the category of waste, fraud, and abuse. now, today's situation is a little bit different because the money is not being spent. and the question is, well, okay, it's reserved for something; right? well, it was. but that action has been fulfilled. and so why is that money still sitting there and who is using it, or if it's not being used, why isn't it redirected or returned to the taxpayer? let me talk about this program. throughout our nation's history, the united states has pursued various paths of energy development in order to power our communities. one of the ways we have pursued energy production is through uranium enrichment and nuclear reactors. now, that's not a popular way today of providing trek power. by the way, it is totally environmentally pure.

there is no carbon dioxide, my trust oxide or any other emission issue here that is harmful to our environment, yet we have suspended all of this for various reasons, mostly the concern about a situation where it gets out of hand, even though today's technology can essentially provide safety for that. nevertheless, when congress passed the energy policy act of 1992, the united states enrichment corporation, usec, was authorized and stood up to provide more privatized uranium enrichment services for the u.s. government and utilities that operate these u.s. nuclear power plants, and there are several dozen still operating in the united states. previously, this service was provided by the department of energy and its predecessor agencies, but now this law appropriated taxpayer dollars to a null established usec fund.

which is a revolving fund in the treasury that carry out the purposes of this new organization. the united states enrichment corporation, the law also appropriated taxpayer dollars to the fund revolving in the treasury to carry out their purposes and let me describe this fund in a little more detail. four years after the creation of the fund, congress passed the privatization act for usec which authorized the usec's sale to the private sector. pretty good move, i think. there are a lot of things the private sector can do more effectively and efficiently than the federal government, and so this was a privatization effort that was successful. they transitioned from a federal to a private corporation, and today it operates as a federal

company -- a private company, excuse me, not a public company, separate from the federal government under a new name. so therefore it's no longer under the control of the federal government, so what has become of the fund that was funded? the usec fund was authorized to pay for the expenses of the usec's privatization and for the environmental cleanup expense for -- quote -- disposition of depleted uranium stored at government-owned enrichment plants operated by the usec. a logical, logical objective. we do not want this depleted uranium stored on site. we needed to dispose of it. and so we took the money in the fund and used that to dispose and take care of this depleted uranium that was stored and needed to be dispensed with.

now, earlier this year, the government accountability office issued a report which said, and i quote, purposes for which the usec fund was authorized after privatization have been fulfilled. and the general accounting office has not identified any other purposes for which the usec fund is currently available. in other words, mission accomplished. mission complete. no other use of the fund has been authorized, so the money is just sitting there. there is a pot of money sitting in the fund that has no federally authorized use. so whatever you want to call it. a zombie fund, a fund that simply has no purpose, its life is over, and yet it lives on. so how much is in this fund? the g.a.o. found that the fund's remaining balance is expected to be over $1.6 billion in 2015.

not exactly small change. and predictably, the department of energy says ah, there's a pot of money. why don't we use it for something else? well, it's not authorized for anything else. it was money that was contributed from the treasury into this fund for a specific purpose, and that was to clean up the environmental disposable uranium and to privatize the -- the g.a.o. further stated, and i quote, d.o.e.'s efforts to utilize usec fund moneys instead of general fund appropriations to support a research and development effort to diminish transparency in budget because that's what the department of energy said oh, you have a slush fund over here, let's use it for something. transparency and accountability are important when it comes to spending taxpayer dollars, and every one of us here on the senate floor ought to be cognizant and recognize how

critical and how important it is for those -- to spend taxpayer dollars, hard-earned taxpayer dollars, to spend it wisely, effectively and efficiently, and not request it from them if it doesn't have that purpose and achieve that purpose. by the same token, if we have a pot of money, $1.6 billion sitting in a fund that has no authorized use, that ought to be returned. that ought to be returned to the taxpayer in one of two ways. one directed to an absolutely essential need that only the federal government can provide, or secondly, it ought to go back to the taxpayer. it shouldn't be taken from the taxpayer. so since the authorized purposes of the usec fund have been fulfilled and congress has given no new authority or appropriation, the money needs to be rescinded. now, i'm not the only one supporting this course of action. the g.a.o. recommends that congress rescind the entirety of

