NEWS Act of 2014

I ask unanimous consent that my remarks be placed in an appropriate place in the Record and that I be able to complete my remarks.

Before I begin, I would like to take a moment to address some proposals we have been hearing about in the tax space.

Corporate Taxation

Some of us--myself included--were very concerned to hear the other day that a very big American corporation announced plans to merge with a somewhat smaller but still large UK corporation and then have the combined entity domiciled in the United Kingdom. Apparently, a desire to escape the high U.S. corporate tax was part of the motivation for the merger. This type of transaction where a U.S. corporation escapes the U.S. tax net is sometimes referred to as an inversion.

Broadly speaking, there are two different ways to address the problem of

inversions. The first way is to make it more difficult for a U.S. corporation to invert. Just today we have read accounts of Members of Congress who propose doing just that. The second way is to make the United States a more desirable location to headquarter one's business. I believe the latter is by far the better way. That would mean lowering the corporate tax rate and having a more internationally competitive tax code.

Under current law, U.S. corporations are taxed on their worldwide income, but foreign corporations are subject to tax only on income arising from the United States itself. In other words, we subject our own corporations to a worldwide tax system, while subjecting foreign corporations to a territorial tax system. It is strange that the U.S. Government treats foreign corporations more favorably than American corporations, but that is, nonetheless, what we do.

There is a danger, if the relatively unfavorable treatment of American companies is ratcheted up--which seems to be the effect of some of these anti-inversion proposals--that American companies will become even more attractive targets for takeover by foreign corporations.

I don't know when my liberal friends will catch on and realize that some of their approaches are just downright idiotic.

As important as it is to get the corporate tax rate down, no matter how low we get the rate, we still need to replace our antiquated worldwide tax system. Instead of imposing arbitrary inversion restrictions on companies retroactively and thereby further complicating the goal of comprehensive tax reform, we should first keep our focus on where we can agree. By uniting around the goal to create an internationally competitive tax code, we can keep American job creators from looking to leave in the first place.

Successful tax reform can help reverse the trend and cause more businesses to locate in the United States, bringing more jobs to Americans. Make no mistake. The trend is alarming. Just look at the number of U.S.-based firms, ranked by revenue, in the global Fortune 500 over the past decade, and you will see a significant decline in the number. That, of course, means a lower tax base for the United States.

When are these people going to catch on?

As I just said, tax reform can be used to reverse that trend, make the United States an attractive place to locate businesses and global headquarters, and provide a base for more jobs in America.

As the ranking member of the Senate's tax-writing committee, that is where my focus is, and I will work with anyone, Republican or Democrat, to achieve that goal.

It is ridiculous the ways some of our people in this government believe we can solve this problem by making it even more intrusive on businesses, even more onerous and burdensome, and by thinking they can force businesses to live in accordance with antiquated rules.

Executive Overreach

Madam President, I rise to defend, on a separate matter, the separation of government powers enshrined in our Constitution and the lawful prerogatives of the Senate, in which I have had the privilege and honor of serving now for nearly 38 years.

Just last week I spoke from this podium about the Obama administration's blatant disregard of its constitutional obligations and in particular about how ideological devotion and political expediency have again and again trumped the President's sworn duty to uphold the law. In the short time since then, the White House has provided yet another egregious example of its willingness to disregard clear legal obligations in favor of playing partisan politics.

Just days ago we learned the Obama administration withheld particularly significant information from disclosure to Congress, despite a lawfully issued subpoena, during a House committee's investigation of the September 11, 2012, terrorist attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya. One of these documents, an email from a senior White House official, casts serious doubt about a number of the administration's key assertions about the explanations it offered Congress and the American people regarding the cause and nature of those attacks.

There are many important questions about Benghazi to which the American people deserve answers; questions about how and why brave Americans died in this terrorist attack, four brave Americans; questions about the circumstances under which our Nation lost its first Ambassador in the line of duty in more than a generation; questions about how the Obama administration advanced an admittedly false but politically advantageous narrative about the attack during the home stretch of a heated election campaign.

I appreciate the efforts of my colleagues both in this body and in the House of Representatives in seeking a fair and thorough investigation of this matter. What compels me to speak out goes beyond the substance of this particular investigation, as critically important as that is. I am deeply troubled by the Obama administration's utter disregard for essential legal and constitutional obligations. This lawlessness is made manifest in many different forms.

I wish to discuss this administration's long pattern of obstinacy in responding to congressional investigations and how this abuse has become the latest front in a vital struggle against sweeping executive branch overreach that has characterized President Obama's term in office.

Congress's investigation into the Benghazi terrorist attack should have been and could have been a collaborative endeavor aimed at discovering the truth. Indeed, President Obama publicly proclaimed he was ``happy to cooperate in ways that Congress wants'' and promised that his administration would share with congressional investigators all information connected to the administration's own internal review. Secretary Kerry likewise pronounced and promised ``an accountable and open State Department'' that would provide truthful answers about all circumstances relating to the Benghazi attack.

Unfortunately, the Obama administration has been anything but open and accountable, nor has the White House and/or the State Department shown much willingness to cooperate in a constructive fashion with congressional investigations into the matter. Instead, this administration has repeatedly rejected document requests from several congressional committees, broadly asserting its unwillingness to turn over whole swaths of relevant material.

When congressional investigators responded with subpoenas, creating clearly defined and legally binding obligations for the administration to comply, Obama officials have continued to resist and in some cases have refused to disclose entire categories of critical documents.

Throughout the investigation this administration has consistently employed a strategy of minimal compliance. In many instances, executive officials have heavily redacted the limited range of documents the administration has in fact disclosed or forced congressional investigators through the cumbersome and perhaps unnecessary process of examining documents they insist must remain in the administration's possession. Such methods, when reasonably employed, have historically allowed the executive and legislative branches to make mutually acceptable compromises, establishing arrangements that allow Congress access to the information it needs but enable the administration to protect legitimate interests and confidentiality.

Instead, President Obama and his subordinates have taken these tactics to the extreme, creating an unmistakable impression the administration has something to hide. How could anybody look at what they are doing and not realize that is what they are doing. At the very least, it is clear that executive officials have deliberately slow- walked this important congressional inquiry.

Indeed, the administration has managed to drag its feet and frustrate congressional investigators for more than 1\1/2\ years since the Benghazi attack, limiting and delaying compliance for over 1 year since the first subpoena was issued.

The Obama administration's most recent abuse--a particularly egregious act--has been its long delay in releasing emails that were clearly responsive

to an earlier congressional subpoena. The administration only provided Congress these emails in mid-April after disclosing them as part of compliance with an outside group's Freedom of Information Act request, even though the emails were undeniably relevant and responsive to a lawful congressional subpoena, a subpoena issued in the summer of 2013, 7 months earlier.

