Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about a little-discussed aspect of the Affordable Care Act. Before touching on the main subject, I should point out that I think as of tonight there will be more than 11 million Americans who will have already signed up for health care coverage under the Affordable Care Act so far this year. Of course, the deadline is coming up next week, and this weekend there could be a very large influx of newly insured Americans, which I think is an occurrence we should all feel very proud of and should celebrate.

I wish to speak about a part of the Affordable Care Act that gets very little mention, very little discussion, and very little controversy. It is a provision that enables local organizations within a State to form cooperative insurance entities, to form nonprofits, to provide insurance to their citizens. Today I wish to speak about one of those--and one of the most successful in the country--the Maine Community Health Options program.

It is a story of an opportunity. It is a story of a vision. It is a story of an idea. It is a story of risk taking. It is a story of creative and dedicated Maine professionals who were willing to take a risk and try to implement a new idea. It is one of the health insurance co-ops, as I mentioned, that was established by the Affordable Care Act. The Affordable Care Act provided the opportunity to develop something new and different in health insurance--a company where purchasers of health insurance also become members and then elect other members to serve on the board of directors of their insurance company.

Kevin Lewis and Robert Hillman, two of the founders, saw an opportunity in the ACA to develop this idea they knew was needed to address the challenges of health care coverage for Maine citizens. Working with a group of people in Maine who shared their concerns about health care, they built Maine Community Health Options based on this vision of meeting Maine's people's health insurance needs in a direct and hands-on way.

Would it work? Nobody knew. When the enrollment opened last year, their goal, their hope, their vision was for 15,000 signups. By the time the dust settled at the deadline last spring, they had 40,000 signups. Eighty-three percent of the marketplace signups in Maine had signed up with this fledgling company. This year, I am told, as of today they have over 60,000 signups.

I did a tour of their offices recently in Lewiston, ME, and we talked about this phenomenon of all the signups that came unexpectedly. It reminded me of a TV commercial we all saw a few years ago where these young people start an Internet startup. They see the sales orders coming in, and they are happy. Then they start to come in even faster, and they get even more excited. Then they start to come in even faster, and they look at each other and say, what do we do now? These people in Maine experienced exactly that. Great, it is working. A few more. Wow, that is great. Then it went crazy. They all shook their heads. When we talked about this in Lewiston a few weeks ago, they said that is exactly the way it felt.

This sounds simple and straightforward, and it wasn't. When those 40,000 folks were signing up and the systems were challenged, Maine Community Health Options faced those issues head-on. They figured out where the problems were, addressed them, and communicated to members quickly and directly. That is really the Maine way.

The explosion of growth of this little company from zero to 60,000 is a jobs story as well. Maine Community Health Options now employs over 130 people and has even contracted with a local call center in Maine to provide additional customer support during this enrollment period. Even their chosen location is a good-news story. It is a great news story for New England and for Maine because they are in an old textile mill. The textile industry flourished in New England up through the 1950s but then left these beautiful old mills in Lewiston, ME. One of these mills--first one floor and now two floors--is being repurposed for this 21st century project of bringing health insurance to the people of Maine. It is humming with activity, new jobs, and people supporting their families.

It is also a local control story. Maine Community Health Options recently held elections for the board--a board that has to be made up of 51 percent of their individuals who are members who are elected by other members. In other words, the people who use the products and who buy the health insurance are actually making decisions about how those products should be designed. They are responsible to the folks who elect them--like us.

The structure of the organization is only part of the story. I think this is very important. They are also focused on the business of health--individual health and community health. They are focused on prevention.

The cheapest medical intervention of all of this is the one that never occurs, because people have preventive care that keeps them from more serious chronic care. They have a chronic illness support program and a tobacco cessation program which are both designed to make it easier and cheaper for members to manage chronic care or stop smoking. That is how we are going to save money in the health care system. They have a behavioral health partnership creating a nearly seamless transition for members in need of short-term mental health services, with no copay for the first three visits. They are doing community outreach. They recognize many people who have never had health insurance coverage before don't fully understand how to use it. Their community outreach effort includes informational presentations on health care for members and nonmembers alike.

Another part of the good-news story is Maine Community Health Options has just expanded its coverage into New Hampshire and is providing a new health care option for the people of New Hampshire. Whereas last year, as I understand it, New Hampshire only had one option on their exchange, now I think they have at least two, and perhaps three or four, one of which I commend to the Presiding Officer is based in Lewiston, ME.

Finally--and I think this is very important--what has this done for rates? I think we have lost sight of this in the last couple of years. For many years, one of the problems in health care in this country was the exaggerated inflation of health care costs--5, 6, 7, 8 percent a year was not unusual in the late 1990s and the early first decade of this century. That was the typical, somewhat expected inflation in the rates of health care costs--in the cost of health care and, therefore, in insurance rates.

Maine Community Health Options not only has reduced its already competitive rates, reduced its rates by 1 percent this year, but that competitive pressure, we believe, has also brought pressure to reduce rates for other providers and other carriers in Maine.

This is a great news story. This is people who saw an opportunity created by the Affordable Care Act to create a new kind of health insurance company that is owned and run by its members, that is delivering health care, quality health care insurance coverage, to the people of Maine and now the people of New Hampshire, that is helping to control costs, and I think most importantly is taking an active role in assisting its members in improving their own health. Of course, this is about cost. Of course, it is about access. Of course, it is about all the mechanics of health insurance. But in the end, if the result is healthier people, people who need the intervention of the health

care system less frequently, that is a huge win for those individuals, for our State, for our region, and for our country.

I come to the floor today just to share some good news about an aspect of the Affordable Care Act that is absolutely working, and it is making a huge difference in the lives of thousands, tens of thousands, of Maine people. Better health coverage, better health at a lower cost--what is not to like about that formula?

I am very proud of what these entrepreneurial individuals in Maine have undertaken and the success they have enjoyed so far. I look forward to working with them as they continue the project that has meant so much to my people.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, first I wish to associate myself with the comments of the Senator from Maryland and my senior colleague from Maine. I know this industry is growing in Maine. It is entrepreneurial, exciting, energetic, and they are adding jobs and only want to continue to grow.

