Floor Statements

Madam President, I rise to speak on the issue of the military COLA. This is a cost-of-living adjustment for our military retirees. In the budget agreement, the COLA was reduced for military retirees by 1 percent until they reached age 62, and then the COLA is restored. I am opposed to this provision in the budget, and I have since cosponsored legislation to fix it, meaning fully reinstating the COLA for our military retired.

The bill we are considering and voting on later today fixes the COLA problem. It reinstates the COLA in full, and that is good. That is what I want to do, and that is what I believe the vast majority of Members in this body on both sides of the aisle want to do. We should pass the bill, and I believe this afternoon we will.

The bill we have been considering this week fixed the COLA problem and restored the cost-of-living adjustment for our military retirees, but it did not cover the cost of doing so. The cost of the legislation is about $6.8 billion over a 10-year period, which, of course, is the Congressional Budget Office's scoring period. We can cover that cost, and we should. We have the deficit and the debt. We have to address our deficit and debt. We have to make sure we are paying for things, and we can absolutely do that in this case. In fact, we put forward amendments to do just that.

The first amendment I joined in putting forward was one led by Senator Kelly Ayotte, the Senator from New Hampshire. Her amendment fully covers the cost of fixing the COLA. The way it works is it covers the cost by simply requiring that the additional child tax credit statute is properly enforced. I will explain that.

This amendment will require families with children who apply for the additional child tax credit must have Social Security numbers for those children. This is a simple straightforward enforcement provision to ensure the law is followed. Why wouldn't we make sure the law is enforced? After all, I believe that is an important part of our job.

In fact, I also believe the Treasury Department supports this enforcement provision as well, and I would wish to cite from a recent inspector general's report.

In 2011, the Treasury Department's Inspector General

reported that individuals who were not authorized to work in

the U.S. received billions by claiming the ACTC, and several

news investigations found troubling instances of abuse of

this tax credit. In just one example, according to a 2012

news report, an undocumented worker in Indiana admitted that

his address was used to file tax returns by four other

undocumented workers who fraudulently claimed 20 children in

total--resulting in tax refunds totaling nearly $30,000.

The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates this change would save approximately $20 billion over 10 years. That is $20 billion in savings over 10 years, which obviously far more than covers the $6.8 billion cost of the COLA fix we are putting forward. Clearly that works.

I understand we have not been able to get bipartisan agreement on this pay-for, so we need to find something we can agree on because we need both Republicans and Democrats to pass this legislation to fix the COLA, and that is why I have since offered another pay-for. It is a simple 1-page amendment that provides a pay-for for restoring the cost- of-living adjustment for our military retirees. What it does is it simply extends the provisions of the Budget Control Act--the budget we passed--for one more year, from 2023 to 2024.

I am pleased to say we will be voting on my amendment this afternoon--not because I have offered the amendment but, rather, because the leadership has agreed to offer the House version of the COLA fix. The legislation we will be voting on this afternoon has the pay-for I have just outlined. It is not identical to the amendment I have submitted, but it is very close to it. It ensures our military retirees will receive their much-deserved retirement.

I have urged my Republican colleagues in our caucus to fix this problem, and I have urged my Democratic colleagues on the Senate floor to fix this problem. I believe we will fix the cost-of-living adjustment in a bipartisan way today and restore it for our military retirees. This amendment will make sure we pay for it so we are not increasing the deficit or the debt.

As a former Governor and now as a Senator, I have had the honor and privilege to work with our military men and women. I have been to Iraq and Afghanistan. I have gotten the calls when one of our heroes makes the ultimate sacrifice. I know they put it all on the line for us.

Today I ask my fellow Senators to join with me and vote for our men and women in uniform. We need to fix the COLA for our military retired. We should support those great men and women who wear the uniform and honor and protect us and serve this Nation in the cause of liberty and freedom with their dedicated service.

Join with me and support them and vote for this legislation.

I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it is interesting that I follow our minority leader who spoke about the Keystone XL Pipeline issue, as well as the chairman of the agriculture committee in the Senate, the esteemed Senator from Michigan Ms. Stabenow, who has done such a marvelous job of leading the farm bill.

The role of Congress is to govern. The people of this great country-- more than 300 million people, and the country that leads the world-- send us here to govern. To govern, we have to join together on a bipartisan basis to get something done. Solutions, by their nature-- particularly solutions to complex problems--are never perfect. There are no perfect solutions. But we are elected to join together, Republicans and Democrats, and solve problems; to put together solutions, although not perfect, that will meet the challenges this great Nation faces.

Regarding energy, I echo the sentiments of the minority leader. I have worked on the Keystone project for more than 5 years now, first as a Governor and now as a Senator, and we have tremendous bipartisan support on that project and we need to move forward. The minority leader is right on point.

I come today to talk about what I believe we are on the cusp of moving forward on, something we have worked on very hard, particularly these last 2 years, and that is the farm bill. I wish to begin by thanking and commending the Senator from Michigan who is the chairman of the Senate agriculture committee, who has worked with unbelievable dedication and who has truly shown the spirit of bipartisanship I am speaking about.

So I begin by thanking our chairman Senator Stabenow, who has worked with Democrats and Republicans. She has continually reached across the aisle not only to her ranking member, the good and senior Senator from Mississippi Mr. Cochran, but also to our counterparts in the House, including Representative Frank Lucas, who is the chairman of the Agriculture Committee in the House, and Representative Collin Peterson, who is the minority member in the House. One is from Oklahoma and one is from Minnesota. So north and south, east and west, across this great country, Republicans, Democrats, Senators and House Members, and our chairman have worked to fashion a product that truly is a compromise but which is a vital solution we need to put in place and we need to put it in place now for our farmers and ranchers.

I will begin with this chart, and I have to say it is the only one I brought. It is the same chart I am going to end up with. I am going to talk about the farm bill for a few minutes, but here is why a farm bill is so important. It is not just that it is so important to our farmers and ranchers; it is important to every single American and beyond, for these simple reasons: The farmers and ranchers we have in this country produce the highest quality, lowest cost food supply in the world--the highest quality, lowest cost food supply in the world.

That is what we are talking about. When we talk about good farm policy, we are talking about something that benefits every single American every single day.

Somebody can say, Oh, well, gee, we don't need a farm bill. Don't worry about the farm bill; just let the farmers and ranchers do it the way they do and we will see what happens. Really? That is what we should do? We should take a chance on not having the kind of sound farm program we have now, when we have the highest quality, lowest cost food supply in the world, in the history of the world, that benefits every single American every single day? We should say, Oh, let's not worry about that; let's just let it go and see what happens? I don't think that is a very good argument.

So let's talk about this farm bill that is so important to every single American. Sixteen million jobs in this country, either directly or indirectly, rely on agriculture. We have a favorable balance of trade in agriculture, and we have a net worth of farmers and ranchers across this country who do an amazing job every single day.

I am going to start out by talking about the fact that we actually saved money. We saved more than $23 billion. So think about it. Here is a mandatory spending program where we strengthen the farm program, we improve it, we make it more cost-effective, and we save $23 billion to reduce the deficit and the debt. How about we go through every other program in government and see how we make it better and reduce spending. Because when we do that, then we will have done what we are talking about here with the farm bill. It seems like a good idea.

I see the good Senator from Montana on the floor and the Senator from South Dakota as well as the esteemed Senator from Michigan, and they will tell us the same. Here we are reforming a mandatory spending program and we are reducing the cost while strengthening the program. It seems like what we ought to be doing.

I know some folks will come here today and say, Gee, it could be better because of this or that, or we should have done this or that, and go right back into the same old gridlock and, I guess, argue for having yet another extension on a farm bill that expired over a year ago and should have been done a long time ago. We provide a better program with savings of more than $23 billion to help reduce the deficit and the debt.

What did we focus on in this bill to make it more cost-effective and to make it better? As our chairman on the agriculture committee said, we eliminate direct payments. People want to talk about reforms. We eliminate direct payments for the first time in a long time--more than $50 billion in direct payments--and we replace it with something that is much more cost-effective. We replace it with strengthened crop insurance so that farmers and ranchers can insure like other small businesses across this country to manage risk, even though they operate in an environment where they certainly can't control the risks. When we talk about weather, whenever we are putting in a crop and then waiting to see what the weather will be, that is a very difficult proposition. So we worked with them on crop insurance so they can try to insure the same way other types of businesses insure. That is much more cost- effective than the old direct payments. As our chairman said a minute ago, those direct payments were going out good years and bad, whether farmers and ranchers needed them or not. Now it is insurance, the way other businesses work.

We give them an option. We give them a countercyclical program called the price loss coverage that works on a countercyclical basis. So if times are tough, if prices are low, if they need help, they get help. And if times are good and prices are high and they have a good crop, they do not get help. That is cost effective.

We have tried to design it so we generate real savings--more than $23 billion--but if it works as we hope, it will generate more savings so we will continue to have the highest quality, lowest cost food supply in the world, continue to support a growing job base--16 million and growing--continue to help us in our balance of trade by creating a favorable balance of trade for this country in agriculture, and we hope with the reforms made we will continue to help reduce the deficit and the debt.

We also provide strong support for livestock. I think perhaps the Senator from South Dakota will tell you about a terrible storm that occurred earlier this winter. This has been a tough winter across the country. But for livestock producers out in the Midwest--in South Dakota, in my home State of North Dakota, and other areas--thousands and thousands of cattle were killed in an early blizzard. We provide help and support for those cattlemen.

We continue to provide other programs that will help them market not only here in our country but overseas, to continue to build that favorable balance of trade for our country.

In the dairy program--and it was very important to get agreement in the House; this is yet another example of how the conferees had to work to strike the right balance between what everybody wanted, Republican and Democrat, to come up with a program we could get support on--there is no supply management in the dairy program. It helps our smaller dairy producers with an insurance type product, and the cost of the premium increases with higher levels of production by the dairy producers. So it is designed the way that I think everybody should feel is a fair basis, where, again, when our smaller dairy producers need help, it is there, but it is cost effective and it is done without supply management.

The conservation title--again, the Senator from Michigan talked about the importance of conservation--is an example where we had disagreement. Right. This goes to the heart of what is in this farm bill. Here is an example--as I have said, our chairman did a marvelous job on the ag committee, working with our ranking member and everyone else--on conservation, I have to say, I had some different ideas than what is in the final compromise bill. I felt that crop insurance and conservation should have remained decoupled. But they are not. They are coupled in the final product. But, to make things work, again we sought and found compromise. We made changes in the bill that truly make the conservation provisions much more farmer friendly.

What do I mean by that? I mean it is not retroactive. It is forward looking. The conservation rules in the bill apply going forward. They do not go back retroactively to the start of the last farm bill. That is very important. You cannot put people in a situation where they are being forced to go out and change their farm or ranch on a retroactive basis. That is also very important.

Another provision we were able to include in the report language is mitigation. Farmers and ranchers do a tremendous job on conservation. I love to hunt and I love to fish. My wife likes to fish even more. But when I am out there hunting, I see what is going on, I see who is taking care of the land and making sure the water is there, the

cover is there, the food is there for wildlife--deer, birds.

For any conservation program to be truly effective, you have to enlist the farmers' and ranchers' support so the conservation community and farmers and ranchers are working together in a way that works for those individuals, those business people, those families, those farmers and ranchers who are out there making their living. Every day they are out there. They are not just out there once in a while. They are not just out there sometimes, as I am when I go out hunting. They are out there all the time making it work. So these provisions have to work for them.