This is the second time the Obama administration has simply passed on to Congress documents it has previously released to media and watchdog groups, a weak attempt at complying with a congressional subpoena. Now, that is an administration out of control, an administration not living up to the laws, an administration that is ignoring legitimate inquiries of the Congress, and an administration that seems to think it can get away with anything. More important, this episode demonstrates the careless and intentionally evasive approach the administration has taken in responding to congressional subpoenas. A simple FOIA request turned up multiple documents the administration admits are covered by a prior congressional subpoena and therefore should have been disclosed months earlier.

While the executive branch is obviously obliged to take all lawful requests seriously, it is outrageous this administration would treat a routine FOIA request from a private party with more care and serious attention than a lawfully issued subpoena from a coordinate branch of the Federal Government. I might add a coequal branch of the Federal Government, the Congress of the United States.

I wish I could say the Obama administration's conduct and the investigations into the Benghazi attack represented an anomaly, a unique instance in an otherwise respectful record of good-faith efforts to cooperate with congressional investigations and to respect Congress's legitimate authorities. Unfortunately, that simply isn't the case. Instead, we have experienced a pattern of obstruction, repeated instances of bad faith in responding to lawful information requests and subpoenas, and a fundamental disrespect of the laws and norms underlying the Constitution's separation of government powers.

We have all witnessed such abuse in this administration's handling of other high-profile investigations, such as the botched gun-walking exercise in Operation Fast and Furious. We routinely observe such hostility in more ordinary matters, as this administration regularly delays and often refuses to provide answers or produce information to Members of Congress.

As the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, I see this all the time, whether it is the refusal of the Treasury Department to explain how it deals with its statutory debt limit or the failure of the Department of Health and Human Services to respond to even the simplest questions about ObamaCare implementation. We see this hostility most transparently when the administration openly challenges the legitimacy of congressional investigations and when administration officials display outright contempt for proper lines of congressional inquiry.

None of this is to say that some assertions of executive privilege are not reasonable or even valid. Past administrations have often asserted privilege claims before Congress, and sometimes--sometimes-- they have done so aggressively. This area of law has relatively few judicial precedents. It is largely defined by past practice in which the distinction between legal requirements and prudential interests is often quite blurry. As such, we can expect some legitimate disagreement as to whether particular claims of executive privilege are within the bounds of reasonableness.

But fundamentally the text and structure of the Constitution enshrines a congressional right--and establishes a congressional duty-- to investigate executive branch activities. That is how through the years we have kept administrations straight. It is a very important part of our job on Capitol Hill.

Judicial precedents--as well as established practice between the legislative and executive branches stretching all the way back to the investigation of the St. Clair expedition under President George Washington in 1792--also affirm the rightful authority of Congress to require Presidential administrations to produce information in response to congressional requests.

Since the great constitutional clashes of the Watergate period, specific and binding precedents have detailed the requirement that administrations must seek to accommodate congressional information requests made in good faith, subject to adjudication by Federal courts. The Obama administration's actions clearly fall short of these basic obligations. Its abysmal record--highlighted most recently in the Benghazi email controversy--has demonstrated that executive officials are not acting in good faith to comply with legitimate congressional inquiries.

The administration's public efforts to delegitimize congressional investigations endangers not only the relationship between the current White House and this Congress but more fundamentally undermines the separation of government powers by attacking one of the most important checks on executive overreach.

The administration's expansive justifications squarely contradict the Supreme Court's command in United States v. Nixon that ``exceptions to the demand for . . . evidence are not lightly created nor expansively construed, for they are in derogation of the search for truth.''

Even more troubling, the Obama White House has even attempted to undermine our congressional investigatory power at its core. This isn't hyperbole. The current administration actually had the audacity to argue in Federal court that a committee of Congress was categorically barred from asking the judiciary to enforce a subpoena that the executive branch had defied, a course of action implicit in the structure of our Constitution, demanded by the Supreme Court's jurisprudence, and recognized by courts for decades.

Thankfully, one of President Obama's own judicial appointees roundly rejected this astonishing claim, but that should give Members of this body very little comfort. By challenging the very authority of Congress to investigate executive abuses, by challenging the obligation of a Presidential administration to accommodate congressional inquiries in good faith, and by challenging the power of Federal courts to resolve such disputes, the Obama administration's actions represent a serious threat to our constitutional structure.

Indeed, this particular effort to undermine essential institutional checks and balances is part of a broader pattern of executive abuse-- one that includes the Obama administration's disregard for its obligations to enforce the law, its actions to exceed legitimate statutory authority, its attempts to defy specific requirements of duly enacted law, and its efforts to usurp legislative power from Congress.

I spoke at length last week about many such abuses of executive power by the Obama administration. I will continue to do so because I believe keeping the exercise of executive authority within lawful bounds is essential to the legitimacy of our government and to the liberties of our citizens. I recognize that doing so will require continual vigilance--by the courts, by the American people, and by those of us who serve in Congress.

This latest episode with the Benghazi emails--as well as the President's new pen-and-phone strategy--demonstrates quite clearly that the Obama administration has not shown any signs of relenting in its executive overreach.

This unprecedented pattern of executive abuse comes from a President who promised unprecedented transparency and who regularly criticized his predecessor's use of executive power, including in the context of executive privilege.

The administration's actions demand a redoubling of Congress' investigative efforts. I urge the majority leader to join the House to form a joint select committee on the Benghazi terrorist attack and its aftermath.

I know many of my friends on the other side of the aisle--not to mention the Obama administration itself--have convinced themselves that this investigation is simply a partisan exercise, apparently prompting them to ignore the institutional struggle between Congress and the Executive.

I just wonder: What would have happened had Robert C. Byrd been our majority leader, as he was for so long? He

would not have put up with this for 1 minute. He would have asserted this institution's authority and this institution's responsibility-- Congress' responsibility, if you will--to get to the bottom of this.

I served on the Iran-Contra special committee. It is not a bad thing for us to investigate an administration that appears to be out of whack, appears to be ignoring the basic tenets of the law, and appears to be hiding information from the public. Forget the public right now. How about the Congress? It is hard to respect an administration that acts like this.

We should be eager to get to the bottom of the circumstances surrounding the Benghazi attack, and my friends on the other side ought to quit trying to protect the administration when they know these are serious charges. These are serious matters. We have an obligation to get to the bottom of it, and let the chips fall where they may. There were four deaths here of heroes.

All the Members of this esteemed body--whether Democrat or Republican--should demand that Congress' institutional prerogatives are preserved and defended.

As members of the legislative branch, we have the fundamental right-- and the accompanying duty--to exercise a lawful oversight function. When any Presidential administration engages in extreme resistance and demonstrates an unwillingness to cooperate with legitimate congressional investigations, we all--not just people on this side-- have an institutional obligation to defend our rightful constitutional prerogatives.

These executive abuses matter. The Obama administration has clearly and consistently overstepped its authorities and ignored its obligations under our Constitution and Federal law. This overreach threatens the rule of law, and it undermines the governmental checks and balances necessary to secure our liberties as Americans.

President Obama promised unprecedented transparency that would restore trust and confidence in government. But his administration's lawless actions have heightened the need for more robust and effective congressional oversight.

As even a liberal Washington Post columnist opined earlier this week, ``The Obama White House can blame its own secrecy and obsessive control over information'' for the heightened scrutiny of its questionable activities.

Oversight investigations are a critical tool that Congress must use effectively to promote government accountability. The Obama administration's escalating strategy of stonewalling, even to the point of ignoring legal obligations and longstanding norms, now threatens our rightful role in calling the executive branch to account.

Indeed, the basic assumption that underlies the Constitution's plan of government, as James Madison explained in Federalist 47 and 51, is that:

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and

judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many,

and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may

justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. . . .

But the great security against a gradual concentration of the

several powers in the same department, consist in giving to

those who administer each department the necessary

constitutional means and personal motives to resist

encroachments of the others.

The provision for defense must in this, as in all other

cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition

must be made to counteract ambition.

As Madison explained, it is incumbent upon each of us to insist on Congress' right and duty to investigate the executive branch, and to ensure that the administration abides by the most basic--the most fundamental--requirements of our constitutional system.

We owe the American people--not to mention the families of those who perished--a meaningful investigation of the Benghazi attack, not just to find answers to remaining questions but to affirm that this is still a Nation of laws and that the people's elected representatives are still capable of pursuing the truth and holding the executive branch accountable for its actions.

This is a matter of great concern to me, and I am sure it is to a lot of people who are starting to realize that there is a stonewalling like we haven't seen since Richard Nixon.

I don't know that the President has done this personally. I hope not. But he has to look into it.

If he doesn't, then I think it is up to the majority in this body to hold the administration to account, with the help of the minority, and to not have them ignore, disregard, and treat with contempt the rightful oversight that we have an honor and an obligation to do up here. This is really a very serious set of problems as far as I am concerned. I hope the President will get after his people down there.

I think one of the problems is we have a lot of young people in the White House right now who haven't had the experience. On the other hand, some of these things are so deliberate that we can't blame it on lack of experience. These folks know and the people in the Justice Department know. To have withheld these emails the way they did, knowing they were crucial to any investigation, is something we should not tolerate here in the Senate.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of my colleague and friend from Pennsylvania and the discussion of why we are here on a late Thursday afternoon.

We started off the week with an air of optimism that with the energy efficiency bill before us, we could get to that place where we could be debating substantive issues of the day. As my colleague has noted, we have not seen a real energy bill on this floor now for 7 years. When we think about the energy landscape in this country and what has happened in 7 years' time--7 years ago, we were looking to build import terminals to receive LNG. Now we are debating--or hoping to debate--the export of our LNG.

I have kind of put a target on my back, if you will, and said: Let's talk about what is happening with our oil potential in this country and our opportunity as a nation to export our oil, given that next year we will actually be producing more oil in this country than the county of Russia, than Saudi Arabia, but that is going to require some debate, some discussion, some policy considerations.

If we cannot even get to the point where we can move forward on an energy efficiency bill, how are we ever going to advance some of these policy initiatives when it comes to our natural gas, when it comes to our oil or how we might be able to deal with issues such as nuclear waste, where, quite honestly, until we can resolve these issues, they are going to be holding back our opportunity to advance in

these areas. How are we going to build out the potential in this country for our renewables and how we integrate them into an outdated system? There are so many policy issues we have to talk about.

So when people suggest all we want to do is talk about energy, I am one Senator who would love to do a lot of talking about energy. I would also like us to be able to legislate on energy initiatives. I would like us to update some of our energy policies, because as times have changed, unfortunately some of our laws have not.

My colleague from Pennsylvania has mentioned there was a time when we would have substantive debate. Take that back to the Energy bills that were before us when I first came to the Senate back in 2003. We took up an energy bill at that time that was on the floor, I know, for multiple weeks; it may have been multiple months.

On July 25, 2003, we resumed consideration of the Energy bill. We had a unanimous consent agreement at that time that more than 370--370-- remaining amendments would be in order.

Now, 2003 may seem like a long time ago for some, but for me it seems like just yesterday. Thinking about that, it is like: Wow. We were able to come to a UC on 370 amendments.

If we go back to the Energy Policy Act, if we look at the amendment log, it shows that more than 130 amendments from Senators of both sides of the aisle were considered.

I think it speaks to the issues that were at play at the time. We are still basing most of our energy policy, of course, on those 2005 and 2007 energy acts.

I think it is important to recognize that when it comes to something as significant as our energy policy in this country, the debate is worthy, the debate is important, and legislating on these issues is critically important.

I know there are conversations yet underway as to whether an amendment opportunity will be made available, whether the four or five amendments the Republicans have offered that are being considered by the majority leader and the bill's sponsors of ShaheenPortman, whether we will be able to reach a fair consideration for the processing of those amendments. I would certainly hope we are able to do just that.

The energy efficiency bill, as I noted in my comments the day before yesterday, is good, sound policy. It is an important leg in the energy stool. When we talk about our energy resources and what we have available domestically, what we are able to be producing--whether it is our fossil fuels, whether it is our renewable fuels, whether it is other alternatives--the recognition is that our most readily available energy source is the one we do not waste. If we can be more efficient, if we can do more when it comes to conservation, this benefits all of us.

So let's figure out how we can move an energy efficiency bill. This is round No. 2 for us. Let us not allow the process to bog down a good bill and a bill that deserves to not only pass this body but to be worked through the body on the other side and to ultimately be signed into law by the President.

I want to start work. I want to be legislating. I also recognize this has been a difficult time for us all right now. We are not seeing a lot of legislation moving through this Senate, but I have been trying to use the time I have, as the ranking member on the energy committee, wisely, trying to focus on those areas where we can critically examine the energy policies we have in place and how we might refresh, how we might reimagine the energy architecture we have.

Last year I released a pretty major report. We called it ``Energy 20/ 20.'' It is a blueprint that kind of lays out my view of a sound, robust energy policy. I did not want a report that had taken a lot of time and energy and effort and love and passion to just sit on somebody's desk, so we have been working in this past year to flesh out some of the details we outlined in the blueprint.

I have released now four separate white papers stemming from ``Energy 20/20.'' The first one was on LNG exports. The second was on energy exports generally but also focusing on the specific issue of the prospect for oil exports. We released a very well-received white paper on electric reliability, and then earlier this week I had an opportunity to release a white paper on the nexus between energy and water. All of these are available on the energy committee's Web site.

I have given speeches on the floor. I have addressed small groups, large groups, basically anybody who will listen, not only in my State of Alaska but around the country. My colleagues and those who have been listening have heard me say multiple times that what I am looking for, what I am hoping for, what I am trying to build are laws and policies that will help us access our energy resources to be able to have a policy that says our energy should be abundant, affordable, clean, diverse, and secure.

I joke about it and say there is no acronym for that, but I have arranged it alphabetically so you can remember it.

But when you think about these five components, when you incorporate these all together--abundant, affordable, clean, diverse, secure--it makes pretty good sense.

I think the effort we have engaged in, in the energy committee, has been a worthwhile effort, and I hope this broader conversation will forge consensus on what I think we recognize can be some tough issues.

I have been working hard, even though we are not moving a lot of bills through the floor right now, to try to advance the conversation on so many of these issues I think are a priority.

The Nexus Between Energy and Water

I would like to take a few minutes this afternoon to speak about the most recent white paper I have released, and this is on the connection or the nexus between energy and water. I mentioned I had an opportunity to present this on Tuesday at the Atlantic Council here in Washington. It is entitled, ``The EnergyWater Nexus: Interlinked Resources That Are Vital for Economic Growth and Sustainability.'' It is a very timely subject, very relevant to the current discussion of measures we can take to support energy efficiency.

I think it is apparent, but it certainly bears repeating, that there are clear links between energy and water and water and energy. These fall into two categories. It sounds kind of simple, but it is water for energy and energy for water. Without water much of our energy-- electricity included--cannot be produced. Our economy literally comes to a halt. Without energy--and particularly electricity--the treatment, the transport, the distribution of water does not function either. That all seizes up as well.

So we have water and energy just inextricably linked, and I think it is important to acknowledge that the continued availability and reliability should not be taken for granted. I think sometimes this is the part we fail to keep in perspective.

We are talking a lot about energy right now, but as we talk about energy, let's talk about how that energy source intersects with water. In an effort to produce this energy, how much water are we consuming? In an effort to use that water, how much energy is being consumed to move or treat? So, again, the nexus is tight.

When it comes to water-for-energy, an interesting statistic is that about 41 percent of our freshwater withdrawals in the United States are attributed to cooling the vast majority of our powerplants. This also consumes about 6 percent of our freshwater. Water is also routinely needed to produce the various energy resources we rely on, whether it is oil, coal, gas, or uranium. According to the Congressional Research Service, the production of biofuels has the highest water-intensity value, requiring 1,000 times more water than conventional natural gas. So, again, understanding the intensity is important as we talk about our energy resources. Altogether, more than 12 billion gallons of freshwater are consumed daily for the combined production of fuels and electricity across the country.

Turning to energy-for-water, one study on a national scale found that direct water-related energy consumption amounted to more than 12 percent of domestic primary energy consumption in 2010. That is equivalent to the annual energy consumption of about 40 million Americans.

We are seeing new technology, and we are seeing that really with the potential to provide a paradigm shift. But

from today's vantage point, a steady population increase and the resource needs of a modern economy could make freshwater a limited resource in many parts of the country. We are certainly seeing that out in the West. Severe droughts in California and for that matter across most of the Western United States only serve to underscore the risks. Out West, of course, hydroelectric power is a major contributor to clean and cost-effective electricity generation, particularly in Washington State, Idaho, and Montana. So if rivers and reservoirs are running low, this power-generation capacity is at risk.

I believe the recent and rapid expansion of our domestic energy production is very good for our Nation, particularly the growth in unconventional oil and gas production. What we have seen is that it has created jobs, it has generated revenues, it has revived local economies, and it really does wonders for our energy security. As I mentioned, the United States is now producing and exporting more energy than ever before. Our net energy imports are at a 20-year low. They are projected to fall below 5 percent of total consumption by 2025.

With many new wells located in regions that have already experienced some water shortages, we are seeing producers who are moving in a direction to help ensure that there is going to be sufficient water available for both the work they are doing and other regional needs. New technological advancements and new methods to maintain a balanced use of freshwater resources have been continuously emerging.

I think it is important to recognize that folks are appreciating that you can't count on an unlimited supply of this water resource. Utilizing our technology to be smart, to be efficient, is going to put everyone in better stead.

Even in the case of conventional power generation stations, technological innovation and advances can assist in reducing--if not eliminating--the overall amount of water that is required for cooling purposes. But, again, the key is technology. Continued research and development is at the heart of innovation and advancement.

The questions that are appropriate to ask are what can we do to ensure an adequate supply of water and how can we responsibly minimize the amount of water that is used for energy and then also energy for water? Conservation, of course, can help reduce demand for both water- for-energy and energy-for-water activities, but we have to recognize that it can only go so far. As I just mentioned, innovative energy and water use strategies, coupled with advanced technologies, are equally important when trying to optimize our limited supplies.

I have called on all stakeholders in the private sector as well as in government to support R&D and demonstration of new technologies that can really work to reduce our energy and water consumption.

Again, talking about the bill that is on the floor--energy efficiency--everything we can do to reduce our energy consumption as well as our water consumption is all good. It is all good.

The genesis and sustainability of such efforts are highly reliant on open and continuous information exchange between the parties. I have suggested that the Federal Government not only can but should facilitate this exchange of information on a national and international scale. It can do that by forming genuine partnerships with the stakeholders--including industry, utilities, and academia--and teaming up to advance a better understanding of the energy-water nexus, adopt better practices through technological innovations, and really learn from one another about the procedures and implementation strategies.

This dialogue should also include international perspectives on the energy-water nexus, utilizing the experience and expertise from around the world. We have seen technological advancements and great work going on in Australia, the Gulf countries, Israel, and Singapore. The development of new and improved technologies can answer the needs of both the domestic and international energy-water markets. This could mean opportunities for job creation--good jobs--in high-tech, R&D, and manufacturing.

What I am advocating with this white paper and the proposals out there is really better planning and better collaboration. I am not looking for a top-down approach. I am not looking for more binding rules or mandates. I am certainly not advocating for the forceful implementation of any new policies or directives to use certain technologies. The adoption of best practices should always be on a voluntary basis.

But having said that, I do believe that if we can demonstrate savings and demonstrate efficiencies from new technologies and better resource management approaches, the stakeholders are going to figure this out, and they are going to say this is a win-win for their own bottom line. This makes sense for their customers. It is good to advance.

Along these lines, I have introduced energy-water legislation with Senator Wyden. We introduced it in January. Our bill is the Nexus of Energy and Water for Sustainability Act--we call it the NEWS Act--and it features some plain old commonsense policy improvements. What a concept.

Just think, in more ordinary times perhaps I would have even introduced the proposed NEWS Act as an amendment to the bill we have before us. But what we have--S. 1971--is a short bill, a simple bill that directs the Office of Science and Technology Policy to establish a committee or a subcommittee under the National Science and Technology Council to coordinate and streamline the energy and water nexus activities of our Federal departments and agencies. We are asking this panel--which would be chaired by the Secretaries of Energy and Interior, and representatives would be brought in from these and other agencies--to identify all relevant energy-water nexus activities across the Federal Government--because we know it is just a huge spaghetti mess here--and work together and disseminate the data to enable better practices and explore the relevant public-private collaboration. We also call for OMB to submit a cross-cut budget that details these Federal expenditures related to energy-water activities. What we are looking to do is to streamline these efforts not just to save water, not just to save energy, but to save taxpayer dollars.

It is good. It is sensible. I think it is a rationed approach. I would like to be able to legislate on this, and I hope we will get to that point where we are beyond the energy efficiency bill, the Shaheen- Portman bill we have been trying so hard to work to advance not only this week but for years now; where we are beyond arguing over whether we are going to be able to move on some amendments; where we will take up with great energy and enthusiasm--pun intended--these initiatives that will help our Nation to be more productive, to be more energy secure, to have a stronger national security, and to have energy policies that are current and sound.

I am one who tries to get up every morning optimistic, glass half full, and I want to believe we will work out an arrangement so that we can have a fair amendment process that allows Republicans to offer a small handful of amendments to be debated and voted on, that will allow us to move an energy efficiency measure that is important to our energy policy and to demonstrate that perhaps we can do a little bit of legislating, a little bit of governing, and advance the cause.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, we are considering the Shaheen-Portman energy efficiency bill. That is what I believe this legislation is called. I think we went on the bill on Monday. Here it is late Thursday afternoon, and it is amazing that we haven't had a debate or a vote on a single amendment in 3 days. Now we are finished for the week so we are not going to have any debate on any amendments or any votes tomorrow either. We are going to go the whole week without having been able to seriously consider the merits or problems with this bill, without being able to offer any ideas to improve or to change the underlying text. It is unbelievable. But this is what has become routine in the Senate.

I have offered four amendments. I fild four amendments I wish to debate, I would like to have a vote on. I have cosponsored four other amendments my colleagues have filed. I think, altogether, Republicans have drafted and filed dozens of amendments; I don't know exactly how many--there are dozens--in part because we haven't considered an Energy bill in this Chamber in 7 years. Things change in 7 years. Lots of things change. After 7 years of not having a debate over energy policy in America--something that is so basic to our economy, so important to every single family, every single business, everyone--it might be a good idea to have a debate and to offer some amendments, to have a discussion and have some votes. But that is not the way the Senate functions. We can't do it. The majority party, the majority leader, will not allow us to have amendments.

This isn't terribly recent. Over the last 10 months, since July of last summer, the majority leader has permitted Republicans to have a grand total of 8 amendment votes--8 votes in 10 months. The Senate is virtually shut down. That is what has happened. It just so happens that during that same period of time, the House Republicans, who are in control of the House, permitted the minority party to have 136 votes. Of course, the irony is it is the House that has historically always operated under a kind of martial law approach where the majority party dictates all terms--always has. But during that 10-month period, they have had 136 votes permitted to the minority party and we have had 8, and none on this Energy bill. None. Not one.

I truly don't understand why the majority party is so afraid of votes. What is so horrifying about casting a vote on an amendment? But, apparently, that is the case.

I will speak briefly about two of the amendments I have filed that I would like to have a vote on. I am not asking for an outcome, by the way. I accept that. I don't have any right to expect any particular outcome, but I don't understand why we can't have a discussion, why we can't have the debate, why we can't have the vote. By the way, Thursday afternoon, by now, we could have processed dozens of amendments. Actually, Republicans, in the end, all we wanted was a handful.

I filed amendment No. 3037. It would prohibit the Department of Energy from issuing new energy efficiency mandates on residential boilers. It is not very complicated. It is not the end of the world one way or the other, but on the margins, I think this matters a little bit to families.

I will tell my colleagues why. We all have residential boilers. These are our hot water heaters. We have them in our basements. We use them to heat water, to heat our house, in some cases, and to heat our water so we can take a hot shower. This is pretty common. We all have them.

The Department of Energy is in their periodic process of reviewing the mandates they impose on the energy efficiency standards for the boilers. The only consideration in this review process is whether they will make the mandates more stringent than they are today, make them adhere to a tougher standard than the standard they are forced to adhere to today.

Well, I think it would be better not to change the standard. That is my opinion. The reason I hold that view is because the problem with a more stringent energy efficiency requirement on these hot water heaters is it makes them more expensive. It doesn't matter much for really wealthy people, but for a middle-income family or a low-income family, it raises the cost of their home. It raises the cost of replacing a hot water heater. There are a lot of folks who can't afford to have an unnecessary additional cost added to them.

By the way, I don't think we need to force consumers to conserve energy. Everybody has an incentive to conserve energy, because energy is not free. So people are perfectly happy to pay a little more for more energy efficiency for a product if they can recoup that added cost in the form of a lower energy bill over time. People get that. They will make that decision. They will do it voluntarily. In fact, the only reason we need to mandate standards is if we want to force consumers to pay bigger premiums than they can recoup. If we only want them to pay for what they can save in the future, they do it voluntarily.

So, to me, this is one of those annoying little government mandates that is not necessary, and it reduces consumers' choices and raises their costs, and I don't think it is a good idea, especially now during difficult economic times when median wages have been declining, not rising. I don't think it is a good idea for the government to impose a new cost such as this. So I have an amendment that would forbid the Department of Energy from ratcheting up the cost of an appliance we all have in our homes.

I get the fact that not everybody agrees with me. That is fine. Some people do want to impose this added cost for their own reasons, and that is fine. What I don't understand is why we can't have the debate. Why can't we have the discussion and then have a vote? Then I either win or I lose, and

we are done. But we don't do that. Apparently, the majority party is not willing to allow Republican amendments.

I have another amendment. This one has bipartisan cosponsorship. I have cosponsors who include Senator Coburn, Senator Flake--actually, it is Senator Coburn who introduced it initially. I am a cosponsor. This amendment would eliminate the corn ethanol mandate from the renewable fuel standard.

What is that about? Well, existing law mandates that we take corn, convert it into ethanol, and then the law requires that the ethanol be mixed with gasoline, and we all have to buy it when we fill up our tanks. The Presiding Officer may be aware that we now burn over 40 percent of all the corn we grow in America. Over 40 percent of it, we end up burning in our cars, by turning it into ethanol and mixing it with our gasoline.

