mercy hospital was the center of medical care in the community for 100 years, 100 years, mr. president, and it's provided jobs for nearly 200 people. in many parts of the country, like independence, kansas, and much of my home state of wyoming, the local hospital can be the biggest employer in the community. if the hospital closes, these people lose their jobs, the tax base for the community goes down. it means fewer services like schools, firefighters, public safety. maybe the local restaurant or florist doesn't have enough business to stay open. nurses, teachers and other workers may move away, looking for a better opportunity somewhere else. it's harder for the town to attract new businesses, new doctors, more teachers. the town suffers. now, that's what these communities across america are facing. is that what president obama promised the american people? is that how obamacare was supposed to work?

ezekiel emmanuel was one of the president's architects of the health care law. he says that 56 hospitals shutting down is not enough. he's actually written a book about this. it's astonishing, mr. president. he's written -- the architect of the president's health care law has written a book. he says that over the next few years, between now and 2020, more than a thousand hospitals will close. 1,000 american communities where people will be farther away from medical care. 1,000 american towns in danger because of the lost jobs and lost health care. mr. president, we needed health care reform in this country. there's no dispute. we did not need this disruptive, destructive and dangerous obamacare law. it's been bad for patients. it's been bad for the providers, the nurses and doctors who take care of those patients. and it has been terrible for the american taxpayers.

it has been especially hard on rural communities. we have got to do something to stop this corrosive condition causing hospitals to close, insurance co-ops to collapse and health care choices to disappear. democrats in congress need to sit down with republicans and start talking about the kind of health care reforms that the american people need, want and deserve. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. coats: mr. president, i return to the floor this week for my 24th edition of waste of the week. i have been coming down every week that congress has been in session during this cycle talking about waste, fraud and abuse of taxpayers, hard-earned

taxpayer dollars. this is the 24th edition. today i want to highlight improper medicare payments of taxpayer dollars. now, we all know that medicare is important to our older citizens, of which i am one of them. millions of americans, tens of millions of americans depend on medicare for their health care coverage. and we all know that we have the responsibility here in this body to preserve these important health benefits for those who depend on them. as part -- and part of the preserving of these benefits is protecting medicare from waste, fraud and abuse. unfortunately, throughout the history of medicare, medicare has been plagued by improper payments, and it's shocking to hear the numbers. the government accountability office has reported that improper medicare payments

totaled nearly $60 billion in 2014 alone, and over the last ten years, $336 billion of waste, fraud and abuse in the medicare system. and this figure does not even include improper payments for certain medicare programs that have actually not taken place. examples of medicare payments include things like services that are not medically necessary, duplicative billing for services by providers, ineligible practice locations and spending on services that actually never took place. yes, actions that never took place have been billed to the government, and only discovered later that those reimbursements were fraudulent, and it's rampant. this is taking money out of hard-earned tax dollars out of the american people's pockets.

but it's also denying those in medicare the coverage that they are entitled to under the program, and it is driving medicare into a -- a road to insolvency that we're going to have to deal with and i think we should have been dealing with it in present years, but one of the years that we can deal with now if we can't summon the political will to recognize the fact that medicare is careening toward insolvency at some point which will result in cutting benefits significantly for current members receiving benefits under medicare or require massive tax increases to cover the deficit, one of the things that we can do now, since we can't gather the political will to do the other, to my great distress, is at least address those issues where we know that fraud has taken place.

now, i've come down here and talked to -- now, this is the 24th time. we have a chart, thermometer that we wanted to reach the goal of defining $100 billion of waste, fraud and abuse. well, we shot way past that. you just can't catch up with it in terms of -- and these are matters that have been accounted for by the government accountability office. this isn't something republicans are just making up or we're drawing something from anecdotal items that appear in the paper or are raised on the talk shows. these are fuel waste, fraud and abuse examples of what we have already documented. and so today -- now, every once in a while when i come down here, i could talk about the $60 billion. we could add $60 billion to our climbing accountability and total of waste, fraud and abuse,

but i like to every fourth or fifth time address something that is so egregious it draws the public attention to say we ought to look into this or to press their elected representatives to do something about this. can you believe that we are wasting money on something as frivolous as this, and this is an example today that i'm -- that i'm going to raise. "the washington post" recently said in an editorial about improper federal payments every misstep dollar lining an undeserving pocket is a dollar not available for those who need the help. now, from time to time, as i've said, i try to raise something that catches the public interest we've talked about federal grants going to prove that massaging of rabbits, using rabbits as an example, makes them feel better after a

strenuous workout. i think most of us could have figured that out without having to spend some $300,000, i think it was even more than that, as a grant to some unbelievable -- somebody came to a conclusion this would be a worthy project and use of taxpayer dollars. that got a lot of attention. but today i want to talk about payments, improper payments made to ambulance suppliers. medicare coverage allows ambulance transports when a patient's medical condition at the time of transport is such that any other means of transportation would endanger the patient's health. that is something happens with the patient at home, the spouse says i'll drive you to the hospital. if you come to the conclusion that no, that could potentially