I think this bill makes total sense. It is a way we can express support for the entrepreneurial and innovative growth of businesses in all of our States. I am delighted to be able to join and essentially add my encouragement and support to your work on this bill. Since it is a bipartisan bill, I hope we can move it through this body in a reasonably short period of time.

Mr. President, there are two items I want to touch on today. One is bad news and the other is good news. This week we learned there was a data breach of 80 million people's records--300,000 in Maine--at Anthem. Fortunately the data breach did not include credit card numbers, but it did include Social Security numbers. This news comes about a month after Sony.

What is it going to take for this body, for this Congress, for this city, to act to protect us against these threats? We keep getting warning shots, and we keep ignoring them.

I am going to have to go home this weekend, and 300,000 people in Maine are going to say: What have you done to keep this from happening? Am I really going to be able to say: Well, it is complicated; we have four committees of jurisdiction and it is very difficult for us to make these decisions and it takes some time? That is not good enough.

The intelligence committee reported out a bill last July. We had a bill on the floor here in the fall. It is time for us to act. We keep getting warned, and we keep not doing anything.

I can't justify it. There is no excuse for us not taking steps-- concrete steps--to protect this country against cyber attacks. They keep happening.

My regional representatives in Maine have surveyed both small businesses and health care facilities, and all of them either have been attacked or are concerned about attacks. Whether it is from a foreign country or whether it is from garden-variety criminals, the point is this is a major threat facing this country, and it is one we have within our power--we can't control it, but we can at least work together to try to prevent it and to minimize the damage. It is beyond time--way beyond time--for us to take action on this subject.

I hope my colleagues on all the relevant committees can come together in the next several months--before the summer--to take action to deal with this problem. There is no excuse, particularly given the continuous warnings we are having, for not dealing with the issue of the cyber threat to this country.

This week it is Anthem. A few weeks ago it was Sony. What is going to happen when it is the gas pipeline system, when it is the financial system, when it is the New York Stock Exchange, when people's bank accounts disappear overnight? It is time for us to act, and it is time for us to act promptly.

Mr. President, I also come to the floor today with some good news. It comes as no surprise that our debates here in the Senate focus generally on challenges, such as the one I just outlined, that face the United States. After all, that is our task and it is our fundamental responsibility to identify our Nation's problems and work together to find solutions.

But too often--and I am sure everyone in this body realizes--the bad news gets more attention than the good news. The old saying is, bad news gets halfway around the world before good news gets its shoes tied. The problems we face should not, I believe, drown out the accomplishments of our citizens as we go about our work every day here in the United States.

I think we should take a little time every now and then to reflect on the great things that are happening all over America, and in my case in Maine. There are stories of perseverance, innovation, individual accomplishments, and community effort. It is in that spirit that I rise today with good news from my home State of Maine.

I will spend a few minutes talking about Dr. Ed Bilsky and the impressive work he and a dedicated team of scientists, physicians, and students have been doing at one of my favorite schools, the University of New England in Biddeford, ME, to better understand and treat chronic pain.

Dr. Bilsky was recently named a member of the Dana Alliance for Brain Initiatives, a group of neuroscientists who work together to advance public education about the progress and benefits of brain research and to provide information on the brain in a way that is understandable and accessible for those of us who don't have a Ph.D. in neuroscience.

His inclusion in this group is recognition of his terrific work to advance our understanding of chronic pain. It is also a reflection of the prominent role he and his colleagues are playing in a critical national effort to address this problem. Chronic pain--and that means pain that persists for days, weeks, and months at a time--can be absolutely debilitating for people in Maine and around the country and is responsible for more than $500 billion a year--$\1/2\ trillion a year--in direct and indirect medical costs.

Periodically in my life I have experienced back pain, and when it persists for a period of time, it changes everything. It changes your mood, it changes your attitude, it changes your ability to get anything done, to focus on the work at hand. There are people in this country who are suffering--the estimate is 100 million people suffer chronic pain at some point in their lives. That is why the work done at the University of New England Center for the Study of Pain and Sensory Function, where Dr. Bilsky is one of the leaders, is so important.

This center is built around a core group of scientists, educators, health care professionals, whose research at the University of New England is focused on understanding the neurobiology of pain. How does it happen? How is it caused? What can we do about it?

Faculty and students work together to study the causes of chronic pain and apply this knowledge to preventing and better treating this very challenging and very prevalent condition. Projects include working to develop new kinds of nonopioid painkillers. That is a big deal because of all of the side effects and dangers of opioid painkillers which we are experiencing in our society. To develop nonopioid painkillers would be a tremendous boon to this country, those which don't have the side effects of opioids. They are also studying the genes and proteins that can turn acute pain into chronic pain and trying to find out the genetic and chromosomal basis of this terrible problem.

As with any success story, certain key events, people, and investments have made this research community what it is today. The recruitment of key faculty scientists, such as Dr. Bilsky and his codirector Dr. Ian Meng, in the early 2000s was pivotal to this effort. The addition of complementary research-driven faculty and administrators as well as the launch at the university of the Center for Excellence in the Neurosciences continue to move this project forward.

I should mention here the leadership of Daniel Ripich, the president of the University of New England, who is a true visionary and a great leader in the advancement of science and medicine as well as the mission of this great university.

The NIH took notice, awarding the university a 5-year, $10 million grant in 2012 to create the Center for the Study of Pain and Sensory Function, focusing on the neurobiology of pain. As is often the case, that Federal investment in research, which I believe is one of the most important and valuable investments the Federal Government can make, has been critical to the growth of these research opportunities and projects and has helped to attract further Federal and private investment.

The importance of cooperation and collaboration in a project such as this cannot be overstated. Dr. Bilsky and his colleagues have developed in-State and national networks for collaborative research, training, and public advocacy. They have partnered with clinicians, other researchers, the private sector, community leaders, and schools throughout Maine and the country to not only further their research and advance the bodies of knowledge relating to chronic pain, but also to maximize the positive impact of that research by applying it in their communities. This improves the lives of our citizens by helping them understand the causes and potential treatments for their pain.

Any university's primary mission is to educate, and Dr. Bilsky and his colleagues have taken their important work into the surrounding community. They have developed a vibrant and award-winning K-12 outreach program led by Dr. Mike Burman that focuses on brain safety and brain awareness. This innovative approach to STEM education has been recognized by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. This program engages more than 3,000 local kids each year and inspires kids to enter STEM-related careers, which is one of the most important objectives we can encourage in this country.