That is why when we talk mitigation, the mitigation rules have to work for the people who own the land--the farmers and ranchers. That is why we have worked to include language that makes sure USDA is focused on an acre-for-acre approach, as long as there is reasonable and commensurate value, and we set up a fund to help them do that.

I think we achieved a good result. All of the wildlife groups, the conservation groups, and the hunting groups are on board. They are endorsing this bill. Even the NRA is endorsing this bill. There is strong support from conservation groups, from hunting groups, fishing groups, wildlife groups.

But at the same time, I think we have provisions that truly make it farmer friendly so that it works for our farmers and our ranchers. I know that was something we had to work on very hard to get to but is vitally important.

The bill has a strong energy title. We included and, in fact, strengthened the beginning farmer and the beginning rancher provisions.

I want to end on reform. Clearly, with our debt and deficit, it is vitally important we find ways to achieve savings. So as we go through all the discretionary spending programs--which is one-third of the Federal budget--we have to find savings. We are working to do that.

Since I have been here, we have reduced discretionary spending from $1.35 trillion to roughly $1 trillion. Since the beginning of 2011-- discretionary spending at that time was $1.35 trillion--this year and next year, it will be about $1 trillion. So you can see we have reduced discretionary spending about 35 percent--and over this 5-year stretch-- and that is without counting inflation.

But two-thirds of the government is mandatory spending. Two-thirds is mandatory spending programs. So we have to find ways to make revisions so we protect and preserve the programs that are vital to us, such as Medicare and Social Security, but we also have to find ways to take these mandatory programs and find savings and reforms as we do here in this farm bill.

So when we talk about eliminating direct payments, when we talk about payment limitations that for the first time apply to everything, whether you are getting the ARC program--the ag risk coverage--or the price loss coverage program, as in your farming operation, whether it is the marketing loan program, your total payments cannot exceed $125,000.

That is the first time we have had a cap that applies to everything. Right. We have had caps before, but they did not apply to everything. That is a real reform. You are going to hear others come down and say: Well, gee, it should have been better. It should have been like this. But I am telling you, we have not had one that applied to everything before where you truly had a cap.

So when we talk about eliminating direct payments, when we talk about a cap that applies to everything, that is a real reform. Furthermore, we have an AGI limit--adjusted gross income limit--that also applies to everything for the first time, just like the payment limit. Right now, if you make $900,000 or more, you do not get any program assistance. Before, again, it did not apply across the board. That is real reform.

I think in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program--where we knew it would be tough to come up with a compromise--clearly, there were differences of opinion on each side of the aisle and between the Senate and the House. Here again, I commend the leaders of our conference committee--Senator Stabenow, Senator Cochran, Representative Lucas, and Representative Peterson--and the members of the conference committee. There was a lot of work to do in this conference committee.

To get an agreement on food stamps, on SNAP, supplemental nutrition assistance payments, was no small effort or accomplishment. Again, like all compromises, if you look at it, it really is fair to both sides. The compromise itself--based on the reforms we made in LIHEAP and getting the States to truly make sure we do not have waste, fraud, and abuse, but that people who need help get help--we have truly strengthened those provisions. The scoring by CBO is about an $8 billion reduction. But again, we get our economy going. These kinds of reforms will generate more savings while still ensuring people who need help get help.

If you look at that number, then it is very close to what the Senate said they had to have. So for those who are in that camp, they should feel this is a bill they can support. That is a fair compromise. On the House side, where clearly there was a desire to have a significantly larger number, if you look at this as a two-step process, where you take the savings that come out of expiration of the stimulus program-- where there was about $11 billion in savings--and combine it with the reforms we made here--the $11 billion and the $8 billion; $19 billion-- that was $20 billion. That was close to the House's original number.

Like all good compromises, it is fair and it does seek to get the kind of reforms that I think the American public wants to make sure there is not waste, fraud, or abuse in the Food Stamp Program, but for those who need help, they get that help.

Again, I commend not only the leadership in the ag committee but also the leadership in the House and the Senate for recognizing that it is time to put a solution in place for the American people. Again, no solution is perfect. But we cannot continue to operate with an expired policy that not only does not give our farmers and ranchers the certainty they need to continue to produce the highest quality, lowest cost food supply, which benefits every single American, but where we do not achieve the very savings and reforms that we have been sent here by the American people to achieve.

So it is time to vote. We will vote on this farm bill. There was a very strong vote in the House--250 to 160--a strong bipartisan support on both sides of the aisle. The Senate needs to step up now and put this solution in place for the American people.

With that, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I thank the Senator from Louisiana for her work on the flood insurance bill. I am pleased to join her in that effort. It is very important. I hope we do have an opportunity to address that this week. We will continue to do all we can to help in that endeavor. Again, I thank her for all her work on that very important legislation.

(The remarks of Mr. Hoeven and Ms. Klobuchar pertaining to the introduction of S. 1925 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Minnesota for joining me this afternoon. Today we are introducing the Driver Privacy Act. I am very pleased to sponsor that legislation with the good Senator from Minnesota. We have a great group that has joined us as we introduce this bill today. This is all about protecting people's privacy in regard to their automobile.

Every automobile that will be made going forward, over 90 percent, and something like 96 percent of the automobiles made now have a black box. This is actually silver, but we call it a black box because it is an event data recorder. It records information about your automobile. Ninety-six percent, I think, of automobiles made now have them, but the U.S. Department Of Transportation is requiring this year that every vehicle have an event data recorder in it.

The Senator from Minnesota and I believe that should be the owner's information and that information should not be released without the owner's consent. We already have a good group who have joined us in the endeavor, including an equal number of Republicans and Democrats: Senator Johanns from Nebraska, Senator Angus King from Maine, Senator Kirk from Illinois, Senator Joe Manchin from West Virginia, Senator Saxby Chambliss from Georgia, Senator Michael Bennet from Colorado, Senator Roy Blunt from Missouri, Senator Mazie Hirono from Hawaii, Senator Johnny Isakson from Georgia, Senator Mark Begich from Alaska, Senator Orrin Hatch from Utah, and Senator Ron Wyden from Oregon.

It is absolutely an equal number of Republicans and Democrats from across the United States have joined together, recognizing people are concerned about their privacy and we need to make sure their privacy is protected.

I would like to make a few further introductory comments with the help of these charts and then turn to my colleague from Minnesota for her comments as well. We have seen with the NSA, with the IRS, with the Affordable Care Act, and with a whole range of issues that people believe what is going on, not only in government but with technology, is that their privacy is at risk these days and it is very much a concern. Many people do not realize that this event data recorder is in their car. It records all kinds of information, and in fact the Federal Government is requiring that this device be in their car. Neither is there a limitation on the amount of data that the device can record nor is there a law that protects individuals' privacy to make sure the owner of the car decides who gets that information, other than under very specific circumstances which I will take a minute to go through.

What kind of data gets recorded by your event data recorder, this black box that is included in your car? There are more than 45 different data points that are in fact recorded right now. Again, the manufacturer can change this--add to it. There are no limitations or restrictions or guidelines or requirements on what manufacturers can have the event data recorder do. Right now it records things like speed, braking, engine, seatbelt usage, driver information, passenger information, steering, airbags, and crash details. As

I say, at this point the manufacturer determines what goes into that black box in terms of what its capabilities are.

Just to give a sense, if you delve further, for example, engine--just pick one here: ``Number of times engine was started since being manufactured prior to a crash.'' Obviously the idea here with the event data recorder is that it provides information just like an event data recorder on an airplane. In the event of a crash, it provides information about the accident. It is recording this information in a loop on a continuous basis, and it retains it for a short period of time and constantly updates it.

For example, for your engine, it can record the number of times the engine was started since being manufactured prior to a crash. It can record the number of times the engine was started since being manufactured prior to the EDR data download that is taken in case the box is removed and the information is taken and there isn't a crash. It can record how fast the engine was running. That is just 1 of the 45 data points, but it shows the kind of information that is recorded and can be extracted from the black box.

So what does our legislation do? It is very simple and very straightforward. The Driver Privacy Act provides that the data from your EDR in your car cannot be extracted or taken by another party other than under very specific circumstances, and that means it cannot be done without your consent unless it is authorized by a court of law or the information is retrieved pursuant to NHTSA, which is the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, recall or the information is needed in the event of a medical emergency, essentially unless there is some kind of recall on the car--and then they can't disclose any data about you as an individual. It is macrodata. But other than that, without your consent, that information can only be taken from you by a court of law or in the event of a medical emergency, and that is done, obviously, for the very reason you have the black box in the car--safety, right?

Law enforcement might be getting it pursuant to a court order. They can't just take it; they have to have a court order. If you are in a car accident and they need that information because of a medical emergency, then there is a special condition to take it.

In developing these, we were very careful to work both with the organizations that advocate privacy as well as the automobile dealers, the insurance industry, and law enforcement. We consulted with stakeholders, such as the Electronic Privacy Information Center, Heritage, AAA, the Auto Alliance, the International Association of Chiefs of Police. Again, we wanted to make sure the law enforcement issues were covered as well as the ACLU. We have a broad and diverse group that has been consulted and that we have worked with in putting together this information.

Fourteen States have their own laws on this issue. I have highlighted the 14 different States that have passed laws that, in fact, assure you that this information is your information and cannot be taken from you without your consent other than through a court order or in the case of a medical emergency. But when you leave your State and you are driving in another State, you are no longer protected. So even though 14 States have stepped up and said: Yes, this is something we need to do--in fact, it was something we did when I was Governor in my State. Not only are the other States not protected, but you are not protected either when you drive outside your State, which all of us do on many occasions. So that is why we need a Federal law.

The reality is this technology is evolving and developing. This technology is going to continue to develop with all kinds of other aspects--obviously now we have GPS--and all the different things that are being done with automobiles. In many cases these are things people want, but they need to know their privacy is protected, and that is what we are doing here. We are doing it in a way that we made sure we continue to assure law enforcement, first responders, and manufacturers that the safety issues are being dealt with, and at the same time assure American citizens and consumers that their privacy rights are being respected and protected as required under the Fourth Amendment of our Constitution.

With that, I will turn to my esteemed colleague from Minnesota and again thank her and her staff for the work they have done on this bill. With her background in law enforcement, she truly understands the issues and has been invaluable in putting this legislation together. Again, I thank her and ask her for her comments.

Madam President, I thank Senator Klobuchar for joining me on this legislation and working to develop a great group of 14 original cosponsors.

Senator Klobuchar brings such a great background as a prosecutor in the law enforcement industry and truly understands law enforcement issues, safety issues, and the informational benefits there are with not only event data recorders, but also understands the need to protect individual privacy.

As I think we both said very clearly here on the Senate floor, this is a technology that is new and evolving. It is not just that this is a new and evolving technology where new capabilities are being added all the time, we don't know what additional capabilities will be added.

But now the Federal Government is requiring that this device be in every single automobile made. So when the Federal Government--the U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA, the safety branch--steps up and says: OK, we are going to require this device to be in every single car, we need to make sure we are also providing the privacy that goes with it that assures our citizens that their Fourth Amendment rights will be protected.

Again, I think the Senator from Minnesota makes a really great point that when we look at some of these areas in terms of whether it is NSA, IRS, or other areas, people feel there wasn't enough work done on the front end to protect their personal privacy, so we are in a catchup situation. Let's not do that when every single citizen across this country owns or their family owns or has access to some type of automobile. That is what we are trying to do.