danger the person's health further, we need to call an ambulance, we need to call 911, we need to transport this person who can have medical care on the way to the hospital, you're eligible under medicare if you can prove that that's necessary. the transport has to be a patient to receive a medically necessary medical service and return from that service. so you get transferred through the medical provider, usually the hospital or the emergency room, and then transferred back to your house if it's medically necessary. as a further requirement, to qualify for the reimbursement, the provider who is providing the ambulance service has to meet self qualifications in addition to what i have just said. it can only be transportation that takes you to a hospital, skilled nursing facility,

dialysis facilities for certain patients and then take them back home after they have received the care. and even with these guidelines, unfortunately, fraud is taking place and millions of taxpayer dollars are being wasted. a recent report by the inspector general for the department of health and human services which oversees medicare found that medicare made $207 million in questionable ambulance services payments during the first half of the previous year when this was investigated. shockingly, these payments include $30 million of medicare paid for transports in which the beneficiaries did not receive any medicare services at either the time of pickup or dropoff or at the locations or anywhere else. why? because they weren't even in the ambulance. these are fraudulent charges

made, sent to washington, reimbursements made to the ambulance service, and they weren't even taking any patients. so can you imagine an ambulance, lights flashing, going down the road on the way to the hospital, cars pulling over to the side, as we are required to do. oh, somebody's in there, they're in danger. i mean, their health is at risk. get them to the emergency room. oh, that poor person needs dialysis and they don't have means of transportation. no, these are empty ambulances with lights flashing, cars pulling over. nobody's inside except the employees. and then they're billing the government and getting reimbursements for the trip out and back. $207 million of documented illegal reimbursements, improper

billing for these services. so once again -- and you say well -- well, let me just give you one example. one of the ambulance services -- let's see if i can find where i am in my notes here so i don't misidentify who that is. one of those services is a pennsylvania company that fraudulently billed medicare $3.6 million for transports, and the supplier recruited patients and did not require -- that did not require any transport, and they made a deal with them, and they said look, we're going to have to use your name to submit the billing for reimbursement, and we know that you don't need the transport for anything, but we need to kind of document this so we can get our money back. and by the way, so what we'll do is we'll give you part of the reimbursement. we'll bribe you.

not bribe you. we will pay you some of the money that we get if you will allow us to use your name and identity, maybe your social security number, whatever, your medicare card number, and you're going to be in on the deal. so if you get a call from an inspector or from somebody trying to verify this reimbursement, yeah, i had to go to dialysis or i had to go to the hospital or yes, that was legitimate. so this company finally was identified. $3.6 million for transport that did not meet coverage requirements. and you say okay, well, that's one off. company, fraud, we read about that in the paper. the inspector general found that one of every five suppliers had questionable billing practice, one of every five. that's how it totals up to $207 million. so clearly, this is a problem that has to be addressed, and if addressed, we can save the taxpayer money or we can make

sure that this money is going to cover necessary medical treatment for those under medicare and slow down the plunge with 10,000 retirees every day entering medicare, slow down the rush -- the movement toward insolvency that we're going to have to deal with here and the congress should have been dealing with before. so by putting these proper safeguards in place, over $207 million in questionable ambulance services can be eliminated and taxpayers' dollars could be saved. this is a small addition to an ever-growing list of savings to the taxpayer if we can eliminate waste, fraud and abuse, and so i bring up my chart. as i said before, we used to have a thermometer here or a guide that showed as we were

creeping up and it went so high, it's going to keep going to the ceiling. we now are at a total of $117 billion and change in terms of waste, fraud and abuse, and we'll be back next week with the next installment with many more to come. mr. president, with that, i yield the floor. mr. isakson: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. isakson: last night, the national defense authorization act arrived at the desk of the president of the united states. president obama has said he's going to veto it or he has threatened to veto it. i rise on the floor of the senate today to beg him to rethink his position and cause him before he moves too swiftly to send a message to the rest of the world that america is disengaged. if he vetoes the national defense authorization act, he is convincing and con confirming for vladimir putin, kim junk yun and the rest of the world that

america is relegating itself to a spectator on the sideline of world affairs rather than a beacon of hope for the oppressed, those in search of democracy and those who are at the foot of dictators. it is time we've made our military was authorized and funded to the levels necessary. i've just returned from the mediterranean where i was on the u.s.s. winston churchill, a destroyer, that's dealing with many soft problems of migration, people flowing totalitarian governments in the middle east. i was at fort gordon, georgia, where the cyber command is being stood up by the united states army. i was in fort benning where our striking brigade is there in need of upgrades in continuance and improvements. i was in georgia where the a-10's are housed but they're going away unless we extend them. and this bill will do that. this president while the rest of the sworld burning and falling award is looking away and saying i am a no not going to agree wih

congress. we can we cannot afford for thao happen. if we abandon our role of strength, we will never have the peace and prosperity and the democracy that we want to see around the world. instead, we'll be a second-part player in the force of foreign affairs. the national defense authorization act is the one thing congress, house and senate alike, has agreed upon overwhelmingly. the votes in the senate was a veto-proof vote. the vote in the house was a significant vote. the president should read that to understand that the representatives of the people are saying to him, we want america to be strong. we don't want our american military to be reconstituted. we don't want the dictators of the world taking advantage of vacuums that we've created because we looked at other way and we abandoned ourselves. right now in greece, for example, a half a million people in the last year have gone through their fleeing syria,

trying to find their way a to europe. a million and a half will probably go through there next year. the world is trying to flee dictators wherever they are. iin the rest of the free world cannot afford to take care of the world unless we stop what's happening in the middle east. is asad should be stopped, the russians should be asked to retrench appeared come back and we should get back to the table and be an effective player in the middle east and being a power that is feared. america is abandoning its role that it's always held since the worlend of world world war ii. think real hard before halloween because that's when the time runs out, we've either got to signing the bill or veto it. think about how we got to where we are today. think about all hose those those sphiekd. are you going to look them in the face or their mammogramry in the face sand i, i'm just not going to reauthorize the

national defense authorization act? i'd rather play politics with those who fought and risked their lives for the united states of america? in closing, i want to tell you what we did in the ndaa because i want the people of georgia and america to understand what the president is be vetoing. improvements in our cyber exphandz, he will sake to guatemala barricks it's okay, we can move the rest of the principles to guantanamo bay and move them into the united states, america are close it because the ndaa bill prohibits that from happening. he'll be able to say to the striker brigade units you'll have to wait longer. he will a have to say to the marines in the middle east, we're going to do away with the a-10 so you won't have the support you need to fight the battles of the 21st century. he'll be saying to our veterans, no we're not going to do job training so that you can peacefully transfer from military improvement to a meaningful job in the private sector. he'll say to husbands and wives, military families, we're taking

away your basic housing allows because they are two of you in the same family getting it, even though you signed up for a program that rnt georgiaed you would get it. i don't want to be part of a country that says that to the men and women who volunteered to fight for us. let's send the right message to the rest of the world. let's sign the national defense authorization act. let's not play politics with those who risk their lives. let's remember we still are america, the greatest country on the face of this earth. god has blessed us. it means the president should act decisively and not veto the ndaa. i yield back the balance of my time. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. cardin: mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: mr. president, to paraphrase ronald reagan, here we go again. treasury secretary jack lew has warned us that the federal government will bump up against the statutory debt ceiling on tuesday, november 3. shortly after that, on december 11, the fiscal year 2016 continuing resolution will expire, bringing the prospects of yet another government

shutdown. absent a budget deal to suspend sequestration and lift spending caps, we face draconian spending cuts that will harm both our economic recovery and our national security. meanwhile, authority for the export-import bank has expired already, and authority to spend surface transportation funding will expire at the end of the this month. this is no way to run a government. it is time to end this mindless fiscal brinksmanship and negotiate a comprehensive budget deal that resolves all these issues. the american people demand and deserve no less. but, first, we must act on the debt ceiling. with respect to the debt ceiling, treasury secretary lew wrote to house speaker john boehner on october 15 warning

that extraordinary measures to forestall hitting the debt statutory ceiling will exhaust as soon as november 3. at that point, the federal government will have a cash balance of about $30 billion, but it will be facing obligations totaling as much as $60 billion on certain days. as secretary lew wrote in his letter, operating the united states government with no borrowing authority, with only the cash on hand on a given day, would profoundly be irresponsible. as i wrote previously, we anticipate that a remaining cash balance of less than $30 billion would be depleted quickly. in fact, we do not foresee any reasonable scenario in which it would last for an extended period of time. the government makes approximately 80 million payments a month including militarial is rirks medicare

reimbursements and many others. in the absence of congressional action, treasury would be unable to satisfy all of these obligations on the -- for the first time in the history of the united states. the creditworthiness of the united states is an essential component of our strength as a nation. protecting that strength is the sole responsibility of congress because only congress can extend the nation's borrowing authority. moreover, as you know, increasing the debt limit does not authorize any new spending. it simply allows treasury to pay for expenditures congress has already approved in full and on time. i couldn't agree with secretary lew more. what the raising the debt ceiling does is allow us to pay for what has already been appropriated by congress for spending. this has nothing to do with how much we're going to spend as a nation.