There were good intentions when this mandate was initially created. Some people thought it would be good for the environment. It turns out it is not; it is bad for the environment. It is not just me saying this. The National Academy of Sciences, the Environmental Working Group--everybody acknowledges it increases carbon emissions.

Members on the other side of the aisle thought the issue of carbon in the atmosphere--CO2 releases--was so important they were here around the clock in a dramatic display of political theater to make this case. Well, here is an amendment that would reduce CO2 emissions because the ethanol requirement increases CO2 relative to where we would be if it didn't exist.

That is not the only problem with the ethanol mandate. It raises the price of filling our tanks. This is expensive stuff. Having to mix it with ordinary gasoline raises the cost of driving. Everybody has to drive. So not only is it bad for the environment, but it is more expensive for every single family who operates a vehicle.

That is not all it does. Because we are diverting 40 percent of all the corn we grow to our gas tanks, it is not available in our cereals or in the food we feed to livestock, and so food prices are higher than they need to be; they are higher than they would otherwise be because of this mandate.

That is not all. Everybody acknowledges that ethanol has a corrosive effect on engines, so it is doing damage to our engines, which shortens the life of the engines; again, not that big a deal if a person is extremely wealthy and can kind of burn through cars. But for the vast majority of people I represent, cars are a very expensive cost they incur, and having a policy that systematically damages that very valuable asset doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

There is yet another reason. These ethanol mandates can have very dire consequences on some of our oil refineries, and that can cost us jobs, and it threatens refineries in Pennsylvania. As a matter of fact, I got a letter from a Philadelphia AFL-CIO business manager, a fellow named Pat Gillespie, who wrote to me asking me to try to do something about this, because it is threatening the jobs of the people he represents at the refineries where they work. I will quote briefly from a portion of his letter:

The impact of the dramatic spike in cost of the RIN

credits--

That is the system by which the EPA enforces the ethanol mandate--

from four cents to 1 dollar per gallon will cause a

tremendous depression in . . . [our refinery's] bottom line

in 2013. Of course at the Building Trades, we need [the

refineries] to maintain and expand jobs.

He closed by saying: ``We need your help in this matter.''

I am trying to help. I am offering an amendment which would repeal the corn ethanol mandate, together with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

Again, I understand not everybody agrees with this. There are some people who like the ethanol mandate. They think it is a good idea to grow corn to end up burning it in our cars.

Why can't we have this debate? Why can't we have a vote? Why can't we resolve these issues on the Senate floor? But we do not. We spend the whole week waiting and wondering whether we might be allowed to have one or two amendments, only to find out, of course, as usual, we get none.

So another week goes by with nothing productive being done on the Senate floor and legislation that could be a vehicle for a meaningful, robust debate about energy policy in America--I have just given two examples. We have dozens of subjects we could be debating. We did not insist on having all of them. But a handful of ideas? It is shocking to me--shocking that we cannot allow the Senate to function, that Senator Reid insists we cannot have an open amendment process.

It is disturbing because, of course, historically this was the body that did exactly that, had the open amendment process, had the open debate. This was the--I am chuckling because it seems so odd now, but historically the Senate was considered the world's greatest deliberative body because we would deliberate. The Senate used to do this. The way it used to operate is the majority party would control the agenda, would decide what was on the floor and that is fair enough--but then, once the majority leader would decide what bill was on the floor, then it would be open for debate, until essentially the body exhausted itself and Members were finished offering amendments, and then we would have a final passage vote. Nothing even remotely similar to that is happening today.

I know a number of my colleagues, including the distinguished Presiding Officer, have served in the House. It is unbelievable to me that now, for an extended period of time, the House is having much more robust debate and far more amendment votes, by both the majority and the minority party, than we are permitted to even consider in the Senate. This is a sorry state of affairs.

It has been 7 years since the last debate on energy policy. An energy efficiency bill has come to the floor, and energy efficiency amendments are not permitted to have a discussion or a vote. That is what the Senate has come to.

I urge my colleagues and urge the majority party, in particular, which controls this body, and urge the majority leader: Allow the Senate to function. Allow us to actually have a debate. Allow us to have some amendments. It is actually not that excruciating to have a vote, and in a matter of a very short period of time, we could mow down lots of amendments and move on to the next important piece of legislation.

Energy is a very important issue for our country, for our economy, for every consumer, and it deserves to have a more serious consideration than it is getting.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

I withhold my request.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about a bill introduced today--a bipartisan bill--a bill that will strengthen America's innovation economy.

Over the last 60 years our national laboratories have served as leading centers of research and discovery in America. Today we have 17 DOE labs charged with three broad research missions: science, energy, and national security. Although they have grown and changed since their founding to encompass much broader ranges of work and are successful in carrying out their primary missions, labs are not fully optimized to take part in today's innovation culture. That is a problem, because in this century of rapid change, America's best competitive advantage remains our capacity to innovate.

Over the coming months, I will be talking more about a few things Congress can do to streamline and jumpstart our Nation's hubs of discovery so that we can thrive as a 21st-century innovation economy.

At the top level, it will mean reauthorizing the America COMPETES Act to reaffirm our commitment to the robust national strategy for science and technology programs that will continue to be a critical underpinning of American prosperity.

And one part of that is how our national labs operate, which is why today Senator Rubio and I have introduced the America INNOVATES Act.

Already, our labs have incubated many groundbreaking innovations.

Their research has led to breakthroughs from new Melanoma and HIV/ AIDS treatments to IED detonators that can save the lives of our troops in combat. And that research is critical because although the private sector will continue to be a key source of innovation, the Federal Government has and will continue to play a central role in advancing innovation.

Why is that? Private markets, historically speaking, tend to underinvest in R&D relative to the potential benefits to society. This is especially true in the energy sector.

But, if there is a problem that I have heard since coming to Congress, It is that too often, the great work of our scientists doesn't translate to the marketplace.

Right now, too much groundbreaking science and too many innovative ideas never leave the walls of our national labs, squandering enormous potential in the commercial market.

Now, in our bill, we continue to support our labs' core mission. We are

not proposing anything drastic. What we are doing is modernizing the labs for the 21st century--so ideas in the lab can more effectively become innovations in the market. Luckily, we need only look to the labs themselves for inspiration on how to do this.

We make two broad proposals.

First we are integrating the management of the Department of Energy's science and energy programs to improve the linkages between basic and applied sciences. This will allow the early stages of research and development to be translated more efficiently, and it is something that Secretary Moniz has signaled he supports and is moving forward on.

Second we are giving the national labs more power to work with the private sector to ensure that more scientific discoveries can turn into commercial breakthroughs.

Together, these steps would allow us to streamline the labs' work so it can more quickly and effectively translate into the transformative innovations that can create jobs and grow our economy.

Now, to explain what our proposals intend to achieve, I will walk through what is known as the innovation pipeline, which shows how basic science research can become a world-changing innovation.

First, I will use the example of the great work that scientists at the National Renewable Energy Lab in Golden, CO, are doing to advance cellulosic ethanol technologies.

One of our country's big challenges today is reducing our dependence on foreign oil, and to do that we need new fuel options that we can create here in America.

Cellulosic ethanol is an advanced biofuel with a lot of promise because it is produced from abundant materials like grasses and wood chips as well as other types of biomass and waste. And because these materials are so abundant, cellulosic ethanol has the potential to replace a significant portion of our Nation's petroleum consumption.

The challenge comes, however, because, unlike corn, these cellulosic materials are made of complex starches that are harder to break down into ethanol.

To make the promise of cellulosic ethanol a reality, we needed to develop the enzymes and micro-organisms that could break down and then ferment those complex starches.

That is where the innovation pipeline comes in. At the NREL in Colorado, scientists started at this first step here--basic science. Basic science is very fundamental, it is the study of the elementary principles of the universe--really discovery level science.

Enzymes are large biological molecules that are nature's catalysts-- accelerating metabolic processes that sustain life.

To develop enzymes and micro-organisms capable of converting starchy biomass into cellulosic ethanol, you need to start at the fundamentals of biology and biochemistry. This includes studying the intricate details of the relevant biochemical processes, as well as probing the proteins and amino-acids that form the building blocks of enzymes down to the submolecular level.

At this point, scientists can move into the applied science stage of the pipeline. Applied research generally concerns translating those basic, fundamental principles into an application.

In this example, scientists apply the insights gained from the fundamental basic science stage to develop new enzymes with desired performance traits such as high selectivity, specificity, and stability to enable effective and efficient conversion of the complex starches into ethanol.

Applied research can also include controlled lab-scale demonstrations to test how effectively these newly developed enzymes and micro- organisms can turrijsay, wood chips, into fuel.

Still in the lab and far from full commercial scale production, the kinds of small discoveries that happen at the applied science level act as an early demonstration that something new is possible.

At the applied research stage, we are still far away from creating something ready for the market, but between these two stages our scientists have gone from the basic science of how an idea may work to actually demonstrating that it could work in practice.

At this point now, the private sector is more likely to see its potential value. Our scientists have shown that the technology is possible, and next we move to the commercialization and scaling and deployment phases, where private investors and companies take the technology our lab scientists have developed and make it a product that can succeed in the market.

During the applied research stage at NREL, scientists were hard at work showing that they really could produce cellulosic ethanol efficiently and cheaply--eventually meeting their goal to make it price competitive with conventional fuels in today's commercial market.

That is where we are right now with cellulosic ethanol. Companies across the country, such as DuPont, Poet, and others, are currently building plants to produce cellulosic ethanol at large scale and at competitive prices.

So that is one model of public-private partnerships for innovation-- where the basic and applied science research can begin in the lab and then be transferred to private sector companies who can create a commercial product.

I had the opportunity last year to witness another model of public- private partnerships for innovation at the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, which is home to the Advanced Light Source, or ALS. The ALS serves thousands of researchers--from private sector scientists to university researchers--who use light sources such as soft xrays, ultraviolet light, and infrared light to conduct a wide range of scientific experiments. Experiments at the ALS are performed at nearly 40 beam lines that can operate simultaneously around the clock and year-round.

The facility's resources would be too expensive for any one company to invest in alone, but by building a public facility that then is partly sustained by fees and targeted infrastructure investments by users, the ALS becomes a place where many different partners can come to test new ideas and approaches.

In terms of the innovation pipeline, what the Berkeley Lab and its ALS do is allow a diverse range of researchers to engage in various stages of research under one roof. The unique capabilities offered at the ALS also attract many industry partners and encourages productive public-private collaboration.

A good example of this is the partnership between the lab and the semiconductor industry.

Semiconductor technology is one of the most transformative scientific breakthroughs of the 20th century. Semiconductors are at the heart of what makes a computer work. Their constant advancement is what allows us today to hold the computing power of last generation's supercomputer in our pockets.

However, the manufacturing techniques previously used to produce new, smaller, and more powerful semiconductor products aren't adequate to build the next generation of nano-electronic devices.

So what has happened is a consortium of companies including Intel, IBM, HP, and Dow Chemical--called SEMATECH--came together to leverage the unique capabilities at the lab to advance semiconductor manufacturing technology for next-generation electronics.

As the lab reports, ``[By] tapping into the Center's long term expertise in short wavelength optics and the unique properties of the ALS Synchotron facility, SEMATECH funded the development of the world's highest resolution projection lithography tool and highest performance [extreme-ultraviolet] microscope''--developments that were only possible because of the facilities and expertise at the lab.

Having then developed new tools capable of manufacturing the next generation of semiconductor devices, a company like Intel can take the new technology and scale it up in their own plants.

Of course, there are many variations of public private partnerships that our labs can and have utilized to take ideas from the lab to the market. These two examples--cellulosic ethanol and the advancement of semiconductor manufacturing technology--show us what is really possible by working in partnership with our national labs.

In our bill Senator Rubio and I are trying to expand the flexibility and freedom of all our labs to innovate and build productive partnerships so that every research project has the potential and opportunity to eventually enter the market.

As we see here on the innovation pipeline, the payoff for all this work doesn't come until the very end, so one of the best things we can do is focus our policies to make the movement of ideas through the pipeline as efficient as possible.

While there are plenty of areas where Senator Rubio and I disagree, we have come together on the America INNOVATES Act because we both agree that government has a role to play investing in the early scientific research that can lead to innovations that change our world.

In this bill, we aren't talking about expanding government or calling for new spending or regulation, we are talking about the early science work that only government can fund because there isn't yet a clear payoff for the private sector and finding out how to connect the national labs and the private sector along this innovation pipeline in a better and stronger way to deliver more products to the American marketplace and the world markets.

Once again, I thank my Republican colleague Senator Marco Rubio. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join us in supporting this bipartisan innovation jobs bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business.

Mr. President, there was a fairly remarkable hearing in the House of Representatives yesterday in the Energy and Commerce Committee, upon which I used to sit when I was there. It called together some of the Nation's biggest insurers to talk about the failures of the Affordable Care Act as seen through the lens of the insurance companies.

First up on the docket for Republicans was the claim that no one had paid their premiums, that people had signed up for plans, but a report which had been released by the Energy and Commerce Committee in the House suggested in fact only maybe about 60 percent of them actually paid their premiums.

So they asked representatives from WellPoint, Aetna, and other insurance companies to confirm that fact, and of course they did not. WellPoint said, in fact, 90 percent of the people who signed up for WellPoint plans--the biggest insurer through the Affordable Care Act-- have paid their premiums. Aetna said the number for them is somewhere in the low to mid-80s. Both numbers are actually representative of what people in the non-Affordable Care Act market pay with respect to their premiums.