The research has also helped to spur economic development in Maine. Faculty members work in partnership with local biotech and pharmaceutical companies, helping the private sector with local research and development they may otherwise be unable to afford. This cooperation has helped Maine companies grow and create jobs. It is a win-win for everyone involved. It has built the reputation of the University of New England, and it draws positive attention to the State of Maine and, most importantly, it helps change lives.

If my colleagues can't tell, I am very proud of this work done in my State. As we go about our work here in this body, it is important, I believe, every now and then to recognize the success stories at home. We might even learn a thing or two from them.

With that positive thought, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, first, as an original cosponsor of the good Senator's bill, I compliment him for taking the leadership position he has on this issue, for bringing it forward and so eloquently expressing his support for it.

This is an important bill. I think it is one we all can agree on, on a bipartisan basis. Let's get it through and to the President.

Cyber Security

Mr. President, I start with a question, a basic question: Why are we here? Why do we have those jobs? What is it we are supposed to do? The clearest expression of the answer to that question comes from the preamble to the Constitution, which lays out exactly what our responsibilities are.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more

perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic

Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the

general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to

ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this

Constitution for the United States of America.

This is the purpose of the Constitution. It is the purpose of the government. The most solemn responsibility of any government, I would submit--any government, anywhere, any time--is to provide for the security of its citizens, to provide for the common defense. That is our most solemn and fundamental responsibility.

We are not doing that right now. We are avoiding, missing, obfuscating, and not dealing with one of the most serious threats facing our country. I refer to the threat of cyber attack. Every intelligence official I have talked to in the last 2 years, every military official, everybody with any knowledge of the defense and the security, the national security of this country, has emphasized that the most serious threat we face right now is cyber.

What does that mean? Cyber attacks. The disabling of critical infrastructure, attacks on our businesses, financial systems. This is a direct threat that is heading at us like a freight train on a track. The problem is we see it coming, but we are not doing what we should to deal with it.

To say it is coming is kind of an understatement. This is an unusual chart, but it goes in time from 2004 until today. It is basically the frequency and size of cyber attacks in our country. The bigger bubbles are bigger attacks. The smaller bubbles are smaller attacks. From 2004 to 2006, a few but not many. It is bubbling up and it is about to boil over. Each year we have seen more attacks, larger attacks, more serious attacks. The evidence is overwhelming that this is a threat we are facing. Sony was a wake-up call if ever there was one. What if the Sony attack had been the New York Stock Exchange or the railroad system, where cars bearing toxic materials are derailed, or the natural gas pipeline system or any other of the critical infrastructure of this country, financial or physical, would have disabled us?

I was at a hearing yesterday in the Armed Services Committee. We had the testimony of two of the wisest men in America--Brent Scowcroft, Gen. Brent Scowcroft, who was the National Security Adviser to President Ford and President George H.W. Bush, and Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was the National Security Adviser to Jimmy Carter-- talking about threats.

Brent Scowcroft said he believes the cyber threat was analogous to the nuclear threat: People would not be killed, but our country could be destroyed. He saw this as one of the two fundamental threats we face. Yet what are we doing in Congress? Not much. It is as if we got a telegram from Admiral Yamamoto in 1941 saying, I am steaming toward Pearl Harbor and we are going to wipe you out, and we did nothing, or a telegram or a text message from Osama bin Ladin saying, We are heading for the World Trade Center, what are you going to do, and we did nothing.

We have the notice. It is right in front of us. Yet we are not acting. What are the risks? The biggest risk is in the nature of our society. The good news is we are the most technologically advanced society on Earth. The bad news is we are the most technologically advanced society on Earth--because it makes us vulnerable.

It is what they call an asymmetric vulnerability. We are the most vulnerable because we are the most wired. We are in the most danger because of our technical advancement. What can they do to us? This gives you an idea of how this risk is accelerating and how it fits. This is the number of devices in the world connected to the Internet. Back in 2003 it was very few. By 2010 we were up to 10 billion devices connected to the Internet. The projection is, by the end of this year, we will be at 25 billion devices connected to the Internet. By 2020, not that long from now, 50 billion

devices will be connected to the Internet and therefore vulnerable to cyber attacks.

Critical infrastructure, I have mentioned. The financial system, what would it do to the country if all of a sudden everybody's bank account disappeared? Most of us, many workers in America, have their--we do not see cash money or a paycheck. It goes electronically into our bank account. What if all of that just disappeared? Chaos would ensue.

The same thing with transactions on the New York Stock Exchange or the great transactions of our banks. It would be chaos that would tumble through the economy and then into people's daily lives. Transportation could be paralyzed. The simply act of messing around with how red and green lights work in a major city could paralyze a major city for hours, if not days.

The transportation of toxic or volatile compounds could be compromised. Of course, the energy system, the electrical grid, we do not realize how dependent we are on these modern facilities until they go down. Periodically in Maine, when I was Governor, we had an ice storm where three-quarters of our people lost electricity for sometimes 2 weeks at a time. We learned what a disaster that was. One of the things we learned was that home furnaces, heating oil furnaces, need electricity to fire. People got cold. It was not just: Gee. I cannot watch TV tonight. It became life threatening.

The second area of vulnerability is financial. Data breaches, that is something that is happening all of the time. Then, finally, property ideas, theft of ideas. Where are these threats coming from? All over the place. North Korea, Russia, China, Iran. Terrorist organizations are now looking into the cyber field--hackers for hire, somebody in some country or somebody's basement somewhere in the world who hires out to take advantage of the vulnerability, particularly of the Western countries and particularly the United States.

We are already incurring huge costs, the cost of these data breaches, the cost of protection against these data breaches. Our financial system is spending a huge amount of money to protect itself from these breaches. We have to act. We have to act. It is beyond time to act.

My favorite quote from Mark Twain--and there are many. But my favorite is: History doesn't always repeat itself, but it usually rhymes.

History doesn't always repeat itself, but it usually rhymes.

Nothing new ever happens. This would not be the first time in history a great nation ignored threats to its existence. In August of 1939, Winston Churchill, in talking about the House of Commons, but he could have been talking about the U.S. Congress:

At this moment in its long history, it would be disastrous,

it would be pathetic, it would be shameful for the House of

Commons to write itself off as an effective and potent factor

in the situation, or reduce whatever strength it can offer to

the firm front which the nation will make against aggression.