Again, as the technology develops we need to understand what the ramifications are and how to protect privacy. I think, on behalf of both of us, we are appreciative that we have 14 Senators engaged already, and we look to add, and we are open to ideas on making sure this is the right kind of legislation that addresses safety but ultimately protects the privacy of our citizens.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Minnesota for joining me this afternoon. Today we are introducing the Driver Privacy Act. I am very pleased to sponsor that legislation with the good Senator from Minnesota. We have a great group that has joined us as we introduce this bill today. This is all about protecting people's privacy in regard to their automobile.

Every automobile that will be made going forward, over 90 percent, and something like 96 percent of the automobiles made now have a black box. This is actually silver, but we call it a black box because it is an event data recorder. It records information about your automobile. Ninety-six percent, I think, of automobiles made now have them, but the U.S. Department Of Transportation is requiring this year that every vehicle have an event data recorder in it.

The Senator from Minnesota and I believe that should be the owner's information and that information should not be released without the owner's consent. We already have a good group who have joined us in the endeavor, including an equal number of Republicans and Democrats: Senator Johanns from Nebraska, Senator Angus King from Maine, Senator Kirk from Illinois, Senator Joe Manchin from West Virginia, Senator Saxby Chambliss from Georgia, Senator Michael Bennet from Colorado, Senator Roy Blunt from Missouri, Senator Mazie Hirono from Hawaii, Senator Johnny Isakson from Georgia, Senator Mark Begich from Alaska, Senator Orrin Hatch from Utah, and Senator Ron Wyden from Oregon.

It is absolutely an equal number of Republicans and Democrats from across the United States have joined together, recognizing people are concerned about their privacy and we need to make sure their privacy is protected.

I would like to make a few further introductory comments with the help of these charts and then turn to my colleague from Minnesota for her comments as well. We have seen with the NSA, with the IRS, with the Affordable Care Act, and with a whole range of issues that people believe what is going on, not only in government but with technology, is that their privacy is at risk these days and it is very much a concern. Many people do not realize that this event data recorder is in their car. It records all kinds of information, and in fact the Federal Government is requiring that this device be in their car. Neither is there a limitation on the amount of data that the device can record nor is there a law that protects individuals' privacy to make sure the owner of the car decides who gets that information, other than under very specific circumstances which I will take a minute to go through.

What kind of data gets recorded by your event data recorder, this black box that is included in your car? There are more than 45 different data points that are in fact recorded right now. Again, the manufacturer can change this--add to it. There are no limitations or restrictions or guidelines or requirements on what manufacturers can have the event data recorder do. Right now it records things like speed, braking, engine, seatbelt usage, driver information, passenger information, steering, airbags, and crash details. As

I say, at this point the manufacturer determines what goes into that black box in terms of what its capabilities are.

Just to give a sense, if you delve further, for example, engine--just pick one here: ``Number of times engine was started since being manufactured prior to a crash.'' Obviously the idea here with the event data recorder is that it provides information just like an event data recorder on an airplane. In the event of a crash, it provides information about the accident. It is recording this information in a loop on a continuous basis, and it retains it for a short period of time and constantly updates it.

For example, for your engine, it can record the number of times the engine was started since being manufactured prior to a crash. It can record the number of times the engine was started since being manufactured prior to the EDR data download that is taken in case the box is removed and the information is taken and there isn't a crash. It can record how fast the engine was running. That is just 1 of the 45 data points, but it shows the kind of information that is recorded and can be extracted from the black box.

So what does our legislation do? It is very simple and very straightforward. The Driver Privacy Act provides that the data from your EDR in your car cannot be extracted or taken by another party other than under very specific circumstances, and that means it cannot be done without your consent unless it is authorized by a court of law or the information is retrieved pursuant to NHTSA, which is the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, recall or the information is needed in the event of a medical emergency, essentially unless there is some kind of recall on the car--and then they can't disclose any data about you as an individual. It is macrodata. But other than that, without your consent, that information can only be taken from you by a court of law or in the event of a medical emergency, and that is done, obviously, for the very reason you have the black box in the car--safety, right?

Law enforcement might be getting it pursuant to a court order. They can't just take it; they have to have a court order. If you are in a car accident and they need that information because of a medical emergency, then there is a special condition to take it.

In developing these, we were very careful to work both with the organizations that advocate privacy as well as the automobile dealers, the insurance industry, and law enforcement. We consulted with stakeholders, such as the Electronic Privacy Information Center, Heritage, AAA, the Auto Alliance, the International Association of Chiefs of Police. Again, we wanted to make sure the law enforcement issues were covered as well as the ACLU. We have a broad and diverse group that has been consulted and that we have worked with in putting together this information.

Fourteen States have their own laws on this issue. I have highlighted the 14 different States that have passed laws that, in fact, assure you that this information is your information and cannot be taken from you without your consent other than through a court order or in the case of a medical emergency. But when you leave your State and you are driving in another State, you are no longer protected. So even though 14 States have stepped up and said: Yes, this is something we need to do--in fact, it was something we did when I was Governor in my State. Not only are the other States not protected, but you are not protected either when you drive outside your State, which all of us do on many occasions. So that is why we need a Federal law.

The reality is this technology is evolving and developing. This technology is going to continue to develop with all kinds of other aspects--obviously now we have GPS--and all the different things that are being done with automobiles. In many cases these are things people want, but they need to know their privacy is protected, and that is what we are doing here. We are doing it in a way that we made sure we continue to assure law enforcement, first responders, and manufacturers that the safety issues are being dealt with, and at the same time assure American citizens and consumers that their privacy rights are being respected and protected as required under the Fourth Amendment of our Constitution.

With that, I will turn to my esteemed colleague from Minnesota and again thank her and her staff for the work they have done on this bill. With her background in law enforcement, she truly understands the issues and has been invaluable in putting this legislation together. Again, I thank her and ask her for her comments.

Madam President, I thank Senator Klobuchar for joining me on this legislation and working to develop a great group of 14 original cosponsors.

Senator Klobuchar brings such a great background as a prosecutor in the law enforcement industry and truly understands law enforcement issues, safety issues, and the informational benefits there are with not only event data recorders, but also understands the need to protect individual privacy.

As I think we both said very clearly here on the Senate floor, this is a technology that is new and evolving. It is not just that this is a new and evolving technology where new capabilities are being added all the time, we don't know what additional capabilities will be added.

But now the Federal Government is requiring that this device be in every single automobile made. So when the Federal Government--the U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA, the safety branch--steps up and says: OK, we are going to require this device to be in every single car, we need to make sure we are also providing the privacy that goes with it that assures our citizens that their Fourth Amendment rights will be protected.

Again, I think the Senator from Minnesota makes a really great point that when we look at some of these areas in terms of whether it is NSA, IRS, or other areas, people feel there wasn't enough work done on the front end to protect their personal privacy, so we are in a catchup situation. Let's not do that when every single citizen across this country owns or their family owns or has access to some type of automobile. That is what we are trying to do.

Again, as the technology develops we need to understand what the ramifications are and how to protect privacy. I think, on behalf of both of us, we are appreciative that we have 14 Senators engaged already, and we look to add, and we are open to ideas on making sure this is the right kind of legislation that addresses safety but ultimately protects the privacy of our citizens.

Mr. President, I rise to continue the discourse my esteemed colleague, the good Senator from Missouri, was engaged in on the Senate floor just a minute ago, talking about the importance--the importance--of bipartisanship as we work to craft policy for this country, policy that all Americans can support and policy that truly moves our country forward.

So whether we are considering nominations or whether we are considering legislation, we need to find ways to come together and come up with solutions that the American people support across the board in a bipartisan way. So as we consider these nominations, we have to consider the fact that now the Senate will be approving these nominations with essentially a 1-party vote, 51 votes.

Right now, the Democratic Party has the majority in the Senate, so they can put judges on the bench, confirm other nominations without any Republican support whatsoever. Of course, under that approach, at some point the reverse may very well be true, that nominees may be confirmed--whether it is judicial nominees or other types of appointments--with only Republican votes if the Republicans are in the majority without any Democratic votes. Why does that matter?

Why it matters is because, again, I go back to my earlier statement that in crafting policy, crafting laws and making appointments, nominations to the bench, we need to do it in a way where we garner broad support across the country.

More than 300 million people's lives are affected dramatically by all of these things, by who those appointees are, the offices they hold, what they do with the laws we pass. So if we are going to impact everybody in the Nation with these laws, with these appointments, we have to make sure there is input, consideration by and, if you will, from both sides of the aisle.

That is how we get the kinds of policies and we get the kinds of nominees and we get the kinds of judges and Justices that truly will have the support of people across this great country. I believe that is what we need to truly build the kind of future we want for ourselves and for our prosperity.

As we talk about nominees, we consider also implementation of the Affordable Care Act. This is a huge topic of discussion in our country right now, and it is going to continue to be a huge topic of discussion. You are talking about one-fifth to one-sixth of our economy engaged in health care. So this is something that touches every single American in their daily life in a big way. It is so important we get it right.

As was the case with my esteemed colleague from the State of Missouri, he was presenting anecdotes, presenting stories, real stories, real-life stories, of people who are impacted by the Affordable Care Act and how they are impacted. It is very important we do that because we need to know how people's lives are affected by the Affordable Care Act and what we can do to make sure they have the best health care possible.

By the way, I think of hopefully building bipartisan support to get the kind of health care reform we truly need. I am going to present some of these real-life cases, as my colleague from Missouri just did, and I am going to start with one that talks about the marriage penalty created by ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act. This is from someone in Grand Forks, ND, who writes in about the marriage penalty created by the Affordable Care Act. This citizen writes:

My husband and I met with the primary health insurance

carrier in ND and were told that our current coverage, under

the guidelines of the Affordable Care Act, will cost us at

least another $400 more a month, and our deductible will

increase from $2,000.00 to $12,000.00, and because we are

married, we cannot choose individual plans, which would be a

much lower deductible. In essence, we are being punished for

being married. We are

looking at paying more than $1500.00/month in health care,

because we are only 61 years old and not eligible for

Medicare for another 4 years--[that is] $18,000 a year for

health care!

We were told that part of the problem is the provisions in

the law require us to choose a plan that has maternity

benefits. How does this make sense for seniors to be forced

to buy coverage that does not apply to them? We agree that

benefits shouldn't be denied to people but it is not fair to

be forced to buy coverage that does not apply.

Well, let's delve a little deeper into exactly what this individual is writing about. What is the marriage penalty that is, in fact, created by ObamaCare? Let's talk about that.

The ObamaCare tax subsidies actually create a marriage penalty. They create a disincentive for individuals who are cohabiting to become legally married. From the standpoint of marriage, the subsidies represent a hidden tax on marriage whereby married couples purchasing their coverage on the exchanges will be subsidizing similarly situated but cohabiting single adults who earn the same or more income.

In 2011, the House Oversight and Reform Committee held a hearing on the topic of ObamaCare's penalty against marriage. But since then little has been devoted to this topic in the House or the Senate.

So how does it work? It works through the requirement of household income when calculating the ObamaCare tax subsidy.

For those persons not eligible for Medicare earning up to 400 percent of the Federal poverty level, the law entitles them to a tax subsidy in the form of a refundable credit so long as they purchase their coverage on the ObamaCare exchanges.

To calculate income, however, the law requires the reporting of household income rather than individual income. Household income includes the income of any family member residing in the household, such as a spouse, but not that of a cohabiting unmarried partner.