the $1.6 billion and congress' attempt to rescind this money on the pot of money before. in fact, the house of representatives included language in a 2000 appropriations bill to do so, but it is time to actually return the money. so there are attempts that are being made, but if we can successfully achieve this, we can save the taxpayer by rescinding this $1.6 billion. and if we do that, we will then add up to our ever-growing total of wasted, abused, fraudulently used money and in this case miss appropriated money, money sitting there waiting to be returned and rescinded, bring their total almost now to $190 billion of waste, fraud and abuse. so that ends the narrative this week, and we'll be looking

forward to next week bringing another -- yet another waste of the week. madam president, with that, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. inhofe: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma oklahoma.mr. inhofe: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call in progress be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: and i ask i be recognized for such time as i may consume. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: yeah, mr. president, we're having a lot of discussion and people are lined up now talking about this event that's going to take place in -- in the middle of december and it's going to be the 21st cap. that's a meeting that the united nations puts on every year. it's been on for 21 years now. and they're all talking about this is the time.

this is what they've said every time -- for 21 years, that we're going to adopt something in this country. prior they've been using legislation, it's going to reduce the emissions of co2 and the devastation that would be on our -- on our economy. and there's nothing different now except everything -- as time goes by, time has not been their friends. we have the alarmists who really believe that the world's coming to an end because of global warming. and you know some of them actually believe that. a lot of them it's just kind of the "in" thing to do and you have tom steyer out there with $75 million trying to resurrect this as an issue. but there are some who really do believe it. and i -- the problem is, time is not doing them a favor because every time a week or a month goes by, somebody else comes out with some new nftion -- new information. a recent study that was published in a national -- it was a nasa study published in the journal of glaciology found

that gains in the antarctic ice sheets are much greater than estimated losses. this runs counter to the ipcc 2013 report that suggests there was a net loss of ice on the continent. now, let's look for a minute what the ipcc is. the ipcc is an arm of the united nations. they have put together these studies of people -- and this has been going on now for more than 15 years. and the only qualifications you have i guess to be one of the -- one of the scientists is you have to believe in this. we have testified -- testimony from a lot of different members of the scientific community who have said that because of their position in opposition to the anthropogenic gases causing global warming, causing the destruction of the earth, it's caused them not to be a part of this. and there's no better evidence of that than in 2009 when they came out and made it very clear in 2009 that the science that

they were dependent on was the ipcc -- that's the international policy on climate change -- that it was totally discredited with what they call climate gate. we've talked about this on the floor several times and we -- i thought that would have ended it back in 2009 but it didn't do it. i only mention that background because we're going to have the paris trip coming up and there are going to be a lot of people going there to try to fortify their positions. now, since the 1970's, the ipcc climate models historically predicted a significant increase in global temperatures and we -- and we haven't really seen this. the frequent statements held up by the media showing each month that passes is the hottest month on record woefully ignores the margin of error contains within these data sets. simply put, the 15-year hiatus -- now, the hiatus, as

it's called, is showing that, yes, we went through a progress, a period of time when there was warming and then all of a sudden some 15 years ago, 16 years ago it leveled off and it hasn't warmed since that time. so this has really been a problem for the individuals who -- who are believing this. let me just go back -- and this is from memory but i'm sure it's right because i've it said so many times. we had the first -- the first time they talked about global cooling was in 1895. in 1895, they came out and said that now we're worried about a new ice age. they coined that term. and they said that -- that it's going to be, you know, catastrophic. and then about 20 years later, it was in 2018, it changed. all of a sudden there was global warming, a warming. this is the first time that the term "global warming" had been used.

that then stayed, things were warming up from that point until 1945. in 1945, it was rather interesting because the -- that was at the end of world war ii and another cold spell came in. now, the interesting thing about this is if you look back historically, the greatest surge in the emissions of co2 in america happened right after second world war in 1945. and that precipitated not a warming but another cold spell. in fact, they used the term again "ice age." now, that was supposed to -- and, of course, then went another -- in the 1970's, it started warming. if you follow that, it's about every 30 years this changes. you know, god is still up there. we're still going to have a changing climate. and so what disappointed them it the -- all the things they've been saying about global warmi warming, it stopped 15 years ago and it's leveled off. now, despite the clear evidence

