman shared her abortion story. She was 19 when she 
became pregnant. She felt scared and alone. She said: ``During a time 
when a tough decision had been made and a million thoughts were running 
through my mind, it was relieving to know that I was in the hands of 
people whose only goal was to help me.'' And 4 years later, she still 
uses Planned Parenthood as her primary health care provider and 
encourages her friends and family to also use them.
  I want to say just a little bit about the services Planned Parenthood 
provides and how it uses Federal funds. Nearly 80 percent of its 
patients are low income, making less than $18,000 a year. Without 
Planned Parenthood, many of these women could not access the most basic 
health care services. That bears repeating. Planned Parenthood is often 
the only option for women to get their annual checkup. It provides 
breast exams, contraception, prenatal care, cancer screenings, and 
testing for sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV. It also runs 
teen pregnancy prevention and health education programs that reach more 
than 1 million young people per year. This is what the Federal funding 
Planned Parenthood receives goes toward.
  In 2013, Planned Parenthood used Federal funds to provide the 
following: nearly half a million breast exams, nearly 400,000 cervical 
cancer screenings, contraception for 2.2 million patients, and testing 
and treatment for sexually transmitted infections for 4.5 million 
patients.
  In addition to serving predominately low-income women, Planned 
Parenthood operates in some of the most underserved communities in this 
country. For example, without Planned Parenthood, 13 of California's 58 
counties would not have a single clinic to provide family planning 
services to low-income women through title X programs.
  Attacks on Planned Parenthood are a concerted attack on access to 
safe, legal abortion services in this country. Make no mistake about 
it. The group behind this latest attack, the Center for Medical 
Progress, has longstanding ties to the anti-choice movement, including 
Operation Rescue, which is closely associated with clinic violence.
  While abortion accounts for only 3 percent of the health care 
services provided by Planned Parenthood, it is often one of the only 
abortion providers in a State or a region. For example, there are 10 
abortion clinics in Texas. Just a few years ago, there were 36 abortion 
clinics. Twenty-six clinics were forced to close after Texas passed a 
law aimed at ending abortion in the State. The Supreme Court has put 
some provisions of that law on hold pending further review. But the 
point is that laws such as the one in Texas force much-needed 
facilities to close. Just 10 clinics in Texas have met the unnecessary 
and burdensome new requirements, and 5 of those 10 clinics are Planned 
Parenthood clinics. If Planned Parenthood closes, Texas loses half of 
its remaining abortion providers in one fell swoop.
  The goal of the groups pushing this effort is clear. It is to chip 
away bit by bit at a woman's ability to make her own health care 
decisions in consultation with her family and her doctor. That is their 
goal--no matter the cost to women across the country who rely on 
Planned Parenthood for cancer screenings, annual checkups, and other 
essential services--and in my view, this is simply wrong.
  I am really troubled by the aggressive tactics used by anti-choice 
groups, such as the illegal filming of a medical procedure and the 
hacking of Planned Parenthood's records. This is disturbing. We all 
know the danger of leaking confidential information. We know the 
potential for serious violence.
  In 1994, shortly after I came to the Senate, we passed the Freedom of 
Access to Clinic Entrances Act in response to a spate of violent 
episodes targeting women's health clinics. Two doctors, a clinic 
escort, and two receptionists at a Planned Parenthood facility in 
Boston were killed by anti-abortion activists during three separate 
attacks in 1993 and 1994.
  This week, upon learning that her name and email address had been 
published, one Planned Parenthood staffer in California told my office 
that she refused to be intimidated because she knows that is the whole 
point.
  I am concerned that the message being sent is that it is OK to commit 
crimes against Planned Parenthood, its employees, and its patients; and 
it is not. That sort of message can be taken up by extremists and 
become very dangerous for women and doctors across the country.

[[Page 13134]]

  Whether you support the right to choose or not--and I very much do--
we should all be very careful here. Doctors and clinic staff who 
provide constitutionally protected health care services and women who 
access these services should not be terrorized and threatened.
  In closing, I will return to where I started. I believe that if there 
is a movement to withhold funding from Planned Parenthood, that 
movement will not be successful. I believe that will be defeated right 
here in the Senate. I do not understand why anyone would even try to do 
this at this time. This country has so many problems, not the least of 
which are things that I deal with every day in the intelligence 
community--the fear of extremists, the attacks by terrorists and those 
who want to strike our homeland. It seems to me that we do not need 
this fight now, particularly a fight where those who oppose Planned 
Parenthood, I believe, will be seriously defeated.
  If a bill does come before us, I believe it is a mistake, and I would 
urge my colleagues to oppose it.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tillis). The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, we know that our generation, people in the 
Senate and in the House--people in their forties, fifties, and 
sixties--inherited from their parents and grandparents the greatest 
infrastructure in the history of the world. From the 1940s, 1950s, 
1960s, and 1970s into the Reagan years, when we decided we should 
invest less in infrastructure, we had this incredible infrastructure we 
inherited from our parents and grandparents. Yet, for whatever reason, 
we have allowed it to crumble. We haven't invested. We haven't 
modernized. We haven't even maintained it as well as we should.
  The dismal state of our Nation's outdated roads and bridges and 
railways cost Ohioans and North Carolinians valuable time and money and 
energy.
  The State legislature in my State and I know the State legislature in 
the Presiding Officer's State have been on a budget-cutting tear. My 
State legislature has decided to slice in half, and then some, local 
funding for many things, including infrastructure. As a result, the 
streets in any town in Ohio, virtually--not just big cities, not just 
suburbs, but more affluent communities, small towns, and rural areas--
the streets and highways continue to crumble. It is because this body 
has been far too dysfunctional because of the pledges that many elected 
officials have made to a Washington lobbyist that they will never close 
tax loopholes and will continue to fail to fund infrastructure because 
of what State government has done in my State.
  But instead of debating a long-term bill with that funding, we debate 
a hastily assembled bill, without an open process, without amendments, 
that no one expects will even be considered by the House of 
Representatives. The Speaker of the House, a fellow Ohioan, used a 
four-letter word to describe this legislation when or if--I assume 
when--it goes over to the House.
  The Senate is considering a bill that doesn't do enough for 
infrastructure. It makes bad choices about how to pay for these 
investments. Yet, at the same time, President Obama proposed a 6-year, 
$478 billion transportation package that would provide a major 
expansion in investment. It is supported by all kinds of 
organizations--business, labor, contractors, AFL-CIO, manufacturers, 
steelmakers, concrete makers--businesses that want to have good 
infrastructure to get their goods to market and want their employees to 
be able to drive to work or take the bus to work without major damage 
to the axles of their cars when they hit the potholes on too many city 
streets. Instead, we are looking at a bill that pays for just 3 years 
and offers small increases over current spending levels.
  Think about how we are doing this. This is a 6-year authorization, 
with funding for slightly less than 3 years but collecting the money by 
budget gimmicks over 10 years. What kind of game is this? Instead of 
funding infrastructure the way we used to when we would come together 
bipartisanly and fund infrastructure with real dollars and real 
investments, we are now playing games. That is why in the House of 
Representatives the Speaker of the House used a four-letter word to 
describe this bill. It is why so many are so dissatisfied in the House 
of Representatives.
  It will pass with a majority. It will pass with cloture. It has 
already gotten 60 votes. But they are 60 pretty unhappy votes because 
nobody I know in this body thinks we are doing this anything close to 
the right way.
  If we had considered amendments in the regular order as the majority 
leader promised, I would have offered a fully paid for proposal to 
boost the bill's investments and expand the major projects program. Let 
me talk about that for a second.
  This amendment would fund projects such as the Brent Spence Bridge 
between Cincinnati and northern Kentucky. The Brent Spence Bridge, 
built in 1959, 1960, connects Cincinnati with northern Kentucky. I-75 
running north and south goes from Cincinnati to Dayton. The Brent 
Spence Bridge includes I-75 and runs from Cincinnati, to Dayton, to 
Lima, to Toledo, to Detroit. I-71 also comes together right at the 
Brent Spence Bridge as it crosses into Ohio--Cincinnati, Columbus, 
Cleveland, not far from Akron.
  So my colleague, the senior Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Inhofe, who 
has played a major role in transportation and would like to do it 
right, has pointed out several times during this debate, the 
equivalent--get this--that one bridge--4 percent of our Nation's GDP 
crosses that bridge every day, every week, every month, every year. 
Four percent of our gross domestic product moves back and forth across 
that bridge; yet that bridge is about 55 years old. There has never 
been a serious accident with that bridge. There have been problems. 
There have been some safety issues. I don't think anybody expects it to 
fall down next year--I am not being an alarmist--but when are we going 
to do something to fix that bridge?
  Senator McConnell, the majority leader--that bridge, for curious 
historical reasons--the Ohio River, which separates there Ohio and 
Kentucky--almost the entire Ohio River is considered to be in Kentucky. 
So this bridge, which covers 4 percent of GDP, is in the home State of 
the majority leader, and yet the majority leader did not allow another 
Senator to offer an amendment that actually would take care of 
rebuilding and fixing up that historic bridge that is very crucial to 
our economy. Without the Federal Government, that bridge won't get 
replaced. The State government of Kentucky is not going to do it. Ohio 
is not going to do it. They should play a role. They could toll that 
bridge. Who knows. They should play a role.
  Federal investment in highways was mapped out by President Roosevelt 
and started by President Eisenhower with the interstates. It was always 
bipartisan until the pledge by far too many Members of this body to 
special interest lobbyists who said we can't do that, we can't fund 
this infrastructure.
  On the transit side, I would have sought to strike a pilot program 
that allows pilot projects with any private investment to ``skip the 
line'' of Federal funding, meaning these projects, which are often bad 
for workers that operate the new line, would have been in a special 
category that they surely didn't earn because they haven't served the 
same public purpose and gone through the same justification process, if 
you will, as a normal public transportation project.
  When the majority leader brought a combined transportation bill to 
the floor last Tuesday, he used his privileged position to prevent any 
Senator from offering amendments. I remember the elections last fall 
when Senator McConnell--then the minority leader--said that things will 
be different in the Senate. It didn't take long for Senator McConnell 
to sort of trump his predecessor by doing it even worse--pardon the 
play on words with the verb there. This matters because bad process can 
lead to bad outcomes.
  The Senate, given the opportunity to have a full debate on 
transportation, would be voting on a much stronger

[[Page 13135]]

proposal. As the Presiding Officer knows, this bill has improved over 
the last couple of weeks.
  They have taken out--this bill originally was going to slice money 
out of the Social Security fund to pay for highways and bridges and 
transit. We have never done that before in this body.
  We were going to take money out of money that was already promised 
and dedicated and about to be spent to help cities that have been 
particularly devastated by foreclosures. They were going to use money 
from that.
  They were going to use money from community banks--they still are--in 
this proposal.
  They are going to charge everybody who is getting a mortgage $50, 
$100, $300 at closing to help pay for transportation--what is that 
about?--instead of doing it right and funding transportation the way we 
used to, bipartisanly, back when Senate candidates and House candidates 
didn't sign pledges from special interest lobbyists where they tie 
their hands and are not able to come up with revenue for a 
transportation bill. If all the committees of jurisdiction over this 
bill held markups to actually discuss the bill, had hearings for the 
bill, had been able to amend the bill, it would have been a much 
stronger bill.
  The chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee did good 
bipartisan work on highways. I commend Senator Inhofe and Senator 
Boxer--one Republican and one Democrat--but their work is the 
exception. The banking committee, on which I serve as ranking member, 
traditionally developed the public transportation portion of this bill. 
It is done bipartisanly through the regular committee process. Not even 
a hint of that happened this year.
  The Finance Committee, of which I am a member, has jurisdiction over 
much of the revenue that is used to offset funds going into the highway 
trust fund--no markups there either. As introduced, this bill would 
have robbed Social Security, as I said, taken money from the Hardest 
Hit Fund, as I said, for communities devastated by foreclosure crisis.