Earlier in the thirties he said--and this is a perfect analogy of where we are today:

When the situation was manageable it was neglected, and now

that it is thoroughly out of hand we apply too late the

remedies which then might have effected a cure.

We are at the line between manageable and too late. I would argue it is almost over that line. Now is the time that we have to act, but we aren't acting because of a variety of reasons: the complexity of our process--four committees have to consider cyber legislation; the differences with the House; the differences with the White House. There are all kinds of complications in our system which seem to be preventing us from acting.

Again, Churchill is appropriate:

There is nothing new in the story. It is as old as the

Sibylline Books. It falls into that long, dismal catalogue of

the fruitlessness of experience and the confirmed

unteachability of mankind.

Boy, that is a dark judgment. Continuing:

Want of foresight, unwillingness to act when action would

be simple and effective, lack of clear thinking, confusion of

counsel until the emergency comes, until self-preservation

strikes its jarring gong--these are the features which

constitute the endless repetition of history.

Let's act before the crisis starts. Let's act while we still have time.

There are at least three bills that I know of that are available. One is a bipartisan bill that was heavily negotiated in the Intelligence Committee, came out of the committee I think 12 to 3 last summer. That is available. It is a new Congress, but the ink is barely dry. There is a bill that came out of the Judiciary Committee. A bill that came out of the homeland security committee in December of 2012--and lost in this body by a couple of votes--from my friends Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman also dealt with this problem. In other words, we don't have to start from zero. We don't have to invent these solutions; we just have to have the will to put them in place. Yet we don't act.

People say: Well, we have national security, Senator. What are you talking about? We are spending almost $600 billion a year on the defense of this Nation.

And the answer is yes, but in some ways it reminds me of the famous Maginot Line of France in the thirties. The Maginot Line has come to symbolize a faulty defense premise, which really isn't true. The Maginot Line worked. The problem was that the Maginot Line stopped. It went from Switzerland to the Belgian border. It stopped at the Belgian border, and the Germans came around it and behind it and overwhelmed France in 6 days. So the problem wasn't that the Maginot Line was not an effective defense--and our defense budget certainly is not ineffective; it is absolutely essential. But we are not defending the whole frontier. There is a piece of it, like Belgium, that is undefended, and that is our failure.

So what are we going to say when the crisis strikes? What are we going to say when we go home to our citizens in our home States when the financial system goes down and people can't get their money? There are threats of violence and violence across our country when toxic waste is spilled in our waterways. What are we going to say? ``Well, we would have done something about it, but that was in four committees, and that was really hard'' or ``You know, we just got in this argument with the White House and couldn't work it out'' or ``Gee, we would have solved it and your paycheck wouldn't have disappeared except the House--you know how they are.'' Can you imagine trying to defend yourself with that kind of argument? You would be laughed out of the place.

Come on. Let's do this. I don't know exactly how to proceed, except maybe those four committees should get together, talk to each other, and say: Let's bring a bill to the floor.

I would like to see this body decide that we are going to pass cyber protection legislation between now and May 1. There is no reason we can't do it. The bills are drafted. We just have to pull ourselves together and take collective responsibility for defending our country.

If we don't do this--a friend and colleague on this floor yesterday-- we were talking about it, and he said: It is political malpractice if we don't get this done.

This is a threat we know about. It is important. It is serious. We know at least some of the important things we have to do to coordinate better between the government and the private sector. We know how we can help to solve this; we just have to summon the political will to do it. And it isn't even that controversial. There are differences here and there, but this isn't one of the big fights in the Senate where we have great ideological differences, this is one where we should be able to come together. It is a lack of coordination and a lack of political will.

I don't know how I can say this more strongly. I think this is one of our most fundamental responsibilities. I go back to the preamble to the Constitution--the primary reason that governments are established and that our government was established, one of the basic reasons is to provide for the common defense. If we don't do that in the face of this threat, shame on us. This is one of the most solemn responsibilities we have as Senators, as Members of the Congress, and as members of the Federal Government of the United States.

I deeply hope that the next several weeks and months will be a time of productive discussions and a commitment to at least an attempted solution, the beginning of a solution to this

grave threat facing the United States of America.

I yield the floor.

Economic development and jobs is what unites us in this body. That is what we all want. That is what everyone here is striving to achieve--jobs and opportunity for the people of this country.

There are many factors that contribute to that, and we can discuss and debate all of them this year. I suspect that we will. There is infrastructure, tax policy, smart regulation, and regulatory reform. But the one about which there is very little dispute is education.

The single greatest job creation and economic development act in the history of the United States was the GI bill, subsequent to World War II, which opened the doors of college and higher education, to millions of Americans and literally built the middle class in this country. Education is what it is all about and education is even more important now than it was then.

There was a time in this country when you could graduate from high school and get a pretty good job in a mill, make good money, have two cars in the garage, and lead a successful life. That is much more difficult today. Even those jobs in those mills require more education.

In my State of Maine we did a survey a few years ago that showed 70 percent of the jobs had people touching a computer every day. That is what takes an education, and to get an education takes access.

I will share one rather chilling statistic in terms of the competitive nature of the 21st century. We are engaged in competition. We are engaged in competition with the entire world and they want our jobs.

A little statistic is the top 8 percent of high school graduates in China are equal in number to all the high school graduates in the United States. Think about that for a minute--the top 8 percent in China are equal in number to all the high school graduates of the United States.

We are going to have to work to compete, and the only way we are going to be able to do that is if we work smart, and the only way we are going to be able to work smart is with education and expanded opportunity and access to education. Higher education in the 21st century, I would submit, is more important than ever.

There has been attention to this over the years by State governments, local governments, by parents, by students, and by the Federal Government, going back to the midst of the Civil War, when one of the great education bills of all time was passed, the land grant college system in 1864. Support for research at our great universities has been a Federal effort.

Student loans have been a part of what we have tried to contribute to this system for many years. Then, of course, we have Pell grants, which have enabled millions of students to find opportunity in higher education. But, ironically, the very programs that are designed to increase access to higher education have, themselves, become inaccessible.