that the science on global warming is not settled, environmental alarmists are pushing ahead with an economically devastating agenda that is more about ideological outcomes than combating global warming. these efforts will come to a head at the end of this year when the united nations hosts the 2 1st conference on parties -- c.o.p. -- conference on parties session in paris. with this upcoming international speck to cel, we should not only be questioning the science but also the -- spectacle, we should not only be questioning the science but also the impressions each country is making. this past week, china was exposed for underreporting the amendment of coal it burns by about a billion tons a year for the last 15 years. as "the new york times" stated -- and this is a quote -- "even for a country of china's size, the scale of correction is immense, and the increase alone is greater than the whole german

economy emits annually from fossil fuels." they were talking about just the increase of what china has agreed to, they're trying to reduce, saying they're reducing some of their emissions. the increase that they admit is going to come is still going to be far greater than the whole german economy from fossil fuels. then there's india, a country whose climate pledge is based on the premise that developing countries like the united states will pick up these costs to the tune of $2.5 trillion over the next 15 years, just over $160 billion a year. india stands to gain from american taxpayer dollars. and you have to keep in mind, each year for the last 21 years you've had about 192 countries come in. their job, in order to come in and join the big party, is to say, yes, we're going to do something about reducing co2

emissions. i have kind of a lot of activity in africa, and i remember in a little country of benin, africa, there was someone i know very well. his name is luke. he was an official in benin, west africa, and i went up to him and said how come you're at this thing? you know better than this whole idea of gloarming. he said -- this idea of global warming. he said we had the opportunity to share in $150 billion because we're a minority country. besides that this is the biggest party every year. we have these things that are the motivations for people that are coming in. even the united nations bureaucrats have been very candid about why, what they hope to achieve through the international climate negotiations which has nothing to do with saving the environment. french president, former jacques chirac, when addressing the kyoto protocol, described it as the first component of authentic

global governance. margo walledstrom stated international agreements are about the economy and -- quote -- "leveling the playing field for big business worldwide." that has nothing to do with the environment. most recently the u.n. top climate official when talking about the paris climate conference said -- and this is a quote by her -- she was running this thing for the united nations. she said quo quoap this is probably the most difficult task we have given ourselves which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history. unquote. this is the one who is supposed to be making the case. even the united states global warming commitment to the international community is questionable. president obama is committing

the united states to cut emissions by 26%. this is just as hollow as what we are hearing from the countries i just mentioned. this is the gap that is in there if you look at the chart itself, explanatory. not only does the president not have the backing of the united states senate and the american people, but outside groups are finding that the president's method to achieve these reductions through climate regulations, primarily the clean power plan, is faulty. according to the recent analysis by the u.s. chamber, the president's nended -- intended national contribution, the indc, what they use to say what commitments are being made is about 23% short of meeting stated targets. on july 8, a former sierra club chief climate council testified before my committee about his own analysis that has found an

even greater gap. the clean power plan right now is a regulation that is promoted by the president. now, they tried, starting in 2002, to pass legislation, and the legislation would have had a type of a, an activation of activity that is one that we analyzed would cost the american people somewhere between $300 billion and $400 billion a year. if it's $300 billion to $400 billion a year, what i always do mr. chairman -- mr. president, when i hear a big number like that, i go back and i get the latest figures from my state of oklahoma as to how much this means to every, each family, each family that files a federal income tax. it would be about $3,000 a family. that's a lot of money, a lot of money to a lot of people in my state of oklahoma. and yet, by their own admission, it's not going to accomplish

anything. you remember -- you might remember lisa jackson, the first director of the e.p.a., chosen by barack obama. and i asked her the question actually right before the copenhagen party -- that would have been in 2009 -- i said now, you're going to come out with an endangerment finding and if you have this endangerment finding, who is going to be the scientist? she said the ipcc. i said assuming that you pass legislation -- and that's what they were trying to do at that time -- that was cap and trade legislation i just described would cost between $300 billion and $400 billion, if you pass it is that going to reduce co2 worldwide? keep in mind this is obama's choice, she was the director of the e.p.a. she said no it wouldn't do that because this isn't where the problem is. the problem's in china. the problem's in india. the problem's in mexico.

in fact, you carry it one step further, if you are going to have a reduction in it and then that chases our manufacturing base to other countries, where they don't have restrictions, then those countries will be countries like china, like india that, that don't have any controls on emissions. so it would end up being even more. but i mentioned that the president is going there in spite of the fact of where the american people are. this is very interesting because in 2001 and 2002, the major polling showed that the number-one concern at that time was global warming. and now that same poll, this is the gallon lump poll that came out -- the gallup poll that came out in march 2015 says it is dead last. it is said the american economy suffered great pain for no gain.

the rising cost of energy would not only restrict access to reliable, affordable energy but undermine our businesses' ability to compete on a global scale and ultimately ship american jobs overseas to countries who are going to be increasing emissions for the next decade. the outcome sounds a lot like the united nations bureaucrats hope for -- quote -- "leveling the playing field for big business worldwide." that was margo made that statement, i quoted her a minute ago. it is no wonder the president is working so hard to circumvent congress's role in committing the united states to an international agreement on climate change. he is playing to the wishes of the international community to include french foreign minister larette fabius said an agreement needed to be reached that would allow the president to make a commitment without going to congress. that's the whole idea. you know, it's not just this

one. it's other areas. we last week were discussing the big water bill for a long period of time -- historically always in this country the control of water has been under state jurisdiction. and if it's under state jurisdiction, the only is exception at that time was the -- was navigable waters. and so there was an effort by a senator from wisconsin way back five years ago, and by representative oberstar from minnesota to try to pass legislation that would take the word navigable out. that means everything would go from the states back to the federal government. not only did we defeat those bills, but both of those, the senator and the house member were defeated in 2010 at the next election. so, the american people have caught on. the summit is going to go. and i can assure you that we'll

have a big delegation from the united states of america going over, talking about what america is going to do. and again, they're trying to do it through regulation. on the water rule that they had, they tried to do it legislatively. they couldn't do it. and so now the president is trying to do it with a rule. and so, we go through this. we've gone through it with ozone and other things. we're going to be faced with this and clearly the president's agreement is about his legacy more than promoting a policy that's in the best interest of the american people. americans need not only question the science that is not settled, but a policy that's being used to a piece internationalists at the cost of americans' future prosperity. you know, we've gone through this now for quite awhile. i'd say for the last 18 years or so. and the problems we're having -- and i see a lot of the young people here and so many of the young people actually believe this stuff. and one of the reasons that they

believe it is that they are taught it. this is a terrible confession for me to make, and i won't say which of my -- i've got 20 kids and grandkids, and one of them back when she was in the seventh grade, i think -- sixth grade maybe -- she came to me and she said -- i'm saying to the president here -- popeye. "i" is for inhofe so my grandkids call us pop-i. why don't you understand global warming. i said show me why you're asking. she showed me propaganda coming from the e.p.a. and going through our school system is incredible. in spite of that, in spite of that, the facts are there and it's not going to work any more this time than it did the last 21. with that, i see the very good senator from illinois, and i will yield the floor.

kirk -- a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. sullivan: mr. president, veterans day is approaching on wednesday. and as you know, this is a very, very important day across the country. it's certainly an important day in my state of alaska, where we have a statistic. i would certainly like to talk about it a lotting in -- a lot in hearings and on the senate floor that alaska has the highest number of veterans per capita than any state in the united states. it's truly an honor to be serving a state which has so many veterans and served our country and look at veterans day as a really very important and very somber day. we're also home to thousands, thousands of active-duty military members, reservists in large part because of our strategic location in alaska. so i was home, like a lot of

members of the senate, this past weekend. and in alaska, we're already beginning to celebrate veterans day in churches, in community halls, private homes, parades. this weekend i i had the honor f attending a few of these events. a parade in anchorage, a wonderful church service yesterday. and it's so moving to see and hear from all of our veterans. i had the opportunity to do that this weekend. world war ii veterans, greatest generation, korean war, vietnam, iraq, afghanistan, cold war veterans. and i went to a number of these events, and an issue came up. an issue i think is important for this body to know about. that our constituents are asking about. what the heck is going on in washington, d.c., where senators

are filibustering the funding of our troops? what's going on? it's a good question. you know, mr. president, that confirms something that i think a lot of us sometimes forget. we look at the procedural maneuvers here on the senate floor: filibusters, blocking funding for our troops. and sometimes we think that the american people aren't watching. well, they're watching. and our troops are watching. not only our troops at home, but importantly, our troops overseas who are literally right now risking their lives during this veterans day week, protecting our nation, protecting us, protecting our security. they're watching. and so are their families. and when members of this body decide to block funding for our troops, known as the defense

appropriations bill, the people know it. they especially know it when it's happened on this floor not once, not twice, but three times. three times. the minority leader and the other side of the aisle decided to filibuster our troops in terms of their funding. what's really amazing about that, mr. president, is that that bill came out of the appropriations committee with a huge bipartisan majority, so very partisan to support our troops. so why, why? i was asked this back home. and, mr. president, i truly could not provide a coherent answer for the veterans, for their families, for our troops. you know, i've heard a number of reasons on the senate floor as

this is being debated. i believe the minority leader said it was a waste of time. i guarantee you the vast majority of americans don't agree with him on that. something about republican tricks with regard to the budget deal. i -- i just don't know why we would filibuster the defense appropriations bill that funds our troops three times, including last week. i wish the minority leader would come to the floor and give a simple answer why he insists on continually filibustering funding for our troops during the week of veterans day, and more importantly when thousands, thousands of young american men and women are risking their lives right now, right now defending this nation overseas.

because some are starting to fear that members of this body are not putting our troops in terms of the highest priority. they're starting to fear that we're not concerned about the welfare of our troops and our nation's security. now, i don't believe this is the case. i have the honor of sitting on the veterans' affairs committee, the armed services committee, and i believe that that is a very bipartisan committee where everybody is focused on our national security and our troops. as a matter of fact, i have talked to a reporter last week and told her about on the armed services committee how so many members on both sides of the aisle come together and focus. but, you know, mr. president, we have veterans in this country who still carry scars from their military service that was not supported by the public, that

was not supported by the congress, in particular our veterans, many of our veterans who served in vietnam. who came home, who were ridiculed, who were not treated well, who were spit on. we can never, ever go back to that shameful period of american history, never. mr. president, this week we have important work to do on these issues. we have a military construction and veterans appropriations bill that we're going to be voting on in the next few days. again, that was previously filibustered. i don't know why, but it looks like we're going to move forward on that. we have a defense authorization bill. hugely important for the men and women of our military, vetoed by the president. again, not clear why the president vetoed that, but we're going to take that up again.

the bottom line is enough playing politics with our troops, their families and our national security. it is time to come together during this week, of all weeks, the week of veterans day, come together in a bipartisan way on these important bills that we're taking up this week to support our troops, to support our veterans, to support our national defense in the finest tradition of this body, in the finest tradition of the u.s. senate. filibustering defense appropriations bills three times is not in the finest tradition of this body. we need to move beyond that. doing so this week, the week of veterans day, will send an important message to the american people that we know what the highest responsibility of the congress is, to defend this nation and to take care of the troops and the veterans who

have sacrificed and who we honor this week. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. kirk: mr. president, i come to the floor to urge support of the senate for the 2016 v.a. milcon appropriations bill. this year's bill's funding for our veterans was $65 billion. it is now $71.2 billion. that's a $6.2 billion increase over last year. the president requested $70.1 billion for f.y. 2016. this provides $1.1 billion more than the president's request for this upcoming legislation. last week, we agreed to debate this bill by an overwhelming vote of 93-0. if we have record funding to fix the disability of backlog at the v.a. in this bill.

there are new protections for whistle-blowers and doctors and nurses who are protected when there was patient abuse. this bill protects the protectors of our veterans. with that, i yield back. thank you.

mr. kirk: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. roberts: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. roberts: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to proceed for five minutes as if we are in morning business. the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call currently. mr. roberts: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call.

the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. roberts: thank you. the presiding officer: the senator from kansas is recognized for up to five minutes. mr. roberts: i truly appreciate that from the senator from indiana. mr. president, i would like to recognize today the american agriwomen who are celebrating their 40th anniversary this year. the american agriwomen officially began in november of 1971 with the kansas agriwomen joining as one of the earliest state groups. 40 years later, the american agriwomen have grown to represent tens of thousands of women involved in all aspects of agriculture in all 50 states. it's rather amazing that membership includes women of all ages from many different professions within the agriculture industry. these talented women are farmers, they're ranchers, they're consumers, they're students, accountants, educators, marketers, managers, researchers and even elected

officials, among many others. it's just impossible to list all of the accomplishments, mr. president, these hardworking women have aachieved by the agricultural industry over the last four decades, but perhaps their biggest success has been initiating the national agriculture in the classroom initiative, a program that continues to be widely implemented in schools all over the country to educate children on modern, modern agriculture. throughout the year, the agriwomen have been engaging in their drive across america. it's a tour, a road trip across the country, to spread the word on the vital role women play in agriculture. their drive ended last week in maine where they hold their annual convention. during this tour, they also educated consumers on all the challenges that farmers and ranchers face today and highlighted the role the united states plays in the global food system. now, i have had the opportunity

to meet with many of these women and discuss the work of agriculture and the agriculture committee during their stop in their trip here to washington, they met with many members on the committee, many others interested in agriculture. i hope all of my colleagues here today will join me in celebrating the last 40 years of american agriwomen and the hard work of all of the women in our agriculture community without whom the united states would be unable to provide the highest quality food, fuel and fiber and domestically and around a very troubled and hungry world. i yield the floor. mr. tester: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. tester: thank you, mr. president.

the v.a. milcon subcommittee bill that we'll be taking up over the next day or so is critically important not only for our military from a readiness standpoint but also for our veterans. we're approaching veterans day this wednesday. i would hope that we are able to put politics aside on this bill and do what's right not only for the military but for the men and women who have served this country in the military. if there are amendments that folks have, i would ask that they bring them to the committee as quickly as possible so that we can go to work on them and clear them if possible if not push them off for another day. but this is really an important piece of legislation. we are continuing to talk about conflicts around the world, and we continually send our men and women there with no argument from them, and they do a job

that we're all very, very proud of, protecting the freedoms of this country. the second half of that story is making sure we do right by them when they come back home, and that's what this bill is about, doing right for our veterans when they come back into civilian society again. so with that, mr. president, i would just encourage the members of this body to break from what we traditionally do, and that is play politics with a lot of things, and do what's right by our men and women who served as our veterans and for our military as it stands in terms of readiness. with that, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: thank you, mr. president. i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. murphy: thank you, mr. mr. president. mr. president, we are in the beginning stages of open enrollment for the affordable care act. it extends through january 31 of 2016, and i wanted to briefly come to the floor today to make sure that the body knows that their constituents over the course of the next two and a half months have an opportunity to save hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars by

shopping around and finding the most affordable plan available to them but to also make everyone aware that despite the overwhelming success of the affordable care act, the uninsurance rate in this country having dropped by 30% since its inception 0 he will a few years ago, there are still some that have not made themselves -- have not gone onto the exchanges and found a plan that can bring them into the ranks of those who now have affordable insurance for the first time. so this is an important period for people across this country, but it's also a moment for us to reflect on what's happened over the course of the last two years, because especially given all of those who were neigh shares, who have -- naysayers, who have predicted the country would fall apart or least the

health care economy would fall apart after the passage of the affordable care act, the exact opposite has happened. we've seen a dramatic reduction in the number of people who don't have insurance. you've seen people be able to gain enormous savings on the amount of money they spend on health care. you've soon the amount of money that the federal government spends on health care be dramatically reduced, a $1.2 trillion savings over the baseline when the a.c.a. was passed to the amount of money that the federal government is projected to save over a 10-year period of time today. you've soo seen quality get bet. indicators from hospital readmissions to infection rates all going in positive trend lines. because, of course, the affordable care act isn't just about getting people access to affordable care; it's also about transforming our payment system away from one that just bases our reimbursement system on the amount of medicine practiced to one that now actually is

rewarding the quality and the outcomes that are gleaned as part of our health care system. and so it's really a triple whammy. you're getting more people with access to affordable care. you're spending less money than we had planned to spend by dramatic numbers from the federal perspective, and you're getting better quality outcomes. lots of us have ideas on you how we can improve the affordable care act. we hope with theologicallive fights behind us -- with the legislative fights behind us, with the judicial fights largely behind us that we can now focus on ways to perfect this law. but there's no question that it's returning enormous benefits to people across this country. here's just another quick way to look at it. this is the percentage of uninsured by county ar across te kufnlt here's 20136789 you can see that in almost every county, you have north of 16% uninsured. but look how quickly these numbers change.