So when a person shops on the exchange's Web site for a plan, he or she must first provide the financial information and identity of all family members in the household, even if none of those persons intend to purchase their insurance on the exchange because that information is required to calculate subsidy eligibility.

Subsidy eligibility is then calculated using a complicated formula involving household income in relation to the poverty line, family size, and the price of plans offered through a State's marketplace.

The value of the subsidy awarded to an eligible person adjusts on a sliding scale in proportion to household income, up to 400 percent--up to 400 percent--of the Federal poverty level. Above 400 percent of the Federal poverty level, no tax credit. Right.

The marriage penalty results when a spouse's income causes an otherwise eligible individual to no longer be eligible for the subsidy and could cost a married couple in their household in excess of $10,000 a year in lost subsidies versus two individuals who are cohabiting but not married.

So let's go through an example.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation's health reform subsidy calculator, a 62-year-old individual in a high-cost area who earns $46,000 a year, which is equivalent to 400 percent of the Federal poverty level, would be entitled to $7,836 in a government tax credit. However, if that same individual earns an additional $22 or $46,022 a year--just over $46,000 a year--which is now 401 percent of the Federal poverty level, they lose the entire credit. They lose the entire $7,836 credit.

Similarly, any married couple that earns more than $62,040--400 percent of the Federal poverty level for a family of two--earns too much to qualify for a subsidy. But that same couple if unmarried and cohabiting could earn up to $45,960 each--or $91,920 total--and they are still eligible for subsidies in a high-cost area such as New York State, for example.

So the limit for a married couple is just over $62,000. OK. So for a married couple, you can earn up to $62,040 before you lose the credit, but it is almost $30,000 higher for two people living together who are not married. They can earn $91,920 for an unmarried cohabiting couple. So if you have two people living together, they each get the individual exemption, which is more than $45,000. So they can earn $91,000-plus together--they still get the credit--but for a married couple, just over $60,000. Mr. President, $62,000 is the limit. So you can earn $30,000 more if you are living together and still get the credit than you can if you are married. That is the marriage penalty. So why would we design a health care program that discourages or penalizes marriage?

Further, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the tax subsidies are projected to be the biggest deficit-increasing component of ObamaCare, and CBO estimates they will add $100 billion to the deficit by 2018 and grow even more thereafter. By 2019, CBO estimates that about 19 million people will be receiving the subsidies to purchase their insurance through the exchanges.

As I say, I became aware of this problem when I was contacted by a North Dakota couple. I read that short vignette. We looked into it, and it is, in fact, true. This is just one of the many problems created by ObamaCare, or the Affordable Care Act, which is why Republicans have said: Look. We need to replace this with a comprehensive, step-by-step, market-based approach that truly is focused on competition and choice, that empowers individuals, empowers people across this great Nation to choose their own health care insurance and their own health care plan.

We can absolutely do that. That is why I am here on the floor and others are here on the floor continuing to talk about Americans and their everyday lives and the challenges they face because of ObamaCare.

I have more of these stories from North Dakotans, people in my State who are facing real challenges because of ObamaCare.

So often we hear: Well, wait a minute, if we are not going to do the Affordable Care Act, if you do not like the Affordable Care Act, then what is your solution?

We continue to put solutions forward, solutions such as expanded health savings accounts, which, combined with high-deductible policies, can create tremendous incentives for young people to purchase health care; more competition across State lines, which can help give citizens more choice and reduce costs; tort reform, which can help bring down cost; reforming Medicare to create the right incentives; giving States more control over Medicaid. The list goes on. We will continue to advocate for those types of solutions--real solutions that empower Americans to choose their own health care insurance and their own health care providers.

Let me read some more letters from North Dakotans who talk about the challenges they are facing because of ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act.

This individual from Hankinson writes:

I am writing about the health care mess ObamaCare is

creating. I am a retired teacher running a daycare with my

wife. Hence, I am self-employed. I buy my own health care

through Medica. Under the new ObamaCare rules, my monthly

premium is going from $302 to over $500 per month.

I am 58 years old, not on any medications and have no

illnesses. Because of this forced health care, I am supposed

to pay a 60-percent increase in health care coverage. If I

drop my health care coverage, the government will hunt me

down and fine me. Please stop this ObamaCare boondoggle.

From Harvey, ND, a disgruntled grandpa who has to pay for maternity care:

The Affordable Care Act is an excellent example of an

oxymoron. Since the Affordable Care Act was passed, my

insurance rate has escalated an additional $4,000 per year,

not the $2,500 reduction that President Obama speculated. I

have yet to find anyone whose health care costs have

declined. Oh, yes. I just received my cancellation notice

from Blue Cross Blue Shield. Thank you very much. I was happy

with my Blue Cross Blue Shield plan. I had a low deductible,

prescription and hospital coverage, everything that I needed.

Now, as a grandfather, I will be paying for maternity,

pediatric dentistry, contraception, drug, alcohol recovery,

et cetera. The government has bloated my policy with useless

fluff so my premiums will support others' subsidized

policies.

The President said, ``If you like your health care plan you

can keep it. Period.'' The truth is, if you can't afford

health insurance, you can afford ObamaCare if someone else

pays the premium for you. Also all of these years I have paid

taxes on things that I possess or purchase. Please explain

why I have to pay a tax if I choose not to purchase

ObamaCare.

From Fargo, ND, a retired couple faced with canceling their own wellness center membership to pay for ObamaCare. This individual writes:

Last week Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Dakota sent my

wife and I a letter stating that the health insurance

coverage we carry is no longer acceptable or allowable under

the new health care law. It was a health insurance package

that we had selected after retiring from the field of

education 2 years ago. It was a great package for us since we

are both in good health. It offers us lower premiums, a

higher deductible, which, by the way, we wanted, and more

than adequate coverage for us.

Now, we have to look at other more expensive health care

packages which we do not want, some of which will include

wellness center coverage. Well, we go to a wellness center

here in Fargo, pay for it ourselves, and it costs us

considerably less than any of the new packages that include

it.

So if I have this right, the following needs to take place

for us. 1. We can no longer keep our present insurance that

we wanted to begin with. 2. We can, however, select another

package that will cost us, at the very least, an additional

$1,800 in premiums per year. Remember, this is being paid for

out of our retirement check. 3. The plans include a wellness

center option, which we currently have at our own expense at

a cost of $600 a year.

So based on the law's requirements, it will cost us another

$1,200 if we discount our current $600 wellness cost over and

above what we now pay. All of this for insurance we do not

want. There is an old saying from our neck of the woods: If

you want something screwed up, give it to the government.

Sorry, but this new law makes that old saying prophetic.

From Bottineau, ND, a couple faces cancer treatment and tripling costs with ObamaCare. This individual writes:

Here is my story on ObamaCare. I have a Blue Cross Blue

Shield policy that I have had for many years.

In 2008 my wife was diagnosed with a very aggressive breast

cancer. We did all of the treatments, surgeries, et cetera.

The insurance paid all but the deductible and the

coinsurance, just as it was supposed to. We had no problems.

Our deductible has been $500, with an 80/20 copay up to an

out-of-pocket maximum of $5,000.

Now my wife's cancer has reoccurred and we are starting all

over. On the Affordable Care Act policy, to keep my premium

close to what we have had, our deductible will be $4,000

each, and our out-of-pocket maximum will be $12,500 per year.

By the way, the premium will be over $1,200 per month, an

increase of over 140 percent. That is not affordable care.

So which policy is more substandard?

A retired couple from Fargo, ND, writes:

Upon visiting with my Blue Cross Blue Shield rep, he

informed me that our present affordable plans--we currently

have two single plans, one for each of us--will no longer

exist under the Affordable Care Act. We will have to switch

over to Blue Direct, which does not allow single plans, but

family plans only. This will then force us to pay $1,200 per

month, or $14,400 per year, compared to our present cost of

$6,000 per year.

Let me repeat that.

This will then force us to pay $1,200 a month or $14,400

per year compared to our present cost of $6,000 per year.

What sense does that make? Why do I want to give up a plan

that is one I selected for us, and is very affordable, and

change it over for one that will cost us another $8,400

per year? I can definitely see where this is headed. It

will send both my wife and I back to the workforce to be

able to pay for a health insurance policy that we do not

want.

So why can't I keep my health insurance policy that I

already have? I like it. I want to keep it. But Uncle Sam

says no. Why? I understand the need to take care of those who

do not have insurance and cannot get insurance for medical

reasons. But why take away from millions of us that do have

insurance and want to keep it?

You have seen that in the numbers, right? I believe Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius testified in front of the House either yesterday or the day before and indicated that there are something like 360-some-thousand signups for ObamaCare. But the statistics are in the range of 4 to 5 million as far as the number of policies that have been reported as canceled so far since ObamaCare came into effect. These are the real stories behind those statistics. These are the real-life stories of people who have been impacted behind these statistics.

From Bismarck, ND, a young working family has seen their costs skyrocket.

Dear Senator Hoeven, I am a young pharmacist in Bismarck

who graduated from North Dakota State University in 2011. I

have the job I have always wanted, although it is with a

small pharmacy, so my employer cannot afford health insurance

for the seven employees who work there. So my family and I

went out and did the responsible thing: Qualified medically,

back when you had to, and bought what I thought was the

perfect health insurance plan.

For the whole family, it was this easy. High deductible. No

coverage except preventative, until we paid $2,500 per person

or $5,000 per family. My premium started out at an amazing

$666 a month in 2011, went up a few dollars in 2012, and

increased by 12 percent in 2013 to $762.30 a month. Still

quite affordable.

This year we had our third child, along with experiencing

some health issues with one of our other children. My wife

obviously met her $2,500 maximum and ended up needing surgery

and nearly died from complications, and spent a couple of

nights in the hospital. My insurance worked just like it was

meant to. That meant that $7,000 was paid 100 percent. As of

now, we have only paid $4,100 in out-of-pocket costs. I think

that is pretty darn good coverage for that premium.

My policy does not qualify for the new Affordable Care Act

regulations. So it will end at the end of April, according to

Blue Cross Blue Shield. Fine. Whatever. But what really

upsets me is that my current coverage, which assumes a lot of

responsibility on myself, falls into the ``gold'' category on

the ObamaCare exchange based on the maximum out-of-pocket

limits.

We are a young, generally healthy family. I do not need to

save nickels and dimes throughout the year to cover copays

and whatnot. I need a responsible limit that I know I am not

going to spend over. On the exchange, if I match my same

premium, then I end up with a maximum out-of-pocket limit of

$12,700--$12,700. How affordable is that?

If I want a plan similar to the plan I have now, then I

have to spend over $900 a month, or $150 a month more. That

is $2,000 per year more for coverage I do not like. This is

very frustrating. Please fix this mess.

From Kensal, ND, this is from a family who is unable to afford the rising premiums.

I just got an insurance letter that said my family's

monthly premium was going from $385 to $840 per month. I

cannot afford that and keep the heat on this winter. That

represents over half of my take-home pay. I am now thinking

that I will have to get divorced just to keep my health

insurance for my three children and my wife. Keep the

government shut down forever if this is how you want to treat

the hard-working class.

From Donnybrook, ND, self-employed family business owners see rising costs. They write:

My husband and I farm and have three children, ages 4, 2,

and 7 months old. Because we are self-employed, we carry our

own health insurance. Last week we received notice that our

premium will be increasing by 43% due to the Affordable Care

Act. We will also be losing the freedom to cater our health

plan to meet our individual needs. We are very healthy non-

smokers, and our children have yet to see a physician for

anything more than a well-child check-up. Our health history

is spotless. Our previous premiums were anything but

``cheap,'' making this 43% premium increase unbelievable [to

us, and unaffordable].