  I invite the majority leader to come to Cleveland--I know he comes to 
Cleveland to fund-raise--but come to Cleveland and look at the 
neighborhood I live in. I live in ZIP Code 44105. My wife and I have 
lived there for a couple of years. In 2007, that ZIP Code had the 
highest number of foreclosures in the United States of America. That 
happened because of Wall Street greed, in large part, but the fact that 
it did happen means there is far too much blight in this neighborhood. 
The Hardest Hit Fund matters to clean up some of this neighborhood and 
enable people to get back on their feet.
  The commerce committee, the third committee--first, there was banking 
and then Finance. Then there is the EPW that did it mostly right. The 
banking committee was excluded, the Finance Committee was excluded. The 
commerce committee, which is responsible for highway safety and rail 
safety, held a markup but not a single Democrat on the committee 
supported the language in the legislation because they did nothing 
about public safety. If my recollection is right, younger people are 
allowed to drive trucks--as if we want less truck safety. I say ``young 
people'' meaning 18-year-olds. I know I am getting older, but I don't 
really want 18-year-olds driving these rigs when they clearly don't 
have much experience and less training. It also did not fix some of the 
rail issues we should fix, having seen some of these terrible 
accidents. It was one thing after another.
  For the past 2 weeks, a large part of the legislation was written in 
the Republican offices with little input from Democratic Senators. Even 
though the majority leader has said that times have changed, we are 
going to have a full committee process, an open amendment process, 
debate, and all of that, this didn't happen.
  The greatest barrier of this bill, aside from the limited growth in 
investment, is this bill makes choices about revenue that this Senator 
thinks the Congress and the American people will regret. I have 
mentioned a couple of them. Let me talk about those that were a part of 
the banking committee, on which I sit, which I think I probably know 
the most about.
  Despite opposition from consumer advocates and participants in the 
housing market, including bankers and realtors, the bill would increase 
the guaranty fees paid by homeowners that are charged to protect 
against losses to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That means when going to 
a closing, you are going to be assessed a fee. It would increase the 
cost of homeownership by $4,000 for borrowers who have a 20-percent 
downpayment for the median home price and would increase even more for 
those who put less down. That is why a vote for this bill is a vote to 
increase the cost of homeownership for families across the country and 
puts taxpayers at greater risk. There is a history of opposition to the 
use of this fee for purposes other than housing. More recently, Senator 
Crapo, a Republican, and Senator Warner, a Democrat from Virginia, 
wrote a provision in this year's budget resolution to prevent this fee 
from being misused, and of course they are right.
  This bill requires the IRS to use private debt collection agencies to 
collect taxes because the majority leader was looking for anything he 
could find that might produce revenue--it has nothing to do with 
transportation--but anyplace he could find in the government funds to 
produce revenue that then could be used to pay for a highway bill. 
Again, it is smoke and mirrors and just sort of funny money.
  One of the ways he did this was to take money from the IRS--even as 
we cut the budget for IRS debt collection--to take some more of that 
money and give it to a private debt collection company to collect this 
debt. That was considered to be approximately a $2 billion revenue 
generator for reasons that aren't quite clear. It has been tried before 
and each time it has lost money and it has been repealed. The companies 
hired for these efforts were found to have frequently harassed low-
income families and they violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices 
Act, but the majority leader needed that billion-plus dollars for his 
highway bill. People here didn't have the guts to stand up and say, no, 
we may have made this pledge to the special interest lobbyists and we 
can't come up with revenue, but instead let's actually do this right. 
No, they aren't going to do that. They take money from the Hardest Hit 
Fund, Social Security money, increase costs to middle-class people at a 
closing who are trying to get a mortgage, and privatize debt 
collection.
  It is hard to see how these programs that hurt families--the Hardest 
Hit Fund, the debt collection, the Social Security money--how this 
makes sense to pay for investments for bridges and roads.
  This bill would reduce the dividends paid to banks with over $1 
billion in total assets that are members of the Federal Reserve System. 