When we dig deeper into the Energy and Commerce report, we found out the

reason they suggested that only about 60 percent of the people had paid their premiums is because most people's premiums hadn't been due yet. They didn't have to pay them when they had signed up for the plans in February and March.

So they tried another tactic. They said: We have heard all these reports and news media representations that you are going to be increasing premiums next year by double digits.

The insurers said: No, we have no idea what our premiums are going to be next year. We don't have the data yet. In fact, we are starting to get the subsidies coming into our plans that help keep these premiums affordable for low- and middle-class individuals across the country.

It turned out to be an absolute disaster for Republicans on the Energy and Commerce Committee because, as the insurers also pointed out, their profits have done pretty well, their stock prices have done pretty well over the past several years, because the Affordable Care Act is working for patients and, as it turns out, for the insurance companies that have offered plans on the exchanges.

It is representative of a whole litany of complaints Republicans have registered with respect to the Affordable Care Act's horror stories and worst-case scenarios which have simply not come true. I will take a few minutes to run through each of these arguments because I think it is important to have some context to understand that each one of their representations has not come true. Thus, as they turn to their next series of representations or challenges to the act, I think we can look back on history as a pretty good predictor of the future when it comes to Republicans' ability to prognosticate about an Affordable Care Act which is working now for millions of Americans.

The first thing they said is nobody is going to enroll. They said the Web site was unfixable. Of course we know that is the easiest to debunk now that we have 8 million people who have enrolled through the private exchanges and another 4 million to 6 million people who have enrolled via Medicaid expansion, and 3 million young adults who are now on their parents' plan. In fact, enrollment far outpaced what initial expectations were and beat the CBO estimates by 2 million people.

So clearly Republicans were wrong when they said nobody would sign up for the Affordable Care Act. They were also wrong when they said the Web site couldn't be fixed. There is no excuse for what happened in the fall of last year on the Web site, but it got up and running. Once it did, people were able to get on in record numbers.

They said the Affordable Care Act was going to kill jobs. We have done nothing but add jobs by the millions since the Affordable Care Act was passed. There is a chart, which I don't have on the floor, that shows what has happened since the Affordable Care Act went into law: Job growth has continued unabated.

Specifically, Republicans said: It is going to result in people who were working full time to move to part-time work. The Congressional Budget Office in a report which came out about 2 months ago said there is absolutely no economic evidence to suggest full-time work is shifting to part-time work. That is not a trend actually happening in the economy. I understand there are anecdotes and stories which are true where employers have made that choice, but there is no broader economic evidence that there is a shift from full-time work to part- time work.

Republicans said it is going to cost too much. Sylvia Burwell was before the HELP Committee today, and she was very articulate in explaining the simple fact that the Congressional Budget Office has revised downward Federal health care expenditures by $900 billion over the 10-year period from the passage of the Affordable Care Act to a decade later. We are going to be spending $900 billion less than the CBO initially thought we would, in large part because of all the wellness, prevention, and pay-for-performance measures built into the Affordable Care Act.

Premiums are lower than expected on these exchanges, which saves $5 billion in and of itself. The overall cost of the bill is 17 percent lower than what CBO initially estimated--huge savings for the Federal budget and for the specific line items within the Federal health care act.

OK. Fine, they said, but young people aren't going to sign up. It is ultimately going to be older, sicker people, and you will not have the right mix.

I think I said WellPoint was the biggest insurer. It is in fact the second biggest insurer. They said the average age of enrollment has come down every single day in a meaningful fashion. The risk pool and the product selection seem to be coming in the manner we had hoped. It is very encouraging right now.

Big companies such as United are going to be offering new plans on exchanges similar to those in Connecticut because they as well see the risk pools are exactly as they had hoped.

But the uninsured will not sign up. This is just people who were insured shifting to other plans which are perhaps better or cheaper for them--bunk as well. The new Gallup survey, which is the best data we have on the number of people who have or don't have insurance in this country, shows remarkable decreases over the last two quarters in the number of uninsured people in this country--frankly, numbers which almost seem too good to be true--a 25-percent reduction in 6 months' time with respect to the number of people without insurance in this country. One-quarter of the Nation's uninsured are now insured in the first 6 months of the full implementation of the Affordable Care Act.

Lastly, one of the biggest red herrings in this debate has been the issue of cancellations. No doubt there have been hundreds of thousands of plans all across the country that have been canceled since the Affordable Care Act was put into place, but Health Affairs, one of the most respected, nonpartisan health journals in the country, did an article, I believe a couple weeks ago, which said there is absolutely nothing different about the number of cancellations which happened in the wake of the implementation of the act as compared to what had happened in that same period before the implementation of the act; that there is high turnover in the individual market.

While there are certainly some plans which were canceled by insurers because they didn't meet the requirements of the Affordable Care Act, there wasn't a surge in cancellations compared with the number of cancellations which happened prior to the act.

So if we just go through--whether it is the claim that no one is paying their premiums or that rates are going to go up or that nobody will enroll, that it will kill jobs, that it will cost too much or that young people will not sign up or that the uninsured will not sign up or that cancellations are higher than normal--every single one of these claims turns out to be wrong.

That is not to say this act and its implementation hasn't been without its significant warts. There are flaws in the bill. There have been big bumps in implementation, but the fact is that polls are starting to show a growing acceptance and approval of the law amongst the American public because they have listened to these claims that the sky is going to fall from Republicans, and not only has the sky not fallen, but 15 million or so people across this country have more affordable health care because of the Affordable Care Act. The uninsurance rate in this Nation has dropped by 25 percent. Taxpayers are saving $900 billion over the course of the 10-year period following the passage of the bill.

I haven't even gotten into the quality metrics. Rates of hospital- acquired infections are down. The number of people who are readmitted to the hospital after a complicated surgery is dramatically down.

This is why we passed the Affordable Care Act. It hasn't lived up to everyone's expectation, but to the extent that the goal of the act was to reduce the number of people who are uninsured in this country, lower the rate of growth of health care expenditures, and increase quality, the data coming in on a day-by-day basis is overwhelming and impossible to ignore. More people have insurance, cost is coming down, and quality is getting better.

At some point the facts have to matter. As former Senator Moynihan said: Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but you don't get to have your own set of facts.

Taxpayers, the uninsured, consumers of all stripes understand what the true story is; that all of the Republican prognostications about the failure of the Affordable Care Act have not come true in the past and they are not likely to come true in the future.

There is a lot of work to do to continue to make the Affordable Care Act better, and I hope every Senator is ready to do that work, but the data and the numbers tell us that increasingly, on a day-by-day basis, the Affordable Care Act works.

I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.