Senator Alexander and Senator Bennet made a dramatic showing today with these ridiculous forms. When you read the forms the conclusion is: I guess my kid isn't going to go to college.

We have created a system where you need an accountant, a lawyer at your shoulder in order to fill out a form for financial aid, and the people who need it the most are the least likely to have the resources to bring those experts to bear on the process. Programs designed to promote access have themselves become inaccessible.

So that is what today is all about. That is what our discussion is all about. It is about accessibility and simplification. Senators Alexander and Bennet and Booker have brilliantly articulated the power of the idea behind the FAST Act: reduce the questions to just a few simple questions to get the necessary information. You don't need 80 pages of instructions to answer two questions. It will open the doors to literally millions of students whom we need. This isn't nice to have; this is need to have. This is an economic security and a national security question. We need these people. The current form is discouraging the very people we want: those who may or may not take the plunge into higher education. The simple fact is you shouldn't need an accountant to figure out whether you can get financial aid to go to college.

The complementary bill Senator Burr and I are introducing today, along with Senator Rubio and Senator Warner, is called the Repay Act. The bill Senator Alexander is speaking to is about accessibility and simplification on the front end. Our bill is accessibility and simplification on the back end, dealing with the issue of repayment. It basically reduces eight current options--and I have a chart that would make Rube Goldberg blush in terms of the complexity of the current options--to two. One is a 10-year fixed repayment plan, which certain students can select if it makes sense for them, and the other is a variable income-driven plan.

As Senator Burr pointed out, the ideas for this bill came from across the spectrum--from students, financial aid offices, financial aid administrators, Republicans, Democrats, and President Obama in his most recent budget.

By the way, one of the groups Senator Burr mentioned is the Young Invincibles. I would like to be a Young Invincible. I would like to see where I can join that group because sometimes I don't exactly feel that way. But this is an idea I think is invincible because it just makes so much common sense.

Borrowers can switch between the fixed payment and the variable payment depending upon their circumstances, but they never pay more than 15 percent of their disposable income.

I think another important provision is if a borrower is totally and permanently disabled and the loan is forgiven, they do not have to pay tax on the loan that is forgiven. Under current law, they have to pay an income tax on the phantom income of the loan that is forgiven.

I particularly thank Senators Warner and Rubio for joining us on this bill. They had their own bill on this repayment structure last year, and they have generously decided to join forces with us on this bill, and I believe that will add substantial weight to our work. They have already made contributions to the drafting of the bill, and I think that will help us considerably as we move forward with this legislation.

Quite often around here we talk about things we can't do--we can't do--problems we can't fix. This is something we can do. This is a human problem of our making by layering programs over one another and having the bureaucratic rules build over the years to the point where, as I said, it has created an accessibility problem for the very program designed to give access.

These are important bills. They are not necessarily the bills that are going to get the headlines or cause all the fights and the friction, but these are the quiet kinds of changes that will change our country. They will provide opportunity for our students, for our families, and for our country. I am proud to join Senator Alexander, the chair of the HELP Committee, and Senator Burr particularly, who has worked so hard on this bill. I think we have a combination of bills that will make a difference in people's lives and in the future of this country.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Economic development and jobs is what unites us in this body. That is what we all want. That is what everyone here is striving to achieve--jobs and opportunity for the people of this country.

There are many factors that contribute to that, and we can discuss and debate all of them this year. I suspect that we will. There is infrastructure, tax policy, smart regulation, and regulatory reform. But the one about which there is very little dispute is education.

The single greatest job creation and economic development act in the history of the United States was the GI bill, subsequent to World War II, which opened the doors of college and higher education, to millions of Americans and literally built the middle class in this country. Education is what it is all about and education is even more important now than it was then.

There was a time in this country when you could graduate from high school and get a pretty good job in a mill, make good money, have two cars in the garage, and lead a successful life. That is much more difficult today. Even those jobs in those mills require more education.

In my State of Maine we did a survey a few years ago that showed 70 percent of the jobs had people touching a computer every day. That is what takes an education, and to get an education takes access.

I will share one rather chilling statistic in terms of the competitive nature of the 21st century. We are engaged in competition. We are engaged in competition with the entire world and they want our jobs.

A little statistic is the top 8 percent of high school graduates in China are equal in number to all the high school graduates in the United States. Think about that for a minute--the top 8 percent in China are equal in number to all the high school graduates of the United States.

We are going to have to work to compete, and the only way we are going to be able to do that is if we work smart, and the only way we are going to be able to work smart is with education and expanded opportunity and access to education. Higher education in the 21st century, I would submit, is more important than ever.

There has been attention to this over the years by State governments, local governments, by parents, by students, and by the Federal Government, going back to the midst of the Civil War, when one of the great education bills of all time was passed, the land grant college system in 1864. Support for research at our great universities has been a Federal effort.

Student loans have been a part of what we have tried to contribute to this system for many years. Then, of course, we have Pell grants, which have enabled millions of students to find opportunity in higher education. But, ironically, the very programs that are designed to increase access to higher education have, themselves, become inaccessible.

Senator Alexander and Senator Bennet made a dramatic showing today with these ridiculous forms. When you read the forms the conclusion is: I guess my kid isn't going to go to college.

We have created a system where you need an accountant, a lawyer at your shoulder in order to fill out a form for financial aid, and the people who need it the most are the least likely to have the resources to bring those experts to bear on the process. Programs designed to promote access have themselves become inaccessible.

So that is what today is all about. That is what our discussion is all about. It is about accessibility and simplification. Senators Alexander and Bennet and Booker have brilliantly articulated the power of the idea behind the FAST Act: reduce the questions to just a few simple questions to get the necessary information. You don't need 80 pages of instructions to answer two questions. It will open the doors to literally millions of students whom we need. This isn't nice to have; this is need to have. This is an economic security and a national security question. We need these people. The current form is discouraging the very people we want: those who may or may not take the plunge into higher education. The simple fact is you shouldn't need an accountant to figure out whether you can get financial aid to go to college.

The complementary bill Senator Burr and I are introducing today, along with Senator Rubio and Senator Warner, is called the Repay Act. The bill Senator Alexander is speaking to is about accessibility and simplification on the front end. Our bill is accessibility and simplification on the back end, dealing with the issue of repayment. It basically reduces eight current options--and I have a chart that would make Rube Goldberg blush in terms of the complexity of the current options--to two. One is a 10-year fixed repayment plan, which certain students can select if it makes sense for them, and the other is a variable income-driven plan.

As Senator Burr pointed out, the ideas for this bill came from across the spectrum--from students, financial aid offices, financial aid administrators, Republicans, Democrats, and President Obama in his most recent budget.

By the way, one of the groups Senator Burr mentioned is the Young Invincibles. I would like to be a Young Invincible. I would like to see where I can join that group because sometimes I don't exactly feel that way. But this is an idea I think is invincible because it just makes so much common sense.

Borrowers can switch between the fixed payment and the variable payment depending upon their circumstances, but they never pay more than 15 percent of their disposable income.

I think another important provision is if a borrower is totally and permanently disabled and the loan is forgiven, they do not have to pay tax on the loan that is forgiven. Under current law, they have to pay an income tax on the phantom income of the loan that is forgiven.

I particularly thank Senators Warner and Rubio for joining us on this bill. They had their own bill on this repayment structure last year, and they have generously decided to join forces with us on this bill, and I believe that will add substantial weight to our work. They have already made contributions to the drafting of the bill, and I think that will help us considerably as we move forward with this legislation.

Quite often around here we talk about things we can't do--we can't do--problems we can't fix. This is something we can do. This is a human problem of our making by layering programs over one another and having the bureaucratic rules build over the years to the point where, as I said, it has created an accessibility problem for the very program designed to give access.

These are important bills. They are not necessarily the bills that are going to get the headlines or cause all the fights and the friction, but these are the quiet kinds of changes that will change our country. They will provide opportunity for our students, for our families, and for our country. I am proud to join Senator Alexander, the chair of the HELP Committee, and Senator Burr particularly, who has worked so hard on this bill. I think we have a combination of bills that will make a difference in people's lives and in the future of this country.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I wanted to speak very briefly, because as Senator Manchin pointed out, I am the most junior person in the place.

I want to say a couple of things about Carl Levin. As has been said here repeatedly, Carl is a man of immense intellect and character, and I wanted to explain how that came to be. I thought that would be important to lay on the Record.

It came to be because Carl Levin and his brother spent their boyhood summers in the State of Maine. That imparts character to anyone who is lucky enough to have that experience.

Secondly, I want to mention--because it has been mentioned several times--about the travel. I had the great good fortune to travel after having been here about 6 months. Carl and I--as members of the Armed Services Committee--went to Turkey and Jordan to try to get some insight into the situation in Syria. My only advice to anyone in this body is if you are ever invited to travel with Carl Levin, spend the prior 2 or 3 months in the gym. I have never been so exhausted in my life, and we would be at 10 p.m., after all-day meetings and touring of refugee sites, and Carl would say: Can't we have another meeting? Isn't there someone else we can talk to? His absolute passion for information and data upon which to make decisions is I think exemplary.

The final thing I want to note is--and it has been talked about how he is a Senator's Senator, which is certainly true. My observation and in fact my experience this year in the markup of the National Defense Authorization Act is the highlight of my experience in this body. The reason it is, is cause it worked like it is supposed to work. We had 2/ 2 days of markup. They were about 10-hour days, as I recall. There were over 200 amendments. Through Carl's leadership, most of those amendments were compromised and worked out between the parties and between the individuals who were moving the amendments, but we ended up with about 20 we couldn't resolve in that way. I was so struck by this. I went back and looked at the record of that markup. Of the 20 amendments that were voted on in the committee, not a single one of those amendments was decided on a party-line vote. There were votes of 13 to 12 or 16 to 4 or whatever the vote was but not a single party- line vote. I think that in itself is an extraordinary achievement in a body that is often driven by partisan divisions. I think it is attributable in large measure to Carl Levin's leadership.

Everybody had their say. Everybody had their opportunity to put their thoughts forward. Everybody had an opportunity to get a vote if they felt that was necessary. Of course, in the end, the bill came out of the committee--I think it was 25 to 1--and that is what legislating is supposed to be all about. That is a lesson for us because people felt they got their amendments, they got their discussion, they got their ideas out. Even if they weren't successful, at the end, they voted for the bill because they were invested in the process. That is what I learned from this man who I think has been an inspiration for those of us who are coming along behind. Again, I am so honored. One of the great joys of my life has been to serve with you for 2 years. One of the great sadnesses of my life is it is only 2 years, but I deeply appreciate what you have done for this body and for the United States of America.

Bless you.

Mr. President, I probably have known Tom for the least length of time of anybody in this Chamber, and I want to offer some comments from the perspective of only 2 years and really more like a year and a half since we became friends and colleagues.

I have seen Senator Coburn in two contexts--one is intelligence and the other is faith. He and I serve on the Intelligence Committee. We sit directly across from each other. That committee is generally a non partisan one, but it is also one where all the meetings generally are closed. There is no press. You can really take the measure of someone when they ask questions and participate in a debate in that forum.

His questions always struck me as the questions I wished I had asked, and they struck me as the questions I am sure the people of America would have wanted asked. They were penetrating, they cut through obfuscation, and they were always meaningful and helped us move toward the important work that committee has to accomplish.

I have also become acquainted with him through our faith and participation in the Wednesday Prayer Breakfasts, and more recently, for reasons that I am not entirely sure, he has invited me to join him on Tuesday evenings for dinners on the other side of the Capitol that have been very meaningful.

For the 9 years before I came here, I taught a course called ``Leaders and Leadership,'' and I taught it at a couple of colleges in Maine. I taught it really as much for myself as for my students because I wanted to try to understand what leadership was, and I thought if I signed on to teach it, I would have to learn something about it. Every year what we did was go through and discuss the stories of great leaders throughout history, some well known and some not so well known. We always started with Ernest Shackleton. We talked about Eleanor Roosevelt and Margaret Thatcher and Martin Luther King and Lincoln and Churchill. We always tried to define the qualities that make a leader, and there are lots of them--perseverance, communication, vision, team work, trust--but the last one on the list and the one that brings me back to Tom is always character. It is an indefinable quality. You cannot really put a specific definition to it, but people like Lincoln had it, Ernest Shackleton had it, Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain from Maine had it, Eleanor Roosevelt had it. It involves a combination of qualities that Tom embodies, and almost all of them have been mentioned here today--integrity, intelligence, honesty, faith, belief in principle, and daring to stand for principle. It is the hardest thing to teach, but it is the easiest thing to see. And the reason I felt so privileged to get to know this man for such a short period of time is that he has shown me what character is all about.

Tom, it is one of the great joys of my life to have had these 2 years to get to know you, if only slightly. It is one of the great sadnesses of my life that it has only been 2 years.

Godspeed, Tom. You have made a difference for this country that we all love and honor and respect. Thank you for your service and for sharing your great character with all of us.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 490, S. 1353.

I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute be agreed to, the Rockefeller-Thune substitute be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I wish to honor the career of a dear friend and former colleague, Mr. Thomas Welch, who is set to retire this year as Chairman of the Maine Public Utilities Commission. Tom's tremendous 35-year career bridged both the public and private sectors and has always been defined by a steadfast dedication to service and, of course, an unwavering love for the State of Maine.

As Governor, I had the privilege of calling on Tom to lead the Maine Public Utilities Commission, also known as the MPUC, and that is the same position that he was again nominated for and currently holds under Governor Paul LePage.

Serving as Chairman of the MPUC is, at times, a thankless job, but it is also one of monumental importance. Tom's job is central to keeping the lights on, the water flowing, the heat coming, and the people of Maine connected through reliable phone and Internet services. In my administration--just as he does today--Tom performed those tasks and so much more with outstanding acumen, keen judgment, and, I might add, with one eye always towards the future. In fact, it is no exaggeration to say that Tom, perhaps more than anyone else across the State, played a pivotal role in ushering Maine's public utilities into the 21st century.

A generation of Maine's young minds can thank Tom for laying the groundwork that hastened their journey into the digital age. Tom recognized early on that the Internet was quickly evolving into a more dynamic and powerful tool that, when placed in the hands of our students and our communities, could become a catalyst for digital learning, a driver of economic growth, and an architect of intra- personal connections that were no longer limited by geographic constraints. With that immense potential in mind, he worked tirelessly to implement the Federal E-Rate program, which delivered Internet access to schools and libraries across the State--and with that newfound Internet access, he delivered new and unprecedented opportunities to people all across Maine, an achievement so fundamental and so critical to our daily lives that it simply cannot be understated.

As high energy prices across Maine continued to weigh heavily on the pockets and minds of people across the State, Tom endeavored mightily to deregulate Maine's electric industry to lower energy prices, and most recently, he lead the charge to expand natural gas capacity throughout the region.

In conclusion, I should point out that I often to refer to Tom as ``SMIM''--the Smartest Maine in Maine. He possesses a vast knowledge of law and public policy that is matched by very few and that has helped inform and shape Maine's telecommunications and energy framework for nearly a decade. Indeed, one would be hard-pressed to find an individual with a deeper understanding of our State's public utilities infrastructure. But perhaps more important is his genuine ability to teach and share that knowledge with others. These characteristics not only make Tom a remarkable public servant, but a valued role model as well.

I, of course, am saddened to see Tom enter retirement because his departure will be a loss for Maine--but, I, along with the people of Maine, am forever grateful for his many years of service on behalf of our state.

Tom, congratulations and thank you. I hope your retirement is as restful and relaxing as it is well-deserved.

Mr. President, I also want to address the report that was released this morning by the Chair of the Intelligence Committee. I come at this in a slightly different way than some of my colleagues, because I came to this process late.

I joined the Intelligence Committee in January of 2013. By that time the report had been authorized, had been written, and actually had been finalized. So I came to it as a final product and the decision was whether it should be released.

Before talking about the report, there are two very important points that should be made.

No. 1, one of my problems with this discussion is that everybody talks about the CIA. The CIA did this, the CIA did that. The fact is the CIA as an institution doesn't do anything. People do things.

I have been around the world and met with CIA people in many countries. I have met with them here. They are patriotic, they are dedicated, they are smart, and they are brave. The problem with this situation is their reputation has been sullied by a relatively small group of people early in the prior decade.

So I want to make clear, at least as far as I am concerned, this is not an attempt to discredit or otherwise undermine the CIA or the good people who are there, but to point out that mistakes were made.

No. 2, I think we need to acknowledge that those were extraordinary times, the year or so after September 11. We thought there was going to be another attack. There was a lot of pressure to uncover that information. It is easy, 10 years later, to look back and say: Well, we shouldn't have done this or we shouldn't have done that. I understand that. We have to acknowledge that. However, those circumstances cannot justify a basic violation of who we are as Americans and what our values are.

The process is the report was completed and accepted by the committee on a bipartisan basis. My predecessor, Olympia Snowe, voted in favor of the acceptance of the report in December of 2012.

It was then sent to the CIA. They responded, a rather full response. It took about 6 months, and then they submitted their response to the committee.

I knew the vote was going to be coming up last spring as to whether to release the report. I went to the secure site in one of our buildings and sat down every night for a week and read this executive summary, every single word--all 500 pages, all of the footnotes--and made my own judgment as one who was in no way invested in this report. Here are the conclusions I reached. I must say, until I sat and read it, I didn't fully comprehend what this issue was, why we needed this large report, why we needed to do this study. After reading it, I was shaken and convinced that the report was important and should be released.

Basically, it has four conclusions. I am not going to go through them in detail, but No. 1 was: We committed torture. I am not going to argue that. I would say, as I said repeatedly, read the report. No person can read the description of what was done in our name and not conclude that it was way outside the values of our country and constituted torture by any definition.

No. 2, it was terribly managed. That is not a very exciting point about management, but nobody was in charge. Contractors were actually designing the program and assessing whether it was successful--the people who had designed it and were implementing it. There was no central place at the CIA that managed it, so that was a problem.

No. 3--and this we are going to talk about for a few minutes--it was not effective. The guts of this report are an analysis of the 20 principal cases the CIA presented as justification for the torture to say that it worked, that it led to intelligence that was reliable and current, and the report goes through in excruciating detail looking at each one of those allegations.

It basically finds that the information was either already available, it was available in our hands, it was available in other ways, and the witnesses had given up the data prior to their being subjected to these extraordinary measures. I am going to talk, as I mentioned, in a couple of minutes about this issue of effectiveness.

I should have said this at the beginning. My poor words can't contribute a great deal to this debate, but the speech Senator John McCain made on this floor this morning should be required viewing for every schoolchild in America, every Member of this body, every Member of this Congress, and every American. He spoke eloquently about the violation of our ideals of this program and the fact that it cannot, will not, and could not work.

The final point we take from the report is this program was continually misrepresented. It was misrepresented to the President, it was misrepresented to the Justice Department, it was misrepresented to the Congress, and it was misrepresented to the Intelligence Committee.

The problem is that continues today. In the past few days we have seen an outburst of statements, speeches, and interviews on television saying it was effective. It wasn't effective, and the report makes that clear.

There is a semantic sleight of hand going on, and I have already seen it in two or three interviews on television where people slide from the report and they say: The program of detention of people whom we captured after September 11 was effective in generating intelligence.

Absolutely true. There is no doubt of that. People were detained, they were interrogated, they gave good intelligence, it taught us what we know about Al Qaeda, and it was very helpful to the country in preventing future plots.

The question for the House, though, is was the torture effective? If you have somebody in custody, they give up good information, and then later you torture them and they don't give you anymore information, the torture didn't create that information or that intelligence. The question is did the extraordinary methods create additional evidence.

People should cock their ears when they hear people say the program created this good intelligence. It did. But the program is not what we are talking about today. We are talking about so-called enhanced interrogation techniques.

I would suggest when people come up with a euphemism such as enhanced interrogation techniques, that should tip us off that something is going on that we should be concerned about.

I wrestled with this decision. It was not easy. There is risk involved. There has been a lot of commentary today. Our people are on alert. Will someone attack us because of this report?

I can't deny that risk. I think it is impossible to say. But we have already learned that these people will attack us for any or no reason. They have been trying to attack us for 10 years. That is their reason for existing.

ISIL has beheaded Americans, not because of this report, but because that is their agenda. Now they may issue a press release or a YouTube video and say we are doing this because of the report, but I would submit they are going to do it anyway.

What they are going to cite--it is not the report, it is what we did that has inflamed opposition around the world, and it has done so for many years already.

Finally, on the question of the risk, when the terrible activities at Abu Ghraib came to the attention of the Congress, we did a report. The Armed Services Committee did a study and issued a report in grisly detail of what was done, and at that point we had 100,000 troops in Iraq. If ever there was a report that would have inflamed public opinion in a foreign country and generated retribution against us, it was that. We cannot be intimidated by people who tell us that we cannot exercise and be true to our own ideals.

But if there is any risk, why should we do it? Because these actions are so alien to our values, they are so alien to our principles that we simply can't countenance them.

By the way, if this wasn't torture, if this wasn't a problem, why did the CIA destroy the tapes of one of these interrogations? That is what started all of this, when the Senate learned they had destroyed tapes. If they thought this was not torture--which is what they were telling us--then why are they destroying the tapes? That is what began this process.

To me, one of the most telling quotes in the whole report was a back- and-forth between the CIA and I think the White House--but I think it was within the CIA where the statement was made: ``Whatever you do, don't let Colin Powell find out about this, he'll blow his stack.'' Now that tells me they knew they were doing something that wasn't acceptable to our country and to the American people. But the second reason to release this report is the key: so it will never happen again. That is the whole deal here.

The campaign of the last few days of people saying it worked and it wasn't torture and you shouldn't do it because

of the risk--that, to me, validates my concern because these people are essentially saying: We would do it again if we had the chance. And the only thing standing between them and doing it again is an Executive order signed by this President in January of 2009, which could be wiped out in the first week of a new Presidency or in the first month of a new Presidency. We cannot have this happen again.

The oratory is that it works. I have a letter, which I will submit for the Record, from 20 former terrorist interrogators--Army, Air Force, CIA, FBI--saying these kinds of tactics don't work and, in fact, they produce bad intelligence. There is an article in Politico today by Mark Fallen, who is a 30-year interrogator, saying it doesn't work.

We have to have this discussion and lay that to rest because the people who are saying it works are really saying: And we will do it again if we have to. And that is not who we are as people.

Interestingly, in the CIA's response to the report--all during the early part of this past decade the argument was--and we are hearing it today--it works. We are certain it works. We got valuable intelligence. We got Osama bin Laden.

The CIA is not saying that today. When they submitted their response to the committee's report, what they said about effectiveness was that it is unknowable whether it was effective. I believe the migration from the certainty they gave to Members of Congress and the President and the Department of Justice--the migration from ``certainty'' to ``unknowable'' speaks volumes because they couldn't refute the facts that are in this report.

If this idea that this kind of interrogation works becomes conventional wisdom, it will definitely happen again.

I go back in conclusion to John McCain's statement this morning. I can't match his eloquence. It was one of the most powerful messages I have ever heard in this body or anywhere else. He talked about who we are as Americans, and he also talked from personal experience about what torture will do and whether it will produce good information, and I would submit that John McCain knows more about that particular subject than all the rest of us in this body put together.

I got a critical note from a friend in Maine this morning that said ``You know, you are naive'' and all those kinds of things. I just wrote him back and said, ``Don't take it from me; watch what John McCain had to say.''

We are exceptional, but we are not exceptional because of natural resources or because we are smarter and better looking than anybody else; we are exceptional because of our values. We are one of the few countries in the world that was founded on explicit values and ideals and principles. And principles aren't something you discard when times get tough. That is when they are important. That is like saying: I am in favor of free press unless somebody says something offensive. These are principles that make us distinct and different.

I believe this debate is about the soul of America. It is about who we want to be as a people. It is a hard debate. It is difficult. It is hard to talk about these things. This was a dark period. But I believe that having this discussion, having this debate, getting this information out--and by the way, all the information is going to be out: the report; the CIA's response was made public today; the minority had their own statement that is quite substantial. So the public is going to be able to look at all this information and make their own decisions. I looked at the information, and the decision I made was that this is important information the people of America are entitled to, they should understand, and we should move forward consistent with our ideals and our principles as a nation and see that something like this never happens again.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter I referred to earlier.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that James Reeve, a defense fellow in Senator Kaine's office, be granted floor privileges for the duration of the 113th Congress.