That raises $17 billion. While it might make sense to reduce the 
dividend--you can argue that--I have heard people on both sides of that 
debate. If we exempted the smallest banks under $1 billion, there are 
plenty of community banks that are $2 to $3 billion in size. Most are 
smaller, but they will be paying more--hundreds of thousands of 
dollars--millions in some cases. All of the people who voted for this 
bill--voted for cloture, voted for this highway bill--are assessing a 
number of community banks in their States for this money. We don't know 
if the new rate of 1.5 percent that Senator McConnell has decided on is 
fair. I appreciate the cutoff of the lower rate of $1 billion, but we 
should be working this out in committee, discussing it and hearing 
people on both sides. They started with every bank and arbitrarily cut 
it to set the $1 billion threshold. They arbitrarily dropped the 
percentage from 6 to 1.5. Nobody truly knows what I am talking about 
when I talk about this because nobody truly understands this program. 
Even people who are on the banking committee don't know it very well. 
Maybe we should have researched and discussed it and had hearings on 
it. Instead, the majority leader came around to these banks and to this 
committee and they thought, hey, we can

[[Page 13136]]

get $16 billion there by changing a program and nobody knows what it is 
anyway. Well, he has taken that money from a lot of community banks. 
More power to him. It is another reason I am not going to support this 
bill. It is ironic that on the fifth anniversary of Wall Street's Dodd-
Frank reform this bill would undercut rules to help small banks.
  Before I close I want to be fair and point out some of the good 
provisions in this bill. First, the Senate voted on a strong bipartisan 
basis to add an amendment to renew the U.S. Export-Import Bank. This 
Bank has helped 350 businesses in my home State, two-thirds of which 
are small businesses. It doesn't cost taxpayers a cent. Interestingly, 
the Export-Import Bank, begun by President Roosevelt in the 1930s, was 
always bipartisan. Its reauthorization, continuation, renewal, and 
update was always done by Congress on a bipartisan basis. My 
recollection--I am not quite sure this is precise, but my recollection 
is that only once was there ever a vote in the Senate for the 
reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank because there was no need to 
because everybody agreed with it. Yet because of the far right, the tea 
party--we used to call them the John Birch Society when they opposed 
Medicare and now they are called the tea party when they oppose the 
Affordable Care Act--has decided this Export-Import Bank, which helps 
businesses and companies, particularly small companies in Dayton, 
Toledo, Cleveland, Charlotte, Asheville, and Durham--helps small 
businesses export their products. They need some help sometimes.
  Every other country in the world--every other major country, we 
think, has some kind of an export financing agency such as this, but we 
are not able, for political reasons, call it crony capitalism--the tea 
party weighed in and convinced a lot of Senate and House Republicans 
that it is not such a good idea. Right now the Ex-Im Bank is in this 
bill. Hopefully it will stay in over the process. I am hopeful. Because 
the Speaker used a four-letter word to describe this bill, I am hopeful 
when we get a short-term extension--I hate cliches but this is such a 
good one--when we kick this can down the road again for another 2 or 3 
months, whatever it is going to be, I am hopeful the majority leader 
and the Speaker will include the Export-Import Bank reauthorization and 
make it long term, but it is not clear if they will.
  I want to also point out that Chairman Shelby, the chairman of my 
committee in banking, with whom I have a good relationship, included a 
number of proposals for transit policy that I think make good sense.
  The mass transit account was created in 1983 under President Reagan. 
It was done right. Public transit has always received around 20 
percent, sometimes a little more, of any new revenue that is dedicated 
to growth. We have a tradition in this country that for every $100 we 
are spending on the Transportation bill, $20 of that goes to small bus 
systems in Lorain, OH, it goes to RTA for trains and rail in Cleveland, 
it goes to major transit systems in New York or anywhere around the 
country. This bill initially was less than 20 percent. I appreciate 
Chairman Shelby and the majority leader getting it back up to 20 
percent.
  There is a new program for competitive bus grants. It is underfunded 
at $190 million a year. This bill increases the amount of American-made 
steel and other components. That is a good thing.
  With all my criticism on this bill in the way it was handled by the 
leadership in this House, there are some good things in this bill. I 
hope the Senate will move forward after today with a desire to revive 
the bipartisan process based on regular order when we address 
transportation issues.
  I stand ready to work with my colleagues in both parties to deliver a 
robust 6-year transportation bill.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________