From Argusville, ND, self-employed face canceled policy. They state:

About a year ago, my husband left his job and started his

own computer software consulting company. Contrary to what we

have been led to believe, we were able to find affordable

insurance for our family. We have three children under 18. We

found a family policy for about $480/month. This past year

(2013), it was moderately increased to about $520/month,

which we thought was a reasonable increase. We were very

happy with the insurance.

However, today, I received a letter stating that due to the

new healthcare law, our insurance premium for the next year

would go up to $918.21.

They are going from $520 a month to $918.21 a month.

Continuing:

This means we are facing a $400/month increase in our

insurance premium. This amounts to a $4,800 tax increase for

our family. We are a middle income/small business-owning

family. This is an outrageous intrusion by the Federal

Government into an area that it had no business going. It WAS

possible for the self-employed to get their own insurance.

There WAS a safety net through state and Federal programs for

people who couldn't get insurance. The Affordable Care Act is

not affordable, and was not ever necessary.

What we are seeing is people in all different walks of life in different situations, some working for themselves, some working for small businesses, some working for large companies, some retired, some with kids, and some elderly, but what is the consistent theme? What is the consistent theme? Higher costs, less choice, and not being able to get policies that fit their needs because of this standardization.

From Enderlin, ND, small business loses employee coverage. This constituent writes:

My husband is a Veterinarian who has been in practice for

over 40 years. We have 5 employees for which we provide the

best health

coverage that money can buy. We pay all their premiums. Last

week, we received a cancellation letter from the insurance

company. We believed President Obama when he said that

because we had insurance for our employees, and because we

have less than 50 employees, we could keep our insurance. At

no time did we receive information by letter or email or on

the Internet about the fact that if you changed anything in

your policy you would not be grandfathered in. We had one

person retire, hired a new employee, and an employee's

husband came onto the policy, changing the deductible, which

has meant that we have now lost our insurance. This will mean

a much larger premium! We work! We are not happy about this

situation. The President lied! This will mean no raises and

we will not be able to hire anyone.

Park River, ND, rising costs for the young invincibles.

Our family has had health insurance all of our adult lives.

My son, aged 28, also had his own health insurance with Blue

Cross Blue Shield of ND. He is single. His policy was

cancelled because of ObamaCare. His premiums are now tripled

and his deductible will be over $6,400.00. That is

unacceptable. No person can afford to pay a $6,400

deductible. If he fell into the poverty level to be eligible

for the tax subsidy, then he could get better coverage for

less money under this law. That is also unacceptable. We all

have worked to afford health insurance on our own . . . and

now it is not affordable, nor are the deductibles affordable.

He was happy with his own policy, one that he could afford,

and with better coverage for him. And now the government is

mandating what he can afford. How is this acceptable?

I have one more I am going to read from a young family in Thompson, ND. In this case, the family's policy was canceled just before their baby was to be born.

They write:

My daughter and her husband are expecting their first child

in January, and on Friday they received a letter from their

insurance carrier stating that due to the new health law

reform they would no longer be covered. So, in January, when

the baby is to be born, they may have no health insurance.

Our president stated on more than 28 different occasions that

if you liked your health insurance, you could keep it. My

question to you is: What are you going to do about it? Will

you hold him accountable to his word?

We listen to all these real-life stories from people in my State--and they reflect stories from people across this country--and that is why it is so important that we do get the kind of health care reform that this country needs and that these citizens so very much want. It truly makes a difference. As we debate this important issue, I think it makes an incredible difference.

This isn't me saying ``OK, we need to do it'' or any one of us saying ``OK, this is what we need to do.'' We are hearing from Americans--in this case, from my State of North Dakota. But as Members come down and speak on the floor on this issue, we are hearing from 300 million Americans across this free country. We are hearing real stories about real hardship and what they are going through.

I go back to where I started this discussion; that is, why it is so important that as we approach these issues we take a hard look at ObamaCare and the Affordable Care Act. It was passed with only Democratic votes, no Republican votes whatsoever.

It is as I said before: If we are going to get the kinds of policies that truly work for the American people, we have to come up with policies that can garner bipartisan support, support from both sides of the aisle. I truly believe they have to be the kinds of policies that empower our people, that empower our people to choose their own health care provider, that empower them to choose their own health care insurance.

I go back to the types of solutions I talked about earlier. These are the kinds of solutions that we have put forward in legislation, that we will continue to put forward in legislation, and we ask for Members of this body and the House to join us on a bipartisan basis and pass market-based solutions that truly empower people. These are such things as expanded health savings accounts combined with high-deductible policies.

Think about young people going out into that market and buying health care insurance, maybe for the very first time. Maybe they have been operating without health care insurance and they say: You know what. I have to get health care insurance.

Think about it. Think about what works for them. If we take a health savings account, a high-deductible policy, low premium--they are healthy, don't think they are going to get sick--that is the kind of thing that will encourage them to buy health insurance. If they have more choice and more competition, not only are they going to get it at a more affordable price, but they are going to have more options from which to choose. Likewise, let's make sure we provide for more competition across State lines so they are not only then looking at companies in their State but companies from across the country. More choice and more competition brings down prices.

As we look at health care costs, let's look at tort reform. There is no question that lawsuits are driving the cost of health care higher. We can do something about that.

Affordability is a huge issue we have to address as part of the right kinds of reforms for health care. When we talk about reforms, we have to reform Medicare to create the right incentives.

What do I mean by that? Now, under Medicare, if someone lives in a State where they have high costs, regardless of outcome, the Federal Government provides more reimbursement under Medicare in that State than they do in a State that has lower costs even though they may have better outcomes. Does that make sense? Think about it. Think about that for a minute.

A person has Medicare--and it is vitally important health care for seniors across this Nation, but the incentive is not to reduce costs. The way the program works, it actually increases cost because States with higher costs, regardless of outcome, get more reimbursement under Medicare than States with lower costs even if the States with the lower costs have better outcomes.

Let's reform Medicare to have the right kinds of incentives, to encourage savings, to encourage better outcomes, and to encourage preventive care. We can do that. That is a win-win. We get better care at a more affordable price, and we help address the debt and deficit of this Nation. Those are the kinds of reforms that work for Americans.

For Medicaid, Medicaid provided for individuals with low income, let's empower the States. Let's give the States more flexibility, more control. Rather than a Federal one-size-fits-all, give those States more control to truly not only improve health care outcomes but to do so at affordable costs, and reward them for controlling costs.

These are the kinds of solutions that will not only produce better health care that I believe our providers can get behind and support because it rewards them for managing costs and good outcomes, which is what we want, but it also truly is how we address the deficit and make sure we save these programs--Medicare and Medicaid--and keep them sound for the future so that we not only can rely on them today but for years to come. We make sure that we save and protect those programs by creating the right kinds of reforms. Those are the kinds of reforms that truly empower people and give them the opportunity--which I think we all want--to choose their own health care providers and their own health care insurance.

As we go through these issues, again, I want to emphasize the need-- and I come back to the reason I am on the floor--not only to talk about the right kind of health care reform but to go back to the issue before the Senate today: the nominations that we face and determining how we come together as a Senate, as a body, and we get Members on both sides of the aisle who come together and say: OK, how do we make sure that we have bipartisan solutions, that we create a bipartisan Senate where we are making sure that, as we look at confirmation of these nominees, there is an investment from both sides in getting it right and that there is input, deliberation, consideration, and debate on getting it right for the American people?

Whether it is health care, whether it is energy, whether it is good ag policy, whether it is law enforcement, whether it is support for our military, whether it is anything else, how do we make sure that all of us--because it is incumbent upon all of us--how do we make sure we have protected what this institution has provided for since the inception of our country; that is, bipartisan consideration, deliberation, and debate that produces the best outcome for the American people.

We have nominations that we are going through now and that we will continue to go through. We have important policy matters we need to get done now for the American people, such as a budget, Defense reauthorization for the defense of our Nation, a farm bill that needs to be passed, and an energy policy that we need to address--all things that can truly move our country forward. As we do that, we need to come forward with solutions that will truly be bipartisan. To do that, we need to have a very sincere and direct dialog as a body and Member to Member to come up with solutions to determine how we are going to make sure we are doing the very best job for the American people. That is what this is all about. We are here to do the work of the American people.

And you know, we look across this vast, wonderful Nation, and there are people who are Democrats and people who are Republicans and people who are Independents, and we serve that whole spectrum. We serve them all. We are faced with a real challenge right now to make sure that bipartisanship continues in this Senate and in this Congress.

I am going to turn to another matter before us that is incredibly important. It is a matter that is truly bipartisan. It is bipartisan, and I am going to use this as an example of how bipartisanship can and does work in this body and in the House. It is a matter we should be voting on right now, and I sincerely hope we will be voting on it in a few short weeks when we return, and that is the farm bill.

I am a member of the Agriculture Committee, a member of the agriculture appropriations subcommittee, and I am also a member of the conference committee that is working to reconcile the differences between the farm bill that has been passed in the House and the farm bill that has been passed in the Senate. I bring up this example purposely, because we are focused on how we operate in a bipartisan manner to meet the challenges this Nation faces, and we are at a point where we need to redo the farm bill. We need to put a new long-term, 5- year farm bill in place. Right now we are operating under an extension. I use this as an example of a truly bipartisan approach.

I use the farm bill for another reason too. As we go through this process, where confirmation of nominations are now being done essentially on a partisan basis--not a bipartisan basis but on a partisan basis--and as we talk about ObamaCare, which was passed on a partisan basis--not a bipartisan basis--I want to bring up an example of how things should work on a bipartisan basis.

When we look at the farm bill, the breakdown in terms of how the votes have gone, it hasn't been Republican and Democrat. We have had both. We have had some Republicans and Democrats voting against it and some Republicans and some Democrats voting for it. It really is focused on what is the policy and what best serves this great Nation.

Here is the other reason I bring it up right now. We are trying to address the deficit and the debt this country faces; right? This year CBO says the deficit is going to be somewhere between $650 billion and $700 billion--the deficit. The debt is $17.3 trillion. We must address the deficit and the debt. So as we work on a new farm bill, we are not only reforming the current farm bill, which is operating under an extension, we not only make reforms that make for a better farm program, but we are going to save on the order of $25 billion to $30 billion to help reduce the deficit and the debt.

Isn't that what we should be doing across government on a bipartisan basis--coming up with better policy that actually reduces the deficit and the debt, controls spending, reduces spending and helps our economy grow? That is what we are doing with the farm bill, and that is what we should be doing in these other areas as well.

So as we continue to work on the farm program, I had hoped we could be to the point where we would be voting this week or next on the Senate floor and in the House as well. It doesn't look like that is going to happen, but we are very close. We can have a framework in place this week or next so that we can vote on it as soon as we return in January, and that is what we need to do.

The current farm bill, the current extension, expires at the end of the year, meaning we need to get a new farm bill in place--not an extension but a new farm bill. We have put the framework in place. We are there. We now just need to get people to agree and we need to get the bill to the House and to the Senate floor. I believe we are absolutely there. We just have to have the will to make it happen and to make it happen on a bipartisan basis. Not only is it vitally important we pass this farm bill, but it truly can be an example in terms of how we approach other policy as well on a bipartisan basis.

At this point, Mr. President, I see the leader is here and I would ask of the Chair as to my time allotment and also the time for the next vote.

Madam President, I thank the esteemed Senator from Ohio for his remarks and express my support for his remarks as well.

Myself and other colleagues have been on the floor today talking about the need to work in a bipartisan way. Obviously, the business before the Senate right now is nominations, and we want to emphasize again the importance of advice and consent in the nomination process but that it needs to be on a bipartisan basis.

The change that, of course, has been made is that now the majority party can vote through, confirm a nomination without any input, any consent, any debate from the minority party. That is an issue not only in terms of the nomination process, the confirmation process of advise and consent, but that is also very much an issue in legislation.

The importance of bipartisanship, whether it is in advise and consent in the confirmation process or whether it is in passing legislation, is seen because we have a country of more than 300 million people-- Republicans, Democrats, Independents--but at the end of the day, if we are going to have broad-based public support for the work we do, for the legislation we pass, it has to be done in a bipartisan way.

My colleagues have been pointing that out in terms of the confirmation process. Also, they have been pointing that out in the context of the Affordable Care Act and ObamaCare. That is legislation that was passed on a partisan basis. One party, and one party only, voted for that legislation. What we have seen is that does not work.

To get broad-based support for any legislation--let alone something as important as reform of health care--both parties have to be part of that work product. That is the only way we are going to get broad-based support across this great Nation on the important issues we face.

Earlier today I read story after story from people from our great State expressing real challenges, real difficulties--the higher costs, higher deductibles, higher premiums, higher copays--they are facing as a result of the Affordable Care Act. I talked about the need to engage in the right kind of health care reform, the kind of health care reform that truly empowers individuals to pick their own health care insurance and their own health care provider; the need to pass the kind of legislation that will help us provide expanded health savings accounts tied with higher deductible policies that will encourage our young people to purchase health care insurance because they will be able to do so with lower premiums; the need for tort reform to help bring down health care costs; the need to increase competition across State lines so people have more choice, and with that competition, lower prices when it comes to choosing their health care insurance; and I talked about the need to reform Medicare, as the Presiding Officer knows, to provide the right incentives.

Look at our great State of North Dakota. We have lower health care costs than most other States, and we have very good outcomes. For that we get not more Medicare reimbursement but less. That is exactly the wrong incentive--providing more reimbursement to States that have high costs regardless of outcome and lower reimbursement for States even with lower costs and better outcomes; in essence, getting less reimbursement, getting penalized for good performance. That is exactly the wrong approach and why we so desperately need to make reforms that create the right approach.

These are the kinds of solutions we are advocating that we will continue to advocate to put in place for the American people. We need Members on both sides of the aisle to come together with

a step-by-step, comprehensive approach, market-based approach, that will truly create more choice, more competition, and empower people-- empower people--the great citizens of this country to take control of their health care decisions and make the decisions that best suit them and their families.

I see that my colleague from the great State of South Dakota is in the Chamber. As always, I am very pleased to see him, and at this time I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I and my colleagues stand here holding the floor in defense of fair and free debate, and the longstanding traditions of the Senate that promote consensus.

We are here working on nominations because the majority leader has determined that is the agenda for today. But there are important issues we need to move to: the Defense reauthorization bill, the Water Resources Development Act, the farm bill, the budget, and other vitally important legislation. We need to move to these bills and we need to deal with them in a bipartisan way. Instead, we continue to work on nominees. We are working on nominees without the discussion and the debate and the consideration and, most importantly, without that bipartisan consensus which has always been a hallmark of the Senate. Because of the unilateral change to the longstanding rules of the Senate, that consensus is no longer required for advice and consent; a simple partisan majority will do.

I would use time today to talk about need for bipartisanship, bipartisanship in nominations, but also bipartisanship in the important legislation that we need to address for the good of our country, legislation such as the right kind of health care reform. I have provided real-life stories from citizens from my State about the impact that the Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare, is having on them and their lives and why we need to replace it with market-based reforms, a step- by-step comprehensive approach that fosters choice and competition. We have put forward proposals to do that.

I have also used time today to talk about other important issues that we need to advance on a bipartisan basis; for example, the farm bill. We need a 5-year farm bill. We are currently operating under an extension. That extension expires at the end of the year. We need to get a farm bill in place, and a farm bill is a great example of how we do things on a bipartisan basis, not only in the Senate but also in the House.

I wish to talk about another subject that is vitally important to our country, to our economy, to job creation, and to national security, that also needs to be advanced and needs to be advanced in a bipartisan way, and that is energy.

I want to provide a specific example; that is, the Keystone XL Pipeline. I know the Presiding Officer wishes to see that project approved. That is the point. This is a project that will create jobs, create economic activity, it will create greater energy security, it is something that we can work on with our closest friend and ally in the world, Canada. It is something that goes to national security so we are no longer dependent on the Middle East for oil, and it is something that is supported on a bipartisan basis and there is strong support from the American people.

The polls show somewhere between 70 and 80 percent of the American public supports this project and wants to see it move forward.

It has now been more than 5 years since the permit applications were submitted to the State Department for the Keystone XL Pipeline project--more than 5 years in the application process and still no decision--an exhaustive review process, including five environmental impact statements, showing no significant impact to the environment. The most recently issued draft statement was only last spring. The consent of every single State along the route of the pipeline is in place. Every single State on the route supports and approves the project, with the backing of a majority of Congress. Legislation to approve the project has passed in the House and we have passed it in the Senate only to have the President turn it aside.

As I said a only minute ago, it has the support of the American people. More than 70 percent--in the most recent poll--of the American people support moving forward with this project. Despite all of this support, the Keystone XL Pipeline project is still awaiting decision from the President of the United States.

The long wait for approval is troubling enough, but it represents a larger issue for our Nation and begs a bigger question for all of us who serve our States and the American people in this institution: How will America ever build an all-of-the-above energy policy if the President takes more than 5 years to approve only one piece of a comprehensive plan?

The Presiding Officer has seen this issue before in his State when it comes to the Alaska pipeline, how for years and years it was worked on until it was finally approved. Once approved, not only is it a vitally important piece of infrastructure for the State of Alaska, but contrary to all the concerns that were raised in regard to the Alaska pipeline, such as the environmental concerns, it has proven to work and work very well.

They addressed the concerns and the project was approved. The same is true for the Keystone XL Pipeline.

To recount briefly, this $7 billion, 1,700-mile high-tech pipeline will carry oil not only from Alberta, Canada, to refineries in Oklahoma and the Texas Gulf Coast, but it will also carry growing quantities of sweet crude from the Bakken oil fields in North Dakota, my State, and also Montana--light, sweet, Bakken crude, the highest quality oil produced.

Even by modest estimates it will create more than 40,000 jobs. There have been a lot of estimates out there, some much higher. But the State Department itself, the administration's own State Department has come out after more than 5 years of study and said that this project will create more than 40,000 jobs. At a time when unemployment is still 7 percent, these are good jobs, jobs that put Americans back to work.

It will create more than 40,000 jobs, boost the American economy, and raise much-needed revenues for States and the Federal Government. It is not raising revenues by raising taxes, it is raising revenues through economic growth. That is the way to do it--not higher taxes but through economic growth.

Further, and perhaps most importantly, it will help put our country within striking range of a long-sought goal, a vitally important goal for our country, true energy security. For the first time in generations, the United States--with its friend and ally Canada--will have the capacity to produce more energy than we use, truly, North American energy independence, eliminating our reliance on oil from the Middle East, Venezuela, and other volatile parts of the world. This is something Americans very much want.

When we see in the polls they support this project by more than 70 percent, it is with a clear recognition of what are we doing getting oil from the Middle East when we should be getting it from ourselves in this country and from our closest friend and ally Canada. We absolutely can do it, we can do it to an extent that is beyond our needs, and we can do it in short order, easily within the next 5 years if we approve projects such as this one.

Now we produce about 60 percent of our fuel domestically. We still import 40 percent, much of it from the Middle East, and other areas of the world that are hostile to our interests.

The question is why would we want to import oil from an unstable region of the world when we can import it and when we can work with our closest friend and ally Canada, as well as move it from parts of our country that produce that oil, such as my State and others, and transport it to our refineries.

The 40 percent that we don't produce domestically has to come from someplace else. Why not from our closest friend and ally Canada. With a true all-of-the-above approach to energy development in this country, including projects such as the Keystone XL Pipeline project, I absolutely believe we can be energy independent within 5 years.

The argument has been advanced that the oil sands will increase carbon emissions and that failing to build the Keystone XL Pipeline will somehow reduce emissions.

Let us look at the facts. Let us look at this claim more closely. Today an ever increasing percentage of new recovery in the oil sands is being accomplished in situ. That means with technology that makes the oil sands carbon footprint comparable to conventional drilling.

In fact, the oil sands industry has reduced greenhouse gas emissions per barrel of oil produced by an average of 26 percent since 1990 and with some facilities achieving reductions as high as 50 percent--a 50- percent reduction in carbon emissions. Today heavy crude from the Middle East--and even from California--produces more carbon emissions over its life cycle than the Canadian oil sands.

Also, we need to factor in that if the pipeline is not built from Alberta to the United States, a similar pipeline will be built to Canada's Pacific coast.

What does that mean? That means from there the oil will be shipped on tankers across the Pacific Ocean, a much larger and more sensitive ecosystem than the Sandhills--which, of course, have been at issue in terms of the route of the pipeline. It will be shipped across the ocean to be refined in facilities in China with weaker environmental standards and more emissions than our refineries in the United States.

The United States, moreover, will continue to import its oil from the Middle East, again on tankers so that again has to be transported across the ocean. Factor in the cost of trucking and railing the product to market overland, and the result, contrary to the claims of opponents, will be more emissions, more CO2 emissions, and a less secure distribution system without the Keystone XL Pipeline than we will have if it is built.

In fact, the administration's own State Department has released three draft Environmental Impact Statements finding ``no significant impacts'' on the environment.

Let me read that again. In fact, the administration's own State Department has released three draft Environmental Impact Statements finding ``no significant impacts'' on the environment.

What does the administration do? They delay and ask for another Environmental Impact Statement.

What is going on?

In its latest analysis in March, the State Department concluded that ``there would be no substantive change in global greenhouse gas emissions'' associated with the Keystone XL Pipeline.

That raises another important point. The White House has said repeatedly they ``don't want to get ahead of the process,'' but the President effectively abandoned the process more than 2 years ago when he halted the project by executive action. Had he not, the State Department, in keeping with the usual process, would have issued a decision on the permit by December of 2011. That is according to a letter that was sent to me by Secretary Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State at that time, which she sent to me in August 2011.

I wish to point out that this body, the Senate, as well as the House of Representatives, has embraced the Keystone XL project with bipartisan majorities. Congress has expressed support for the Keystone XL with two majority votes in the Senate and several bipartisan letters to the President. The American people have also expressed overwhelming support for the project, as I have stated.

In a Harris poll released this summer, 82 percent of voting Americans voiced support for the Keystone XL Pipeline project. I want to emphasize that and say it again. In a Harris poll released this summer, 82 percent of voting Americans voiced support for the Keystone XL Pipeline project. According to Harris, 9 in 10 Republicans and nearly 80 percent of Democrats and independents believe the pipeline is in our national interest.

In July, Senator Landrieu and I led a bipartisan group of our colleagues to introduce a concurrent resolution declaring the Keystone XL Pipeline project in the national interest of the United States and calling on President Obama to approve it.

The resolution notes that every study conducted by the State Department, including the Department's draft Environmental Impact Statement issued in May, has found no significant impacts to the environment.

This is the text of S. Con. Res. 21.

Expressing the sense of Congress that construction of the

Keystone XL Pipeline and the Federal approvals required for

the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline are in the

national interest of the United States.

Mr. President, I want to reserve the right to object. I am certainly willing to let the good Senator make comments. But at this point I want to reserve the right to object.

I object.

Mr. President, I objected earlier, and I want to express my appreciation to the good Senator from Rhode Island. I understand his concerns, but I want to take a minute just to explain the objection that we have.

I don't think there is anyone in this Chamber who is indifferent to the plight of the long-term unemployed. However, this legislation falls under the jurisdiction of the Senate Finance Committee and, as of yet, the committee has not had the opportunity to consider it.

There are a number of concerns that Members on our side of the aisle have with the legislation, most notably the price tag. According to the CBO, a full 1-year extension of the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Program would cost $25 billion for a single year. That is the cost of this bill, and the bill contains no offsets to cover that cost.

So the Senate Finance Committee needs to have an opportunity to consider this legislation to find a way to pay for it. In addition, the committee needs to have an opportunity to consider alternatives. Rather than simply providing additional benefits to the unemployed, hopefully we can come up with something that really helps them get back to work. Republicans are willing to consider such ideas and need to have an opportunity to do so through the committee process.

It is on that basis that I object to my colleague's unanimous consent request.

I thank the Chair for the time and the courtesy of my colleague.

Madam President, I thank the good Senator from Louisiana. I am very pleased to join in this colloquy with my cosponsors of this very important piece of legislation.

This is about affordability of home ownership. The American dream is about home ownership. It always has been, and we want to make sure that continues. So it is about affordability, but it is also about getting it right.

Look, if we are going to reset flood insurance rates, we need to get it right. This affects people across this great Nation. It affects their ability to own and continue to own their own home. We need to make sure, as we make this transition, which we are all working on--we are all working on it--that we get it right. So that is why we see this bipartisan legislation, and we urge our colleagues to join us in this effort. This is about home ownership, this is about affordability, and this is about getting it right.

To the point the good Senator from Louisiana just made and as the Chair knows well, in the great State of North Dakota we have the Red River Basin, the Cheyenne River Basin, we have the James River Basin, we have the Missouri River Basin, the Devils Lake Basin, and more. So we know flooding, and we have seen it from year to year.

There are a number of provisions in this bill which the Senator has already identified which are critically important, and I will not repeat those, but I wish to focus for a minute on the basement exemption.

Legislation to preserve the basement exemption was included in the Hoeven-Heitkamp Flood Safe Basements Act, S. 1601. That has been incorporated

into this bill. As sponsors, we appreciate that very much because this is a collaborative effort to get it right as we make this transition in flood insurance rates and make sure we protect the affordability on a fair basis as we move to financial viability for the long term for flood insurance rates.

When a homeowner has put the cost into making sure they have a flood- proof basement, if we don't take that into account in the insurance rates, we are penalizing them and we are charging them twice. It makes no sense. It makes no sense at all. That is why we have to have the basement exemption continued in this legislation, and that is why its sponsors, on a bipartisan basis, are not only pursuing this as stand- alone legislation, but we are also introducing it as an amendment to the Defense authorization bill or other legislation that can move, because we need to address it and we need to address it now.

As the Chair well knows, the mayor of a small community in northeast North Dakota, which has seen repeated flooding, contacted our congressional delegation and said: Hey, look. What is going on with FEMA right now is they are changing these flood insurance rates, and we have examples of homeowners who are going from less than $1,000 a year to more than $5,000 a year--a fivefold increase--and it is not a new home. The home has been there a long time and it has never been flooded.

It has never been flooded, and they are going to go from less than $1,000 to $5,000 on a home that has been there for a long time and never been flooded? That is not how this is supposed to work. That is not how it is supposed to work, and that is why we need this legislation.

Again, I thank the good Senator from Louisiana. All of the sponsors-- and we have a great bipartisan group going already--urge our colleagues to join us, and we urge them to join us without delay. We seek a common objective: We will adjust the flood insurance rates to make sure the program is viable for the long term, but we need to get it right, and that is what this is all about.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in North Dakota we have a lot of farmers and we have a lot of ranchers. They are small businesspeople. They run small businesses. They are being hit very hard by ObamaCare like other small businesses across this country.

A rancher from Rhame contacted us. His name is Wayne. He ranches there. Rhame is an area where we have a lot of cowboys, a tremendous rodeo. They compete nationally. They have great livestock herds there. He writes and he says:

I'm not one to get too upset about things, but this deal

really has me mad. We got a letter a few weeks ago that said

they were dropping our policy. I paid my own insurance for

years and years. When I got that letter, it just hit me--

because somebody in Washington decided I was too stupid to

figure out if my policy was right for me or not.

I don't pay a lot of attention to politics, but usually

what gets decided in Washington doesn't slap you in the face

like this law has with me. I have gone on HealthCare.gov and

used the estimators they direct you to. I could be going from

a $2,500 deductible to something between $10,000 and $12,000,

the way it looks to me. This is going to cost me a lot more

for something I don't even want.

If I could, I would like to read another short story from a couple in Grand Folks who got ahold of us on the marriage penalty that ObamaCare creates. She wrote:

My husband and I met with the primary health insurance

carrier in North Dakota and were told that our current

coverage under the guidelines of the Affordable Care Act will

cost us at least another $400 more a month, and our

deductible will increase from $2,000 to $12,000. Because we

are married, we cannot choose individual plans, which would

be a lower deductible. In essence, we are being punished for

being married. We are looking at paying more than $1,500 a

month in health care because we are only 61 years old and not

eligible for Medicare for another 4 years--$18,000 a year for

health care!

We were told that part of the problem is the provisions in

the law which require us to choose a plan that has maternity

benefits. How does this make sense for seniors to be forced

to buy coverage that does not apply to them? We agree that

benefits shouldn't be denied to people, but it is not fair to

be forced to buy coverage that does not even apply.

I wish to thank my esteemed colleague from Illinois and take this opportunity to offer some remarks on the debt ceiling and the continuing operations of the government.

I come to the floor to make an appeal for action, action on opening the government and action on addressing the debt ceiling. Of course, that requires bipartisan effort. This is something our colleagues on both sides of the aisle have to work together to accomplish. We have been negotiating, not only our leadership, Senator Reid and Senator McConnell, but the Members of this body, Republican and Democratic, both sides of the aisle. We have been negotiating and talking about many different ideas, but now we need to come together and find a way to both address the debt ceiling and to reopen the government.

The kinds of ideas we have discussed include a short-term extension of the debt ceiling. Certainly Members on my side of the aisle feel we have to also address the underlying problems that are leading to our growing debt and deficit.

We need savings and reforms as part of addressing that debt ceiling. Also, we have talked about ideas for a continuing resolution to reopen the government, one that follows established law. By that I mean the Budget Control Act, which establishes budgetary caps that need to be kept in place and honored as part of this agreement.

The continuing resolution we have talked about would also include flexibility for agencies to prioritize spending subject to congressional oversight, but we have to have budget discipline. We are spending more than we are taking in. Whether it is a family, whether it is a business, whether it is the Federal Government, that doesn't work. We must exercise budget discipline.

Also, we have talked about ideas that might include addressing the medical device tax, possibly repealing the medical device tax or at least deferring it for 2 years and paying for it with pension smoothing under provisions similar to those in MAP-21. We have looked at and talked about requiring income verification under the Affordable Care Act to avoid fraud, ideas Republicans have put forward. I think there has been broad support for it on the Democratic side of the aisle.

An agreement composed of these kinds of ideas would open government and address the debt ceiling on a short-term basis, but the reality is we need to find savings and reforms to address the underlying problems that are driving our deficit and our debt. As part of a debt ceiling agreement, we need to have savings and reforms that underlie our problem. Our problem is that we are spending more than we take in. We can't raise the debt ceiling for another year and add $1 trillion in debt to the debt that we already have of $17 trillion. It is kind of like going to the bank. When you go to the bank and you talk to the banker, you say: Hey, I want a loan. I want to increase the loan I have, and I want to raise my credit limit.

The banker may be willing to give you the loan, but he is going to say to you: What are you going to do to address the underlying problem, the problem you have that you are spending more than you are taking in? What are you going to do to address that?

If you said to the banker: I am not going to do anything to address it, you might have a hard time getting the loan, right? That is true whether you are a family, that is true whether you are a business, and that should be true for the Federal Government. So let's put the necessary savings and reforms in place.

In his budget, the President identified more than $600 billion in changes and savings and reforms that he could support to mandatory spending programs, and we have talked to him about those time and again. Now is the time to implement those savings and reforms to those mandatory spending programs.

Let me cite an example of one I have been hard at work on for the last 2 years; that is, the farm bill. The farm bill is a mandatory spending program. I am a member of the agriculture committee, and we have worked hard on changes, on improvements, on actually strengthening the farm bill by strengthening crop insurance under the farm bill, which is what our farmers and ranchers want. As we worked through that, at the same time we identified on the order of $25 billion to $30 billion in savings that we can generate by reforming the farm program.

I am a member of the conference committee on the Senate side. The House has now appointed their conferees. We are ready to go and resolve the differences between the House and Senate versions of the farm bill, and we can have a stronger farm program and save billions of dollars.

Those are the kinds of mandatory spending program reforms we need to put in place as part of the debt ceiling agreement. And we need to find a common commitment, a bipartisan commitment, and a commitment on the part of the administration as well as the Congress to do that.

When we talk about addressing the debt ceiling, that is what it really means. It doesn't just mean raising the debt ceiling. It doesn't just mean borrowing more money. It means fixing the problem. So we need to act. We need to address the debt ceiling. We need to get the government open, but we need to have a common commitment, a bipartisan commitment to solving the underlying problems and to getting the reforms and the savings that will ensure we aren't spending more than we are taking in.

Of course, a big part of that is economic growth as well. We understand that. And at the point where we truly come together in a bipartisan way--and I would argue this is that point and this is that time--I think the markets will react, and I think business across this country will react. Businesses large and small will react because the certainty of knowing we truly are dealing with our debt and our deficit will give them the confidence to invest and hire more people, not only bringing people back to work, reducing unemployment, but getting economic growth--economic growth not by raising taxes but, with economic growth, broadening and growing the base and generating revenue to help with our deficit and our debt.

By putting these commonsense reforms, these solutions, these savings in place as part of this debt ceiling agreement--a commitment to doing that on both sides of the aisle--we will help unleash the power of the strongest economy in the world, and that economic growth will be a huge part of solving our deficit and our debt as well. It is vitally important that we do it. It is vitally important that we do it for the strength of our country, to get people back to work, but most of all for our children and for future generations. I don't believe there is anybody here in Congress--in the Senate, in the House--or anywhere else who wants to leave our children with a $17 trillion debt. So let's solve this. We can do it, and now is the time.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 206, H.R. 3230, making continuing appropriations during a government shutdown to provide pay and allowances to members of the Reserve components of the Armed Forces; I further ask unanimous consent that the measure be read three times and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Reserving the right to object, the good Senator is talking about a resolution that has already gone from the Senate to the House. That has already been done. Why do we keep going back to things we don't have agreement on, rather than advancing on the things where we can get agreement?

We have instances where our National Guard is not getting paid. We have instances where our Reserve members are not being paid. We have instances where death benefits are not being paid to members of the military who made the ultimate sacrifice.

We passed the Pay Our Military Act. It went through the House, and it went through the Senate. We passed the Pay Our Military Act. All of our military members and the civilians who support them should be paid. We passed legislation to do that, whether it is Active Forces, Guard, or Reserve. We have done that.

What we are simply asking for here is a measure that would make sure that gets done. That is what we are asking for. Let's make sure they all get paid. We passed the legislation in both Houses. Let's start working on the things we can agree on. That is why I have asked for consent to proceed with the measure, and I object to the request to modify it.

Again, I ask unanimous consent that my original measure, H.R. 3230, Pay Our Guard and Reserve Act, be considered.

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

Mr. President, in the United States we have the best health care in the world. We have the best doctors, the best nurses, the best hospitals, the best clinics--across the board, the best health care. I believe that is because we have a health care system where individuals make decisions about their health care. They decide what doctor they go to, what hospital, what clinic. They decide what health care plan or what health care policy to choose.

But ObamaCare changes that. It brings government into running the health care system in a way we have never experienced before in the United States, a level of government involvement far beyond what we have ever had before. The proponents of ObamaCare say otherwise, but that is just not the case. Government will set up exchanges and operate those exchanges, and it actually limits the number of policies and options that can be offered on those exchanges. At the same time, the government also prescribes coverage that must be offered in policies, driving up costs and again reducing options--choices--for consumers.

Furthermore, ObamaCare kicks in effectively October 1--the start of the fiscal year, next week--but clearly neither the Federal nor State governments are ready to go. That has been very well publicized, and, of course, that is why the administration has delayed the employer mandate for a year.

The question then is, Why hasn't President Obama also delayed the individual mandate? Why would you delay the mandate for big companies across this country but then not at the same time delay the mandate for the American people, for individuals across this country?

That is just one of the many inconsistencies in the law and in the administration of this law. That is why I support anything we can do to either defund or delay ObamaCare, and that is why our entire Republican caucus supports doing anything we can to defund or delay ObamaCare. Granted, we have some different ideas on tactics, how best to do it, but we are absolutely united in our effort to oppose ObamaCare.

The reality is that instead of ObamaCare, we should be encouraging more choice and more competition in health care, not more government control. That means things such as tort reform to help reduce the cost of health care. It also means encouraging more competition among health insurance companies across State lines and expanded health savings accounts. Expanded health savings accounts, combined with high- deductible insurance policies, will encourage young people to buy health insurance because their insurance premiums will be much more affordable. Again, more competition, more choice, more participation by people of all ages, and as a result, a system that is sound, a system that truly encourages and empowers individuals. That is how we empower people to take control of their medical costs--not with a government- run system but by empowering individuals. We empower health care providers with tort reform, and we empower consumers with more choice, more competition, and more options.

At the same time, we need to reform Medicare and Medicaid. We can save hundreds of millions of dollars by reducing waste, fraud, and abuse. But we also need to provide the right incentives and more flexibility.

Take Medicare, for example. Right now in my home State of North Dakota, on a relative basis we have lower cost health care than many other States, and at the same time that we have lower costs in North Dakota, we have better outcomes. On a comparative basis, we have very high-quality medical care. So think about that--lower costs, better outcomes. But under Medicare, for that performance we are not rewarded. We don't get more reimbursement, we get less reimbursement. That makes no sense. Think about it. So a State with low costs and better outcomes gets lower Medicare reimbursement than a State with high costs regardless of outcomes. Then you get more reimbursement? Think about that as a system, rewarding higher costs, penalizing lower costs. That is the exact opposite of what we should have.

Those are the kinds of things we should be reforming, and we should reform them in a way that creates the right incentives.

Take Medicaid. Medicaid, the same thing. Here, you have way too much of a Federal one-size-fits-all. Why not give the States more flexibility so that they can respond to the circumstances in their State, find ways to improve care, and reduce costs and make sure those States benefit when they do that so that they have the right incentives.

These are the kinds of health care reforms that make sense, common sense. These are the kinds of health care reforms that empower people. These are the kinds of health care reforms we need.

Republicans will vote to defund ObamaCare. We need some Democrats to join us for the sake of health care, for the sake of our economy, full- time employment versus part-time employment. ObamaCare is hurting our economy and hurting job creation. So for the sake of health care in this country and for the sake of our economy, it is what the American people want. They want us to fund this continuing resolution and they want us to defund ObamaCare, and I ask our colleagues to join us in this effort.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor to mark the fifth anniversary--the fifth birthday, if you will--the fifth anniversary of the application of the Keystone XL Pipeline. TransCanada applied for approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline in September of 2008, and here we are, 5 years later to the date, without a decision.

Normally, when we celebrate an anniversary or birthday, if you will, it is a good thing. It is positive. Obviously, in this case, that is not the case. Five years have gone by with no decision from this administration on the Keystone XL Pipeline. It is mind-boggling.

How can we be following the laws, the rules, and regulations of this country when a company applies for approval of something and there is a decision the administration has to make--is it in the national interest or is it not? That is the decision before the administration. We have to make a decision. We elect Presidents to make decisions. So here we are 5 years later with no decision, not a yes, not a no--five years of study of the project and still no decision.

This project will help generate more energy for our country, more jobs, economic growth, and tax revenue without raising taxes. It is a project that will help us become energy secure, energy independent, with Canada. Working with Canada, our closest friend and ally, will enhance national security so we don't have to get oil from the Middle East, something Americans very much want.

As a matter of fact, there was a recent poll put out by Harris done this summer. In that poll--and I have it right here--in a Harris poll released this summer, 82 percent of voting Americans voiced support for the Keystone XL project--82 percent. Think about that: 82 percent of Americans want the project approved, but for 5 years the administration hasn't been able to make a decision, and they are still not making a decision. The indication now is this could go into next year. So now we are working on year 6.

Think about our economy. Our economy is stagnant. Businesses aren't investing in new capital and equipment and creating jobs. One of the reasons is because of burdensome regulation. This is a clear example: 5 years with no decision.

This poll I referred to, some of the other results of it: 82 percent of voting Americans support the Keystone XL Pipeline project. That is not an old poll; that was done this summer. Some of the other information from that poll: 85 percent of people agree Keystone XL would help strengthen America's economic security--85 percent. Eighty- one percent of people agree Keystone XL would strengthen America's energy security.

Seventy-seven percent of the American people--voting Americans--agree that Keystone XL will help strengthen America's national security--as I just mentioned, not getting oil from the Middle East. That is a no- brainer. Seventy-five percent agree that Keystone XL would benefit the U.S. military by increasing access to oil from Canada, our closest friend and ally.

One of the issues this has brought up is concern about the environmental impact. Let's look at the facts: In the 5 years since TransCanada applied for approval--in that 5-year span--the State Department has done multiple environmental impact statements, I think on the order of four draft or supplemental environmental impact statements. The finding on the environment has been: ``No significant environmental impact.'' That is the Obama administration's own State Department: ``No significant environmental impact'' after 5 years of study. How many more years of study do we need? How is our economy going to work when businesses that want to invest billions in building vital infrastructure for our economy and create jobs have to wait 5 years before they get a go-ahead? And we are wondering why we have a sluggish economy. We are wondering why we are still importing oil from the Middle East.

This isn't just about working with Canada to produce energy for this country. My home State will put 100,000 barrels of oil a day into this pipeline--the lightest, sweetest crude produced anywhere in the country--and take it to our refineries in this country to be used by American consumers and businesses.

Another criticism the opponents will sometimes bring up is that the oil is going to be exported.

They say: Oh, no, the oil is going to be exported; we shouldn't approve the Keystone XL Pipeline; we shouldn't work with Canada; we shouldn't move our own long-term refineries because it is going to be exported.

Again, let's take a look at the facts. In June 2011, the Obama administration's Department of Energy put out a study which said specifically that the oil will be used in the United States. The oil will be used in the United States and it will help reduce gasoline prices for Americans.

That wasn't some proponent who put that out; that was the Obama administration's own Department of Energy after doing their study.

Again, let's take a look at the facts. In my State, this kind of pipeline, as I said, will move 100,000 barrels a day on this pipeline which we are now moving by truck and by train. This pipeline will help take 500 trucks a day off our

highways, saving incredible wear and tear but also providing greater safety because we will not have all of those trucks transporting this oil and gas.

Another argument is, if we don't build the Keystone XL Pipeline, then the oil in the oil sands in Canada will not be produced. Those who are against using fossil fuels--folks who just say, no, we are not going to use fossil fuels anymore, we don't want to use them--they say we don't want to use the pipeline because then the oil sands in Canada will not be produced. Again, look at the facts. The facts are very straightforward. The oil is already being produced and it is moving by truck and train, not by pipeline. If we don't utilize it in the United States, then instead of coming to the United States, it will go to China, where now we are moving it by tanker across the ocean, and it is going to refineries that have much higher emissions. So we have worse environmental standards, and instead of us working with Canada to get our oil rather than getting it from the Middle East, which we are doing now, all of that oil goes to China.

Think about it. Is this what Americans want? Go out and ask them. That is why I cited the poll just a minute ago, saying 80 percent-plus support this project. I think some of them who don't, aren't aware of the project. But if we ask any American, they are going to say they don't want to rely on the Middle East for oil. They would much rather work with Canada. They would much rather produce it here, such as in my home State, and work with Canada so we are energy independent, we are energy secure, we don't have to rely on the Middle East. Let China and the other countries work with the Middle East to get their oil. Ask any American what they think about that proposition and we know what answer we will get. But the President, for whatever reason--here we are 5 years later and he is still not making a decision.

Today is the fifth anniversary. We are starting on year 6, and the question is, How much longer does this go on?

I have spoken about this in terms of energy and energy security for this country: low-cost, dependable energy, so when American families and businesses need energy to fuel their vehicles, they know it is reliable, dependable, it is produced in this country and in a country such as Canada, our closest ally, not in the Middle East, and that we are not going to have to send our men and women in uniform into a very difficult situation. We will not have to send them, at a minimum, into the middle of a situation where--look at what is going on in Syria. Look at the volatility. We want to depend on that area for our oil? Of course not.

It is about energy. It is about energy security. It is a national security interest. It is about jobs.

There have been many studies on the number of jobs; the proponents argue for one and the opponents argue for another. But let's go back to the State Department's own numbers after 5 years of study. They say more than 42,000 jobs will be created by the project. Don't take a study from the opponents of the project. Don't take a study from the proponents of the project. Take the State Department's own study: more than 42,000 jobs, at a time when our economy badly needs quality construction jobs, and it doesn't cost one penny of taxpayer money. As a matter of fact, the project produces hundreds of millions to help reduce debt and deficit without higher taxes.

For all of these reasons, this project should be approved. For all of these reasons, this project is very much in the national interest.

I have worked in this body, and I have worked with our friends and colleagues in the House, to see if we can't approve this congressionally. This is a Presidential decision. The decision before the administration is to decide is this project in the national interest or is it not in the national interest. The American people have already decided. In poll after poll, 70, 80 percent of the American people have decided--it doesn't take them 5 years--but the administration can't decide. So Congress should. Congress should step up and decide. I believe it is very clearly in the national interest for all of the reasons I have clearly laid out. I think we need to work with our colleagues in the House and find a way to make a decision that the President seems to be unable to make.

I believe that this project is in the national interest; that we do need to be energy secure; that we do want the jobs and the economic activity for our people in this country. And I believe this decision needs to be made not on the basis of what special interest groups want but on the basis of what the American people want, and that verdict is in, and it is overwhelming.

Thank you.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.