it has everything to do with whether we're going to honor our bills. the united states of america has to pay its bills, just as when american families use a credit card. when a bill is due, it needs to be paid in a timely manner. at no time in our history has our country been unable or unwilling to pay its debts. raising our debt ceiling has to be done, not so we can spend more, as secretary lew pointed out, but th so the bills we alry have had paid. default is not an option. some republicans, particularly in the house, have suggested that the federal government has prioritize its payments. some have dubbed this the "china pay first" because much of our public debt is held by the chinese. it is disturbing that our republican colleagues are even considering such a proposal. iit simply won't work. the federal government makes 80

to 100 payments a month. the treasury department doesn't have the manpower, the computer capability, or guidelines to sort out who gets paid. the bipartisan policy center has prepared a comprehensive analysis of what happens if we hit the so-called "x" date without lifting the debt ceiling. as the bipartisan policy center notes, the reality would be chaotic, with the treasury department being forced to pick winners and losers. we might have to shut down the entire justice department, the federal courts, the federal highway administration, the federal aviation administration, and other agencies. these are critically important missions that many the people of this country depend upon. we might have to suspend tax refunds, refundfunds that taxpas desperately need. we might have to stop paying federal workers. 0% o30% of whom are veterans and contractors. as they note, hon a day-to-day basis, handling all payments for

important popular programs -- defense, military active duty pay -- will quickly be impossible. delaying decision to increase the debt limit jeopardizes our economy and standardness the world. the mere suggestion that the federal government might miss a pairmpayment caused s&p to downe our credit rating after 20911 debt limit standoff. mr. president, a default is a default. you can't pick winners and losers. if i would default on any of our debt, it will affect our creditworthiness and our bond ratings. if we don't transfer the payments to state and local governments, which a large part of their budget depends upon receiving their federal share of programs, it will cause state and local governments to default, affecting thei affectid ratingsingtingsratings, a hiddel

to the taxpayers of this country. during the last debt limit showdown in 2013, yields for targeted securities on secondary markets rose from one point in midsemidseptember to over 50 bas points prior to the resolution of the standoff in october. the government accounting office estimates that the 2013 impasse cost the federal government between $38 million to $78 million in added interest payments. this is what taxpayers had to pay base the congress did not in a timely way increase the debt limit. so it's not only a default, i.t. the time we take. we've got to act now. we should have acted well before now. if we keep playing with fire, we're going to get burned, and burned badly. in addition to lifting the debt ceiling, which needs to be done first, we need to negotiate a comprehensive budget deal. last week administration officials announced that the fy

2015 deficit was $44 billion less than the previous year. last year's deficit was $439 billion. still too hievment but let's put the number in context. it was the low of the shaver our economy at 2.5% since 2007. as treasury lew pointed out, under a president's leadership, the deficit has been cut by roughly three-quarters as a share of the economy since 2009, the fastest sustained deficit reduction since just after world war ii it's important to remember that the previous administration -- the bush administration inherited the biggest surpluses in history and squandered them in two tax cuts and a war in iraq that was paid for on a credit card. then we had the biggest recession since the great

depression. the obama administration inherited this. the obama administration took effect:15 extraordinary measures to pull the economy back from the brink. economists alan blindser and mark zandi writing for the center on budget policy priorities estimated that without the measures taken in the late 2008 and early 2009, the peak decline in the real gross domestic product which was would have closed to a stunning 14%. the economy would have contract bid more than three years, more than twice as long as it does. more than 17 million jobs would have been lost, about twice the actual number. the unemployment rates would have peaked at just under 16 rather than at the actual 10%. the budget deficits would have grown to more than 20% of g.d.p., about double the actual peak of 10%, topping at $2.8 trillion in f.y. 2011. my point, mr. president, is the

actions taken by the obama administration pulled our economy out of the recession and back to growth. it did it in a responsible manner. so we took emergency measures necessary to stop the economic freefall, and since then we have had the fastest deficit reduction since just after world war ii. we're now using a different policy, as we should. i mention that because of our republican colleagues want to cut domestic spending even more, that's not sustainable. as the center for budget priorities noted last year, spending cuts have exceeded tax increases by a 3-1 margin already. you put it another way. for every dollar of new revenue that we have received, we have cut spending by $3.27. we've contracted particularly on the discretionary domestic side. we need to come together and negotiate a deal that keeps the federal government open, not shut. the 2013 shutdown, according to

moody's analysis, cost the economy $20 billion and 120,000 jobs. still, the so-called tea party republicans and presidential candidates want to shut down the government right before the holidays. it's a misguided notion that it will somehow prevent planned parenthood from providing health care services to low-income women and their families. two years ago, the same individuals thought that shutting down government would prevent the affordable care act from being implemented. they were wrong then and they're wrong now. they damaged what they did by shutting down government and they could do it again, and it's our standing in the world that is at jeopardy. a realistic budget deal will need to protect federal workers from further harm. since 2011, federal workers have contributed $159 billion to deficit reduction. federal workers have contributed $159 billion to deficit

reduction. they didn't cause the deficit. they have endured three years of pay freezes and two substandard pay increases since then for a total of $137 billion. we lost another $1 billion in pay because of sequestration-related furloughs. federal employees hired in 2013, since 2014, are paying an extra $21 billion for their pensions. and each and every federal worker is being asked to do more with less as the agency's budgets are frozen or cut. this is happening to hardworking patriotic public servants, mostly middle class, struggling to get along like so many americans. enough is enough. since 91950's and -- the 1950's and 1960's, the u.s. population has increased by 76%. the private sector work force has surged 133%. but the size of the federal work force has risen just 11%. relative to the private sector, the federal work force is less than one half the size it was back in the 1950's and 1960's.

picture that -- the picture that emerges is one of a federal civilian work force whose size has significantly shrunk compared to the size of the u.s. population it serves. the private sector work force and the magnitude of the various missions and federal expenditures. i would make the additional point that picking on federal workers on a budget deal or shutting down the government hurts veterans. over 30% of the civilian federal employees are veterans, as compared to 7.8%. the federal government hires a lot more veterans, 30% of our work force. the private sector 7.8%. another reason why we should be mindful of what we do to our federal work force. do we really want to cut the pay and benefits for these individuals even more than we are already, or do we really want to force them to work during a shutdown or not pay them on time or force them to stay home voluntarily and --

involuntarily or worry about whether they will be paid at all? is this how we want to honor the people who served our nation and continue to serve us? mr. president, the missions carried out by our offerman work force, great missions, more work, less federal workers, it's time for us to recognize what they do for our country. preventing federal workers from doing their jobs doesn't just harm them. it harms all americans, because federal workers patrol our borders and make sure our air and water are clean and our food and drugs are safe. they support our men and women in uniform to care for our wounded warriors. they help our manufacturers compete abroad. they discover cures for life-threatening diseases. they prosecute criminals and terrorists. they maintain and protect critical infrastructure. they explore the universe. they process passport applications. they make sure social security, medicare and other social safety net programs are functioning properly. when federal workers do their job, they're helping each and every american with a -- live a safer and more prosperous life.

mr. president, our tasks here in congress should be straightforward. first we need to raise the debt ceiling so that we can continue to pay our bills and maintain the full faith and credit of the united states government. second, we need to keep the federal government open for business and keep federal workers on their jobs. third, we need to negotiate a comprehensive budget deal that replaces sequestration, a budget that maintains critical federal investments while spreading the burden of deficit reduction in a fair way and holding federal workers and their families harmless after subjecting them to so much hardship over the past several months and years. and fourth, we need to reauthorize the export-import bank, a bank that helps us with a level playing field on the international commerce, particularly with small companies, and we must reauthorize our surface transportation programs on a six-year reauthorization. you can't do a major highway or bridge or transit program with a

federal partner that only gives you a couple months of commitment. we need to have a multiyear transportation reauthorization passed. mr. president, heretofore one of the greatest attributes of the american character has been pragmatism. we can ago knowledge and respect our differences, but at the end of the day, the american people have entrusted us with governing, and that means being pragmatic, sitting down, listening to each other, compromising, providing policies that will stand the test of time. let us do our job on behalf of all americans. 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:

quorum call:

s

mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i'd ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, morning business is closed. and under the previous order the senate will resume consideration of s. 754, which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 28, s. 754, a bill to improve cybersecurity in the united states through enhanced sharing of information about cybersecurity threats and for other purposes. mr. cornyn: mr. president, it's easy for the public and the press to focus on the issues that divide us here in washington, d.c. and around the country, and in fact in

washington, d.c., that's a world-class sport. focusing on divisions and the things that separate us, the things we clearly can't agree on on occasion. but today i'm happy to highlight an area marked by broad consensus and true bipartisan spirit. in my time in the senate, i've learned that neither political party can get what they want done if they try to do it alone, and the only way things happen are when consensus is achieved, and that takes a lot of hard work, a lot of cooperation and a lot of collaboration. if you're -- if your goal is 100% of what you want or nothing, my experience is you get nothing here. and i know compromise sometimes is a dirty word in today's lexicon. i was just rereading, i think it's a quote from ronald reagan,

somebody that people, conservatives look to as an example of the iconic, conservative leader. and he was pretty clear that if he could get 75% to 80% of what he wanted to achieve, he'd say i'll take it and i'll fight about the rest of it another day. but the good news is we have amidst a lot of division and polarization here, we have found a way to achieve a bipartisan coalition on some important criminal justice reforms. last week i stood with a bipartisan group and introduced the sentencing reform and corrections act of 2015. this is lit heal been -- this has literally been years in the making and it was a proud and consequential moment for the senate. and this week we've kept that momentum going. we heard a hearing, chairman grassley, chairman of the judiciary committee, did yesterday to discuss the new bill with various, i guess it was monday actually, with various stakeholders.

and tomorrow the judiciary committee will vote on sending the bill to the full senate for consideration. this legislation sl -- is long overdue and a major step forward for the country. and like other successful efforts, and particularly those that inform my actions in the senate, i look to experiences in the state and what's been tried and tested and found to be, found to work and how it might apply to our job here at the national level. but back in 2007 in austin, legislators were confronting a big problem. they had a major budget shortfall, an overcrowded prison system and high rates of recidivism or repeat criminals. or as one former inmate referred to himself in houston the other day at a round table i held, he

called himself a frequent flier in the criminal justice system. i think we all know what he meant. but instead of building more prisons and hoping that somehow that would fix the problem, these leaders in austin decided to try a different approach. they scrapped the blueprints for more prisons and they went to work to try to develop reforms to help low- and medium-risk offenders who were willing to take the opportunity to turn their lives around and become productive members of society. now i think you would have to be pretty naive, mr. president, to say that every, every criminal offender who ends up in prison is going to take advantage of these opportunities. and they won't. not all of them will. but some of them will. some of them will be remorseful. some of them will see how they've wasted their life, the damage they've done to their families, including their children, and they'll actually look for an opportunity to turn their lives around after having

made a major mistake and ended up in our prisons. in our state -- in my state, we've got a pretty well-deserved reputation for being tough on crime. i don't think anybody questions that. but we also realize we need to be smart on crime and we need to look at how do we achieve the best outcomes for the taxpayers and for the lives that can be salvaged and made productive through their hard work and the opportunity that we have provided to them. we also realize that even though the incarceration -- incarceration does work, i don't think anybody can dispute the fact that when somebody's in prison, they're not committing crimes in our communities and across the country. but here's the rub. one day almost all of them will be released from prison, and the question is will they be prepared to live a productive life or will they be that frequent flier that just ends up

back in prison through the turnstile of criminal -- of the criminal life? so, we improved in texas, we improved increased programs designed to help men and women take responsibility for their crimes and to prepare them for reentry into society. the results were pretty startling. between 2007 and 2012, our overall rate of incarceration fell by 9.4%, almost 10%. the crime rate dropped by 16%, and we saved more than $2 billion worth of taxpayer money. and we were able to shutter three prison facilities in the process. i just want to return briefly to the crime rate. former attorney general mukasey, who was a long-term federal judge in new york, made the

point that it's not the incarceration rate that measures the success of our sentencing practices. it's actually the crime rate. and so i know there are many people who feel like we've overincarcerated, but i think we need to keep our eye on the ball, and that is on the crime rate. and as a result of these reforms in texas, our total crime rate dropped by 16%, something worth paying attention to. but even more impressive than these statistics is the stories i've heard from former inmates who have actually taken advantage of this opportunity to turn their lives around, and they paint a powerful picture of how these reforms can be used and the potential impact this legislation across the country. again, nobody is naive enough to think that everybody is going to have a turn-around story and experience like this, but last week i had the chance to visit

with a number of faith-based and nonprofit groups in houston this time as well as some of the former inmates that they have supported, all of whom are helping inmates prepare to reenter society set up for success rather than failure. ank by the story of one young man by the name of emilio parker. by the time he was 33, emilio had spent almost half of his life in prison, including several years in solitary confinement. he started using drugs at a very early age, and after he became addicted, he found more and more opportunities for crime to feed his addiction. spending so much time in prison leaves little chance to acquire skills to succeed once you're outside, but fortunately for emilio, he found the support needed in a group called s.e.r. jobs for progress in houston.

s.e.r. stands for service employment redevelopment, a strange acronym, but it is a community group whose mission it is to equip people like emilio for the work force. their work has really helped turn many lives around in astounding ways, and emilio was no exception. when he started the job readiness program that s.e.r. offered, he didn't know how to turn a computer on, but with their help, he graduated from the program and it helped him to put -- helped put him on a new direction in life, one that did not include prison. his success represents the tremendous opportunity we have before us to enact similar reforms on the federal level in order to offer rehabilitation to inmates, reduce crime and save taxpayers money. now, part of this legislation, mr. president, is to focus on the people most likely to take advantage of these

opportunities, low and medium risk inmates, and indeed what we offer them is credit if they participate in these programs to lesser confinement. for example, a halfway house or the like. and these are the folks that we believe are most likely to have learned from their experience in prison and to take advantage of the opportunity and turn their lives around. high-risk criminals who have made a life of crime, i think, are the least likely to take advantage of these programs and will not be available under this legislation. if it's successful, we might want to reconsider that and to see whether that could be expanded. but the sentencing reform and correction act represents how the senate is meant to function. in a bipartisan manner that can affect long lasting changes for the benefit of the american people. i want to thank chairman grassley for his leadership. this would not have happened without him, and his commitment

to bring us together to develop a bill that provides real needed reforms to our criminal justice system. this is really an extraordinary moment where you have people on differing ends of the political spectrum coming together and finding a place where we can reach consensus. i'm particularly pleased, as i have indicated, that the corrections act authored by senator sheldon whitehouse and myself is such a key part of this package. pretty much everyone agrees our prisons are dangerously overcrowded and that recidivism rates when offenders repeat and land back in prison are too high. the hard part is coming up with the solution that addresses these problems and yet breaks the cycle of reincarceration without jeopardizing public safety, and nothing we are doing will jeopardize public safety. that should be the lit news test of anything we do, but i do believe that this legislation strikes the balance building on

our experience in texas and other states across the country and focusing on rehabilitation for low level offenders and tough sentences for hardened criminals. i know the presiding officer was attorney general of his state of alaska and has had a lot of experience in this area, but i remember in law school one of the things that you learned is that one of the goals of our criminal justice system was to rehabilitate people, to help them turn their lives around, but we've almost over the years forgotten that, and i think what we've demonstrated by the texas experience and other experience is through faith-based volunteers, through job training, through helping people deal with their drug and alcohol addiction which oftentimes exacerbates their problems and puts them in -- behind bars like emilio, that we can literally offer a helping hand for those that will take advantage of it, and for knows who are truly nonviolent, low-level offenders, this bill does represent a

second chance. this bill also reforms and improves law enforcement tools like mandatory minimum sentences without eliminating them or reducing them across the board. this was a tough negotiation, because in particular some of our senators were focused on sentence reduction, but i have to tell you i have been very -- very aware you can't handle this on an across-the-board basis. sentences have to be appropriate for the individual behavior and misconduct of the defendant themselves, not just some across-the-board panacea. but by targeting those who are most likely to reoffend and teaching them how to succeed in the real world, we cannot only reduce the crime rate, as our experience has shown in texas, but help people turn their lives around and save billions of dollars. so, mr. president, at a time when the news likes to report the divisions and polarizations here in washington -- and there

are plenty of important fights, and i'm not opposed to fighting for principles, but there are a lot of areas like this where we can continue to work together productively, and in fact as i said earlier, our whole system, our constitution is designed to force consensus before big decisions like this are made, and that's the way it should be, because any times -- any time a minority or even one political party can force their will on the other party, we've seen that happen before and it doesn't end well. but when our system works the way it should by people of good faith coming together, seeing a problem, trying to come up with a solution and working together on a bipartisan basis to do it, our system works very well, and i believe this is a good example of this. so i look forward to working with all of our colleagues here once this bill is voted out of the judiciary committee, which i believe it will be on thursday, as we anticipate action here on

the floor and perhaps other senators have other ideas that will actually improve the legislation that we have crafted so far. but i do believe the president is amenable to considering a bill in this area. he has said so publicly. and again, this is another of those rare opportunities when we can have to work together with the president to try to solve a problem, help save money and help people turn their lives around. so, mr. president, with that, i yield the floor. and i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: i ask consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. nelson: mr. president, i rise in support of a vote for the cybersecurity bill.

obviously this is a whole new era of attack on our country. september 11, 2001, we certainly realize that the two big oceans on either side of our country that had protected us for centuries -- the atlantic and the pacific -- now no longer provided that protection because we could see in this case of 2001, we could see an attack from within. and thus, that revised so much of our defense strategy. and now we see the other kind of attack from within that is stealthy, it's insidious and it is constant because the cyber

attacks are coming to the united states government as well as united states industry, the business community, and u.s. citizens. the threat of cyber attack is vast and it is varied from cyber criminals who steal personal information like credit card and social security numbers, to foreign governments or state-sponsored groups that steal sensitive national security information, that steal our intellectual property and put at risk our economy and critical infrastructure. i want to give you one example. through cyber attacks or through other means of obtaining social security numbers, what we found

in tampa, florida, we found that street crime actually subsided because the criminals had figured either by cyber attacks or by other means of getting social security numbers, they could file false income tax returns requesting a refund. so with a latop, they could do do -- what laptop they could do what they had done previously by breaking and entering someone's home to steal money, and it was so much easier. and that's just one little, little example. but just there, in the theft of security numbers on false income tax returns, we think that is an

attack that is costing the u.s. government in income tax, $5 billion a year at least. well, we've heard all about these, the attacks. and some of us in the senate have been affected by these attacks. how many times have we heard that hackers have stolen our names, our addresses, our credit card numbers? well, look what the hackers did to target. 40 million target customers and 56 million home depot customers, they accessed checking and savings account information of 76 million j.p. morgan bank customers. they stole the personal information of 80 million

customers of the health insurance company, anthem. that's just a few examples. tampa, target, home depot, j.p. morgan, anthem. it's just a handful of examples. well, you remember also north korea hacked sony? iran hacked the sands casino. china hacked the u.s. government office of personnel management. mr. president, they have your information. they have my information because our information is with the office of personnel management. and the attacks just keep coming. we're hearing from homeland

security, defense, intelligence, and private-sector leaders that we have to take this threat seriously and do something about it. and i must say it has been one of the most frustrating things for this senator as a former member of the senate intelligence committee, when we were trying to pass this very same bill three and four years ago, the business community as represented by the u.s. chamber of commerce wanted nothing to do with it because they thought it was an invasion of their privacy. well, times have changed, and the hacking continues, and we see that finally we're able to get through and put together a

bill that i think we can get broad support from many, many different groups that are concerned about privacy and about sharing of information in the business community. and so this bill provides the means for the government and the private sector to share entire entire -- cyber threat information, taking care to protect the personal information and privacy of our people. because we all face the same threat and our adversaries use similar malware and techniques, sharing information is critical to our overall cybersecurity. and so what it does, it directs the director of national intelligence, working with other agencies and building on information sharing that's already taking place to put

cyber threat information in the hands of the private sector to help protect businesses and individuals. it authorizes private companies to monitor and defend their networks and share with each other and the government at all levels, share the fact of the cyber threats and attacks. all levels of government: state, local, tribal, and federal. now, this is a point of contention because these activities are strictly voluntary. that's part of the problem we had three and four years ago trying to enact this legislation strictly voluntary, limited to cybersecurity purposes and subject to reasonable restrictions and privacy protections.

the bill also creates the legal certainty and incentives needed to promote further sharing of information. and so, what the legislation does, it sets up a hub or a portal inside the department of homeland security where cyber threat information comes in and is scrubbed of irrelevant personal information and then it's shared inside and outside the government quickly and efficiently. because after all, mr. president, if you got a cyber attack somewhere in america that suddenly has the opportunity to explode in its application, you've got to have a central point at which we can

coordinate that cyber attack. and that's what this portal, this hub in the department of homeland security is set up to do. so, this senator feels that this bill balances the urgent need to address the threat of continued cyber attack with privacy concerns. as the vice chair of the intelligence committee said yesterday, and i'm delighted that she just walked on to the floor of the senate -- senator feinstein -- this bill is just the first step. i just quoted what you said yesterday. we can and we ought to do more to improve our nation's

cybersecurity. i might say through the chair to the distinguished senior senator from california that i have shared with the senate my frustration over the last four years as a former member of your senate intelligence committee, that it was so hard to get people to come together. but now finally, even though it's voluntary, we at least have a point at which when a cyber attack comes somewhere in america, we can centralize that. it can be scrubbed of private information and then it can be shared in our multiplicity of levels of government and private sector to help defend against the cyber attack. these cyber attacks are coming every day. they are relentless. and if we don't watch out, what's going to happen has

already happened to sony is going to be happening to innumerable american businesses. so i strongly urge the senate to pass this legislation, and i take this opportunity since she is on the floor, the senior senator from california, to thank her for her patience, her stick to it-tiveness that finally we're going to pass it this week. thank you, mr. president, i yield the floor. mrs. feinstein: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. feinstein: mr. president, i would like to respond to what the distinguished senator from florida has said. senator, you know what a pleasure it was to have you on the committee, and i think you

understand the time we have tried to get this bill done, which is now about six years. and to take this first step not because it's a perfect step but because it's a first step that's voluntary, that people and companies can use if they want to. and if they don't want to, they don't have to. but in the want-to part of it, that it can be effective in enabling companies to share and, therefore, protect themselves. you understand this, and i am so grateful for that understanding and for your help. mr. nelson: mr. president, would the senator yield for a question? mrs. feinstein: i will. mr. nelson: would the senator share her thoughts with the senate about how the nation's national security defense

depends on us being able. we have the guns and the tanks and the airplanes and the missiles and all of that, but there is a new type of threat against the very security of this nation, and that this legislation is a first step. mrs. feinstein: i can try to. and i think the chairman of our committee has just come to the floor, and i believe i can speak for him in this regard. in 2008 we learned that there had been in the committee classified two robberies of banks. the royal bank of scotland, i think for $8 million, and citibank of $10 million. this was all classified because nobody wanted their clients to know this. and then you see the big hits of aramco being taken down, sony. and it goes on and on and on.

and it's all very quiet in what you can find out about it. and the information is not really shared by companies. this happened to our company. you know, can you share anything that might help us handle this? that kind of thing doesn't happen because everybody's afraid of liability. and so it's a very disparate area. and i remember when joe lieberman was on the committee and the homeland security committee had a bill, as you remember, we had the information sharing part of it, and we sat down with the chamber of commerce, i think, on three occasions to try to work out differences, and we couldn't, and the chamber is massive, it's sprawling, it's all over the united states, it's small businesses, mediu