look how quickly almost every county at least in the sort of vast swath of territory from the northwest across to the northeast moves down to 2015, where we have majority sections of the country with close to 10% uninsured, a 30% reduction in the number of people. you still have these big gaps where people are in the coverage gap, people that are not making enough money -- excuse me, are making so little money that they don't qualify for medicaid but also can't get into the subsidies. but this is enormous progress all across the country. but we can make more progress, and a lot of that comes by consumers being educated during this open enrollment people as to the choices in front of them. here's some pretty stunning numbers. 86% of current enrollees, people who are on affordable care act

plans today, can find a lower-premium number plan in the same level before tax credits by returning to the marketplace to shop for coverage. if every consumer in the country went back and shopped for the lowest-cost premium plan at the same level, the total savings across the country would be $4.5 billion. the average consumer, let's say, who brought a silver plan last year and who decides to shop for a better deal this year can save about $52 a month. that ultimate ares in about $6 -- that results in about $625 a year. so shopping can save you money. and so you might be satisfied with your plan -- and the satisfaction numbers are pretty remarkable. 75% of people who are on the exchange today report being wholly satisfied with their plan, which is frankly higher satisfaction levels than for those who are on private insurance outside the exchange. but even if you're satisfied, go

back and look at the plans that are available to you. you can find a plan that'll get you the same coverage for lower cost. and let's make sure that people are getting that return on their investment. and the good news is that there's more choice out there than ever before. every year since the inception of the affordable care act, plans have been added to these state-based and federal exchanges. the average number of issuers on an exchange was eight in 2013, then nine in 2014, and then ten in 2015. and so choice for theage of consumer is increasing. there are certain areas in which choicchoices maybe stay the samr some areas where choice has been reduced. but on average across the country you have more choice than you had before. so no excuse to not go out and find a plan that saving saves ye money. connecticut is probably the poster child for effec effective implementation of the affordable care act. we are a small state.

we only have a congressional delegation of five in the house of representatives. yet we've had 700,000 connecticut residents who have obtained health insurance through the affordable care act, either on the exchange or on medicaid. we have gone from an 8% uninsurance rate -- so we were already on the low end -- down to a 3.8% uninsurance rate. right? that is a remarkable number just over the course of a few years. we only have so much progress you can make when you have under 4% uninsured, but we have a goal of putting on 10,000 to 20,000 people on the affordable care act over the course of this open enrollment people period. and the goals are going to be modest compared to years past as well. but the point of coming town do the floor is to say at this point in the implementation when we've made such great progress, we want to continue to kick down

the uninsurance rate but the real benefit in open enrollment is going to come not simply by reducing the number of people that have insurance but by making sure shah everybody is on the ploon -- sure that everybody is on the plan that best represents their medical and financial needs. that number across the country of $4.5 billion that could be saved twoon now and the en betwf january is -- between now and the end of january is pretty remarkable. i have been on the floor many times to talk about the simple premise that despite all of those who have been rooting for the affordable care act to fail, it has worked. it has worked from an empirical basis and an anecdotal basis. the statistics don't lie. dramatic reductions in the number of people without insurance, dramatic reductions in the pace of health care inflation, dramatic improvements in the quality of medicine being practiced across the country. but we all have stories of individuals from our states whose lives have been

transformed by this act. parents who no longer have to worry about their children being locked into a future dictated by their illness. cancer patients who now know that they are going to be able to have bein access to an affore product, will never be able to be denied access to health care just because of their illness. and taxpayers who see a trajectory of health care spending that is not going to bankrupt this country as fast as it would have had we not put in changes inside this act. so open enrollment, open until january 31 of 2016 -- i encourage all of my colleagues, republican and democratic colleagues to get the word out about this. everyone has constituents that can benefit here. whether or not you support the affordable care act, it is the law of the land, and your constituents can benefit from it. we should all be out there talking about the potential for

our constituents, collectively in the senate, to save almost $5 billion if they shop on affordable care act exchanges between now and the end of january. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. mr. murphy: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president, i ask that -- the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina.

a senator: qui that the quorum call be vitiated. officer without objection. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination, which the clerk will report. cleric clork nomination, european bank for reconstruction and development. scott allen of maryland to be united states director. the presiding officer: question ow curse on the nomination. the clerk will call the roll. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. now the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote: