as "structural 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 good-paying construction jobs, and for the transportation infrastructure in desperate need of repair around 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. mr. president, while i feel i have no choice but to support a short-term patch to prevent the highway trust fund from expiring late this week, this short-term approach is not the answer. it needs to stop being the norm. it epitomizes congress' 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 been the the -- 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 three years. in legislation gives state departments of transportation the certainty that they need to continue planning, investing and constructing thousands of highway and infrastructure

projects that the entire nation realize upon. mr. president, these -- entire nation relies upon. these boost our economy and keep our 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 farther to responsible investments, steady investments in infrastructure that millions of americans count on every day.

and that's why i'm 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. mr. president, i also want 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 and reid 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 that state and local authorities can apply for funding. every senator sheer has seen firsthand 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, mr. president let me give you some idea for 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 to 2015 awarding 342 projects in all 50 states. mr. president, here's how many applications were submitted. now remember, 342 projects were actually funded. there were 6,700 applications that were received by the department totaling nearly $134 billion in funding requests. so you can see 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've received numerous letters of support for our amendment some of which include transportation for america. and important 150 elected officials, state departments of transportation metropolitan planning organizations chambers of commerce, you name it, mr. president, they have endorsed our amendment to authorize this important program. mr. president, this is just one of the many ways that 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 that it would pass were we able to

get a vote. it's been a privilege to work very closely with my colleagues senator murray, senator reed, both of whom i've worked with on the transportation h.u.d. appropriations subcommittee, as well as with convince like senator cochran and senator shelby at the full committee level on this program. but most of all mr. president it's important that we act and act quick l 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. mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: mr. president, i am delighted to join the senator from maine on the floor today to talk 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's a delight to be here today with her as well as my colleague from rhode island for coming out and talking about a program that we created several years ago 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. and as you can see today this is not a partisan issue. democrats and republicans agree infrastructure investments get workers back on the job. they help our economy grow in communities across in country and make sure our transportation systems work in the 21st century economy which is why i'm 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 and what it does is continue the exop lauer competitive grant -- the popular competitive grant program known as tiger. tiger has 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 and long-term transportation issues while creating good-paying jobs. american jobs, i would add. and working to grow our economy from the middle out not just the top down. we've all seen firsthand the difference the tiger program can make in our states so that's why i fought with my colleagues to get this amendment included in the final transportation bill. you know, since its creation, tiger has awarded $4.1 billion directly to communities to support more than 340 innovative

multimodal products 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 20-1. so it's clear that we can and should be doing so much more to help communities carry out these proms 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 with me to support this critical program and i hope more of our colleagues will join with us in boosting regional economies and improving our nation's infrastructure because this tiger program is so important to our state and our local agencies as they work to tackle the complex transportation needs of our communities. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. reed: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: thank you very much, 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 the transportation policy. they have done an extraordinary job, and today is no exception. i'm just delighted to be able to join them on their amendment to increase resources for tiger

grants. i'm disappointed, like my colleagues that this is merely, in some respects, a discussion of the amendment. we can't bray it up for a vote. because this is something that would be supported strongly by both sides of the aisle. since 2009 the tiger program helped state and local governments make critical investments in their infrastructure across this country. in many respects it's the final piece of a puzzle of how do you get needed, necessary infrastructure in place? it's been that catalyst that has brought private funds and state funds and local funds together to do something which is absolutely essential to our economy and to the efficiency and productivity to our states. it is a program that has been wildly popular to construct roads and bridges and public transit, ports passenger and freight railroad. it's very, very flexibility and

it's ability to coalesce other resources are remarkable. because of it it's been extraordinarily possible. the u.s. department of transportation supported more than 340 different programs in all 50 states and the district of columbia. and these projects improve safety. they've connected workers to jobs. they've supported economic development. by the way they put people to work right away in an economy that needs be 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 competitor process ensures that these resources are targeted to extraordinarily important programs. so for many of these reasons this is one of those programs

that's just win-win-win. unfortunately, we cannot bring it forward on this legislation. this funding is absolutely necessary. i see it in my home state of rhode island. without the tiger grant we would not have been able to jump-start a project which is the interstate 95 via duct. taxpayer it sounds sort of interesting. it is actually critical. it is in providence, rhode island the major north-south rhode island in new england. if this major via duct program could not be funded, there would be a roadblock on i-95. tiger has helped this program moved forward. we have to do more, but we have to do more. it has helped at quonset point and 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 a much more complicated and competitive future in the world economy. as i said before, i think we're all disappointed that because of this process we can't have a debate and have a vote, and we're 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 and, again i'm disappointed we couldn't have done it the old-fashioned way through the committees bring it to the floor. if we had that approach, we could have, i think improved the offsets that we're using to pay nor these 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're filing, but we won't be able to take them up. i've got one in terms of

pay-fors that would produce $55 billion over ten years. robust funding for a score of highway programs. and it's by capping the deduction of publicly traded corporations for employees' salaries over $1 million. i think most americans would say if someone is getting over $1 million, then we shouldn't be subsidizing through the tax code that kind of reimbursement. they very well might be worth that money but that's the judgment that the corporation should make. if they think it's worthwhile, they are the ones that should put the money up, not a subsidy from the tax code. but that's just an example of some of the ways we can generate real resources. so again let me say how strongly i support this amendment, how much we really owe the determination the vision the thoughtfulness of senator collins and senator boxer. i must also thank chairman inhofe and senator boxer for their work an on getting us at

least this far. we have together further but they've got us at least this far. so mr. president it looks as if given that the house is leaving, this bill will not pass this week, but certainly we've got a template which i hope we can improve as we spend a few months' extension that will be the ultimate result this week, and in that process i think we can make improvements. i hope one improvement is the tiger grant and other things that we can and must do. but let me conclude it where i gang and just thing very sin -- where i began and just thank very sincerely senator collins. thank you mr. president i yield the floor. mrs. boxer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: mr. president just one moment. mr. president, i'd withhold and yield five minutes to senator leahy. the presiding officer: the senator is recognized.

mr. leahy: i thank the distinguished senator from california. i assure her i won't take that long. 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 that would eliminate health centers that thousands of vermonters rely on every day thousands of vermonters. across the country we have millions of low-income women who depend on planned parenthood's health centers including for annual exams cervical and breast cancer screenings, h.i.v. screenings and counseling. these clinics are the primary source of health services for many women. if you eliminate federal funding to planned parenthood centers

they're going to deny women access to these critical services, they will force women to find medical care elsewhere or more devastatingly and more probable to sumly go simply go without. the partisan bill that was improved yesterday in the senate is the latest attempt to score bumper sticker politics, and it's bumper sticker politics at worst. you jeopardize millions of americans who depend on these medical services in a bid to rally a base that's 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 others to the planned parenthood centers because they feel that they have people who can talk with them, people -- they feel comfortable with, they can bring

their daughters their children there, know they're going to be cared for they know there are people who care for them. they don't care whether they're republicans or democrats. they're 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. mrs. boxer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: thank you. i want to thank the senator from vermont, the ranking member, the former chairman of the judiciary committee, for his remarks. and i agree with them, and i will be speaking later on the very same topic. but now i want to go back to speaking about the transportation bill, and i want to thank so much the strong, strong show of support we had on this bill, with 65 colleagues voting to end debate and get to a vote. and we do expect a good vote

tomorrow. but i have to say the reaction of the house speaker really took me aback. remember the bill that we passed was totally bipartisan. a majority of democrats a strong majority of republicans senators inhofe, mcconnell boxer, durbin, and a host of others worked very hard on this bill. so why the house be so negative about it? as a matter of fact, his comment that was reported in the ""politico"""politico" online version to date is such that i can't repeat what he said on the floor of the senate. i would be breaking the rules. and i'll leave it up to everybody to see exactly what he said about our bipartisan bill that actually the name on the

bill is that of the leader, the republican leader of the united states senate. and yet the speaker of the house demeaned that bill, our bill. now, i want to be clear that i defend freedom of speech, and i defend the right of speaker bainer to say whatever he -- of speaker bainer to say whatever he -- of speaker boehner to say whatever he wants and therefore, i can say whatever i want. so what i would like to say today is, why on earth would you oppose a bill that is so bipartisan that got 65 votes that the republican leader has put his name to? why would do you that? and another question is this -- and i put this chart up here: where is the house bill? mr. president, you could argue

that you don't like our bill. where is your bill? what have you done? where have they been? we've known about this transportation crisis for a long long time. mr. president, you and i have worked hard together, even though we disagree on so many things. we have worked together on getting a strong bill. the bill was voted out of our committee, the environment and public works committee 20-0. so the speaker of the house the republican speaker of the house condemns the bill. where is the house bill? we're about to pass a third extension since the last transportation bill expired in 2014. there have been dozens and dozens of extensions, more than 30. and, you know, when you extend the highway trust fund just for a couple of months at a time --

senator inhofe has taught me because i wasn't aware of this, it is a very expensive thing to do administratively, and on the ground what happens is states are shutting down. now, let's look at the seven states that have essentially canceled or delayed projects because there's been inaction. mr. president, arkansas has canceled or delayed highway projects. delaware has. georgia has. montana has. tennessee has. utah has. wyoming has. now, why have these states done this? it's because they are concerned that we don't have a long-term highway bill. that's why we're so excited about the bill that looks like it's on its way to passage because it's a six-year authorization with a full three

years of funding. now, again, i want to ask the speaker rhetorically, what is is about our bill that he doesn't like? so let's go to the highlights of the senate bill, the bipartisan senate bill. i will discuss them. and i would put up the chart on "where's the house bill" because that's a common question that i want to ask today. it is easy, you know, to throw darts at somebody else and say i don't like what you did what you did wasn't good enough. where's your answer? they have nothing nothing but another paltry extension. now, why do 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.

this is what i want to say about that. the american people, most of us work. and i ask rhetorically, how many people in america who told down a job get a 5-1/2- week break which is called an 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've got a lot of problems here. stay. stay another couple of days. oh no, they want to get out of town. they were originally going to get out of town tomorrow. my understanding is they're trying to get out today. that gives them a 5-1/2-week break without taking care of business. and i think anybody who is watching this, who really cares about the highway trust fund and transportation and bridges collapseing -- let's look at this one that happened in california.

mr. president, this is a frightening view of a bridge that collapsed. we were so lucky. we thanked god that nobody was killed. but we now have 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're hoping to fix it with emergency funds but we can't rebuild the part that fell that quickly. we need a long-term bill. and i say to the speaker don't go home. and 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 they highly of you if you leave with this highway trust fund going broke friday. go broke friday. and the senate has passed a bill -- it is a good bill.

the speaker used some words i can't use here on the floor to describe it. so i want to ask the speaker what is it that he doesn't like? what is it that he doesn't like? is it the $55 billion a year for six years the first three years being fully paid for? every state gets more formula funding, including his state for highways and transit. he does not like that? he does think that we shouldn't as amended-- he doesthink that we shouldn't spend funding to fix our highways? does he not like the freight program which will provide funds to improve goods movement? he does not like the assistance for major projects program which is going to help our states when they know that there is a real problem in their community and they want to build a project?

does the speaker not like the fact that we've tripled safety fines so when a takata air bag problem happens the companies have to step up? he does not like the fact that there's 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 commuteer rail fund for positive rail control where we can help our commuter railway put in positive train controls so we won't have those strategies that happen -- tragedies that happen. why doesn't he like this bill? it has a long list of supporters. mr. president, let's look at the supporters and mr. president, i guarantee it is rare that you see the 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 triple a, who agrees with the

conference of mayors, who agrees with the brotherhood of carpenters who agrees with the state highway and transportation the officials who agree with the mothers against drunk driving,if who agree with the american engineering councils. and it goes on. it's rare to see it. the american highway users the american public transit association -- transportation association, the american road and transportation builders, the society of civil engineers the trucking association the equipment distributors, the general contractors the equipment manufacturers the metropolitan planning organizations, the national asphalt pavement association and it goes on and on and on. mr. president, this is america. the national association of counties. i used to serve as a county supervisor. it's hard to get us to agree. they agree to 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 association, the league of cities the ready mixed concrete the stone sand and gravel people, the owner-operator independent drivers, the portland cement association, the retail industry leaders. and the afl-cio sent out a statement yesterday to the house take up this issue. if they dove don't love our bill it's fine. i don't expect them to. but i do say where is your bill where is it? you can stand up 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's on page 50, or page 150. that's your right and i respect it. and i support your right to say this isn't a good bill if you

don't think so. where's your bill? where is the house bill? get it together, don't go on vacation wait until you finish this job because i'll tell you what happens when you do go on vacation. the first person in your state to see you who is 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 haven't 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 not have acted. now, i want to say to the speaker ohio is on this list. you lost jobs in ohio. what are are you doing by just saying you don't like this bill? stay in. do your work. you've got 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. and i know, the speaker has told me he wants a six-year bill and i believe him but why put it off? we've got -- we've got the inhofe-boxer-mcconnell-durbin product. it passed overwhelmingly. take it up. now, the committee for

responsible federal budget, here's what they said. it's refreshing to see congress focus on a multiyear solution instead of another short-term patch, and they say of our bill this is a fiscally responsible bill that relies on solid offsets. now, let me be clear. i didn't love every offset. i see my friend from maryland. we tried desperately to get better offsets and there may be people in the house who don't like the offsets. come together and figure out another way. why don't you see if you can fully fund a six-year bill. we fully funded a three-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? now, they'll shuster yesterday -- chairman shuster said yesterday the house needs to make its heard and put fortunate its own priorities. he's right. so why are you going home for a

five and a half 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, five and a half weeks. i don't know of too many american workers who get that kind of a break in the summer. i say it's 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 ten 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, 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 committees, come out with a rule, bring the bill to thoroughfare and get -- the floor and get it done. let me quote from "the

washington post" editorial. they say -- quote -- "the senate bill authorizes six years of spending on transportation projects under a sensible plan senators boxer and inhofe worked out. the bill provides three years of guaranteed funding for the spending plan raised from a variety of sources." and they basically say -- they didn't love the process neither did any of us, but they say it's a significant improvement from what congress has done for the past decade. lawmakers fumbled from short-term spending patch to short-term spending patch, a nonstrategy 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 there perfect?

no. but as amy klobuchar has told me we stood our ground, all of us, but we found common ground. that's important. we stood our ground but we found common ground. that's how we're supposed to do things around here. and, you know, i look at my friend who is going to speak shortly from maryland, and i know he set the pace with senator corker in working out some very difficult issues in the foreign relations committee and which i'm so proud to serve and so proud of my leader on that committee senator cardin. they set the pace over there. and then patty murray worked with lamar alexander and they came out with an education bill. and then i worked with senator inhofe and he worked with me, and mitch mcconnell worked with senator durbin. and we came out with a product that is supported by a majority of both caucuses. i'm proud of the product.

i know it's 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's what's at stake -- i'll show you the bridge again -- this is what's at stake. this is the face of what we are doing. it is bigger than our egos. it is bigger than our taking a five and a half week break. i served as a count supervisor and we knew the building we were in was earthquake deficient. it is still and it is beautiful, frank lloyd wright's last built-out government building. and 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 those many, many many years ago that it was possible we could be held liable because we knew

absolutely that this could crumble around us, now i'm not saying for one second that any colleague is liable if something like this happens again, but i will tell you that i think it is, in fact, a moral question for us. how long can we put this off? i guarantee you a three move patch is not going to get 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% of the roads that are not up to par. so i say to the house if you don't stay here and you don't go home after passing a short-term extension, and someone comes upstand says congressman or congresswoman, i just got laid off, i'm a construction worker i guarantee you're going to have a hard time

explaining why you left and took a five and a half week break august break and you left even before august 1. it's the first time the house will ever have done that in ten years. they haven't left before august august 1 in ten years. and there's a lot on our plates. instead, we're going to talk about planned parenthood. fine. i welcome the argument because to me it's the same old same old argument about interfering with women's health. i'll go there with you. i'll be there with you. i'll fight that battle for the people of america the women of america. i don't mind that. but we've got to do this. we've got to do this in the house. we've got to pass a bill. so i hope, 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. and in that extra week we can work together, the speaker doesn't like our bill, he can write his own bill. we'll go to conference, we'll start working on it, we'll get this thing done. and that's my ask today. my ask is, where is -- where is the house bill? and i'm asking to the house in the nicest way i know how please don't leave tonight or tomorrow on a 5 1/2 week break with this issue the mess of this issue and the highway trust fund is going bust on friday and if the best you can do after knowing about this for months and months and months is give us a paltry three-month extension then shame on you. the senate has proven in a very bipartisan basis we can do better. not a three-month extension

three years of a paid-for bill, six years of an authorized bill. surely you can meet us and get this done together. thank you so much, mr. president, and i yield the floor. mr. cardin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: first i want to thank senator boxer. it's a privilege to serve on the environment and public works committee with senator boxer under her leadership and senator inhofe. the bill that we brought out the six-year bill is a bill that deals with the needs of our surface transportation in this country. it was done in a very bipartisan manner it respected different views. i had certain views in regards to alternative transportation programs not everybody agreed but we were able to come together on that, help local governments with their priorities. we need a six-year bill. you're absolutely right. and i must tell you i couldn't agree with you more, we've been talking since the last extension, the extension before that and the extension before that that we need to have a

six-year reauthorization. and you were able working with senator inhofe to deliver a bill that does that. and we've yet to see a six-year bill from the house of representatives. we're prepared to make the hard decisions. we're prepared to sit down with our house colleagues and work out the differences but we need a six-year reauthorization. another short-term, they're talking about three months, another short-term extension gives no predictability. i have programs in maryland, i know the senator from california has programs in her state that you can't plan those with a three-month partnership with the federal government. you need to have the multiyear commitments and 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 and it's more important than the recess and i thank my colleague for taking the floor and for her extraordinary work in that regard. mr. president, i would ask consent to speak as if in

morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: thank you. mr. president, this week we will be celebrating the 50th anniversary of medicare and medicaid. president lyndon baines johnson signed into law july 30 of 1965 and mr. president i take great pride in the medicare and medicaid programs, it's under is social security act and my colleagues know we're proud in maryland to be the headquarters for the social security administration and for c.m.s. the center for medicare received services. the men and women who work there are doing an incredible service to carry out two of the most important programs in our country, medicare and medicaid. our most vulnerable citizens have been able to rely upon these programs to provide access to affordable high-quality

health care. let me underscore how important medicare is to our country. not just our seniors not just those who suffer from disabilities, but it allows them to be able to get quality health coverage affordable care without having to deal with the difficulties of private insurance. you know, private insurance makes money by insuring people who can 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's 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. we are now able to get health coverage for our seniors. before we had medicare, seniors

laid about 56% of the cost of health care came out of their pocket. today that's down to 13%. so we've seen significant improvement over time. before we had medicare, one out of every three seniors lived in poverty. today that number's one out of ten. every one 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. in regards to the medicare program, those seniors that have disabilities 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 one out of every three in our nation, and every 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 significantly improved the access to care for our children, particularly our low-income children. and now we've also improved the 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 a.c.a., 9.4 million medicare beneficiaries have saved more than $15 billion on prescription drugs. in maryland alone our seniors have saved more than $230 million in their prescriptions. mr. president, i'm particularly pleased that over the 50-year history of medicare, we changed a program improved it, built on it over time. when it was first enacted, it was there mainly to cover seniors' needs for injuries and illnesses.

it was an insurance program in case you got sick. it was an insurance program if you had an injury. well, we changed that focus to a wellness program to keep seniors healthy. i'm particularly proud that when i was in the house of representatives, i authored the bill that expanded medicare to cover preventative health care, the screening services for colorectal screenings, for mammography screenings, for diabetes screenings, for osteoporosis. those tests were added in legislation i offered in the house of representatives. now, we've come a long way since then culminating with the affordable care act that eliminated all the co-pays for preventative health care, because today medicare is keeping our seniors our disabled population healthier because they know that their preventative health care is covered and that they can detect diseases at an early stage and live healthier lives. over the past five decades our nation has seen incredible positive change as a result of

medicare and medicaid programs. on the 50th anniversary of the passage of this landmark legislation, let us celebrate the progress we have made and work together to find ways to build upon that progress. by further improving our nation's health care system to ensure all americans have access to affordable high-quality health care and are able to live healthy, productive lives. mr. president, this is particularly true because i believe next week we're going to see an attack on women's health care issues. and i just urge my colleagues to recognize the historical discrimination that we have had against women in health care in this country. we dealt with that in the affordable care act to deal with some of the historical discriminations against women. but we need to be pretty careful about this because there's 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's very important for women.

but it also dealspreventative health care and screening and primary health care. so many women get their health care needs met through planned parenthood. so i just urge us as we celebrate the 50th anniversary of medicare and medicaid, as we celebrate how we have been able to continuously make progress np providing affordable quality health care to all americans whether there are seniors our disabled population, our children those of low income, those groups have been historically discriminated against, that we look to try to build upon that program and make it even stronger but not to 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 secretion of medicare and medicaid 50 years ago and more recently the enactment of the affordable care act. let us continue to make progress so that all americans have access to affordable, quality health care. with that, mr. president i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mrs. capito: mr. president i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. capito: thank you. mr. president, i rise today to express my deep concerns with the nuclear agreement negotiated between the united states, 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 98-1, and the house passed it 400-25. the bill was signed into law by our president, 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 that the bill would allow congress to hold the administration accountable for negotiating an enforceable and verifiable agreement that would stop iran's progress towards a nuclear weapon. negotiators have completed their work. review of the agreement is underway. committees are holding important hearings. we had one this morning. and 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 that this agreement is flawed in several ways. first, the agreement fails to provide for an inspection 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 or much, much longer and under the joint commission process could be potentially much longer before inspectors have access to a suspected nuclear site. it's obvious that iran could hide elements of a nuclear program such as the construction of centrifuges before inspectors could ever gain access to a sppt sppt -- suspected nuclear site. already iran has 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 in its june 2015 report which stated -- quote -- "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." end quote. 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 complemented. this has been the -- will be implemented. this has been the subject of great discussion. third, i am concerned that 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're 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 muslims in iraq to houthi 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 iran -- the country has -- the internal

infrastructure of the country because of the sanctions and because of the lack of economic activity has fallen into disrepair. 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 of a signing bonus what makes us think that iran's going to change their priorities all of a sudden? i personally have trouble with that. finally, i'm worried that the decision to lift the embargo on convention arms and ballistic missiles sold to iran will allow iran to present a greater threat to their neighbors. in addition, it could precipitate a military build-up in the region which would 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 with war with iran.

to accept this binary choice is to say that the american people should accept this deal rals of how one-sided it may be in order to avoid a military conflict with iran. as a newspaper in my state the charleston gaz zell he had -- gazette he editorialized yesterday said it paints a pictured that allows opponents to gloss over the problem. the deal's critics consistently made the case that there are other possible paths. the problem is that this administration doesn't want to take them. end quote. 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 -- general martin dempsey chair of the joint chiefs, said

-- and i quote -- "we have a range of options and i always present them." end quote. all of us would prefer a diplomatic solution in iran, but a good agreement in 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 that the leverage provided by sanctions a better deal is possible. and i'm not alone. a cnn poll released just yesterday found that 52% of the american people want congress to reject this deal while only 42%

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 this debate about the iran deal. i accept that the president and his administration truly believe that the deal that they have negotiated is in america's best interests. but the claim that those who have a different view want more with iran, it is an inappropriate attempt to short circuit the legislative debate about this agreement. congress must stand up against a threat to national security and assure that a monumental agreement contains the necessary verification and enforcement mechanisms to prevent future generations from a nuclear iran. i stand with all our allies in

the region who 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 towards 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. and i yield the floor. are

mr. coats: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. coats: mr. president once again i'm here on the floor for the waste of the week. each week of 2015, this cycle of the senate i've come to the floor to discuss an issue of waste, fraud and abuse. misspent taxpayer money identified by neutral agencies of the federal government, 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'm going to come here every week throughout the duration of this session and i'm going to try to achieve the goal of $100 billion of waste. i wasn't sure we could reach that goal but today is a very special day because we're going

to highlight by the end of my speech here over $100 billion of waste, fraud and abuse that the taxpayer is trying to cover through their hard-earned pay back at home. over the past several months i've highlighted a variety of examples from the serious such as the illegal procurement practices at the veterans administration, to the ridiculous: taxpayers funding for massages of rabb -- rabbits to determine whether or not after strenuous exercise made them feel better. i think we didn't need to gather a bunch of rabbits and put it through, about 400 thousand as i recall, grants to an organization that made machines -- this is almost too funny without laughing to talk

about -- gave machines to mechanically massage the backs of rabbits. just stop anybody on the street and say do you think a good massage would make you feel 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 rabbit, so i didn't want to put myself in that position. from the young taxpayer improper and fraudulent child tax credit refunds to the old the social security checks that were being sent out to individuals over the age of 112 obviously there weren't too many people in the country, if any over that age. but their numbers hadn't been taken out of the system, and the checks kept just going out. and these people obviously died many many years before. so on and on it goes.

and we are deluged with examples of waste fraud and abuse which, yeah, bring some chuck also bring some -- chuckles, bring some can you believe we're actually doing that. but the bottom line is people are out there working every day working hard to make ends meet to buy groceries, save money send the kids to school, and they're sending taxes to washington and the bureaucracy is doing stuff like this. and it's a bad break for taxpayers, and it's shameless for government not to take measures to stop these things from happening. so i'm trying to disclose them, disclose it to the public, this is how your taxpayer money is being spent so they'll put pressure on their members and say clean it up. fortunately we've been able to do some of that but there's a long way to go. anyway, 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 this earned-income tax credit in 1975 to offset the burden of social security for low-income workers and provide an incentive for them to work. a good motive here. and to some extent, it has worked. but when the credit -- 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 but earn less than a certain income level qualify for this refund from the government. and according to the congressional research service this tax credit is the largest needs-tested antipoverty cash assistance program the federal government runs. so whether you think this is a right program or not the question here is how ask being

run? and is it efficient and effective? or is it making mistakes? we're talking about big government here, and so mistakes are usually big mistakes if there are some. well in 2011 the i.r.s. identified more than 6.6 million potentially erroneous earned-income tax credit claims that went to households that didn't qualify. individuals who were telling the government that they're working and earning and therefore eligible for the earned-income tax credit bonus check but at the same time they were telling other agencies like the supplemental social security program, that they're not earning that much or not working or don't have income, and can collect more money for -- quote -- "being identified as disabled." so they're ending up getting double checks, one for working

and one for not working. so when we add all that up, the latest year that has been identified is 2013, and the tax credit cost taxpayers during that year $14.5 billion. d 14.5 billion of fraudulent wasted taxpayer fraud mistakes made by the agency handing out these checks, the i.r.s. so if we can put in place measures that can provide accountability and verification to this program, we can save the taxpayer up to $14.5 billion a year so, with. so with that, we added to our gauge -- we add to our gauge an additional $14.5 billion.

and as you can see by the climbing up each week of money saved through the various programs we've identified, we have now eclipsed the $100 billion level and we're just a little ways past the middle of the year. i could take the charts, stick them in the back closet, say "thank you," got my $100 billion, made my point but i'm going to keep going. every week the senate is in session for the ermder of remainder of this year, i will be back down here with another "waste of the week" so we can embarrass so that we can disclose, so that we can let agencies know that they are wasting taxpayers' dollars and that we as a congress need to do something about that. now, you say $100 billion. some people say in comparison with the total federal budget, that's a drop in the bucket. well $100 billion is almost

incomprehensible. maybe donald trump understands what $100 billion is, but i don't, in terms of the magnitude of that amount of money. it is a small part of what we spend here. the -- but we could do so much more in terms of identifying issues and programs that would save the taxpayer money. federal spend something out of control. we know that. this highlights some of that. the real issue is much worse. while states such as mine, the state of indiana have created balanced budgets have eliminated debt, have provided surpluses, which they can use to return to taxpayers or save for a rainy day the federal government has not done that. it's a huge challenge in front of us. this is just a piece a small piece of trying to identify some

of the problems and challenges that we have. and by identifying them, saving the taxpayer money and making reforms to these various programs. so with that, mr. president, i will yield back the floor. but you can count on me being here every week through the rest of this session with the "waste of the week" as long as the congress and the senate is in session. with that, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: