Exchange Sunset Act of 2013

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, a lot of Americans are worried right now about their health insurance. They know what is coming. Seniors have been turned down by their doctors for Medicare treatment because the doctors are not adequately compensated. If they have not been turned down, they know someone who has been turned down.

Medicaid is uncertain and a stigma. On the one hand, advances in medical technology and the capabilities and knowledge of our health care providers mean we are living longer and have more tools at hand than ever before to address diseases and illnesses.

However, on the other hand, this increasing life expectancy, coupled with the aging of our population and the steady increases in health care costs, means our health care system is on the verge of becoming completely unsustainable financially.

All across the country health insurance rates are skyrocketing. Families are struggling to cope with the higher costs and less choice. Employees are losing coverage and they are losing working hours. Businesses are not hiring. At the center of this uncertainty is the President's health care law. A number of provisions have already gone into effect, but we will not experience the full force of the law until 2014; that is, January.

The Democrats' ``go it alone'' health care reform plan in 2009 was the first major piece of legislation to pass Congress without a bipartisan vote. Let me repeat that again. The Democratic ``go it alone'' health care reform plan in 2009 was the first major piece of legislation to pass Congress without a bipartisan vote. When you have a partisan bill you get partisan results.

After 20,000 pages of regulations and still a lot more to come, they are a little behind on those, and after over 150 new bureaucratic boards, agencies, and programs, the Federal Government still cannot figure out how to make the law work and has had to delay it, in part.

What I have seen to date is enough to convince me that we need a different path. I opposed the health care law initially and I support full repeal of the law. Fixing our health care system does not have to be divisive or partisan. There are clear differences in the approach to fixing health care from all across the political ideological spectrum. However, the least we have to do is to dismantle the worst parts of the law and replace them with reforms that actually work, reforms that lower cost and expand choice, reforms that do not bankrupt the country and every taxpayer.

The Federal Government needs to support viable solutions when needed and refrain from handcuffing innovative private designs with the excessive regulations for narrowed political interests. We need more competition, not less.

Unless we take concrete steps now, we will soon be unable to switch off the track toward government-run health care. When I first got here, I was warned that there were people who did not care who ran the train of health as long as it wrecked. Then we could have universal single- pay, government-run health care. I am not sure that is not still the goal.

One clear example of how convoluted this law is comes from the definition of who an employee is. I used to work in the shoe business, so I understand the difference between full-time work, which was 40 hours a week, and part-time work, which was under 40 hours a week.

However, under the health care law, there are now full-time employees and full-time equivalents. What this means is the law requires employers, and particularly small businesses, to determine how many of their part-time employees it takes to equal a full-time employee. They don't come under the full force of the law until they hit 50 employees. There are businesses that understand that, and they are trying to avoid getting to the 50th employee. But there are some catches in this law.

First of all, the health care law sets full time at 30 hours, not 40 hours per week but 30 hours. It was news to me. It always was 40 hours.

Second, the law requires these employers to take everyone working 29 hours a week or less, combine all of their time for a week, and then divide by the number 30 to establish how many full-time equivalents these part-time workers represent. I don't think a lot of people planned on that.

If you are still following along at this point, congratulations. You can see how costly the taxes imposed by this law will be.

What if the rule forces you to add all of your employees' hours and divide by 30 hours to determine your full-time employees? What if you have 10 employees who are working 40 hours? That would be 400 hours. If you divided that by 30 and find out that you are paying 10 people, but you actually have 13\1/3\ employees at the full-time requirement, that could put you over the 50 and put you into a whole different category of costs and penalties.

If you have 10 employees and you watched it so that there are only 29 hours, that comes to 290 hours. If you divided that by 30, you would find out that even though none of these people are full-time employees, you have 9\2/3\ full-time employees. You can see how they could do a little miscalculation, suddenly be at the 50, and be into a whole new series of penalties.

The Obama administration also had to admit recently that the employer mandate, one of the key pieces of the law, isn't ready.

One of the most economically crushing and burdensome regulations will not be implemented until past 2014, past the 2014 election in 2015. I don't think that was a mistake on their part. I think it was intentional--to come after the election.

There is another little complication that gets thrown in here though. If those employers are not providing the health insurance and not being fined for not providing the health insurance, then the people who work for them have to go on the exchange to get their health insurance. If they go on the exchange to get their health insurance, they can't be subsidized by the businesses they worked for. That is going to be a surprise to a lot of employees too.

The delay will force more people to enroll in health care exchanges or face the tax penalty if they don't. A lot of people don't realize if they do go on the exchange, there is also a surcharge on the cost of their health insurance. They are going to be paying a 3.5 percent tax for buying the insurance. Of course, if they don't buy the insurance, then they get a penalty.

The delay was also made for the businesses without congressional approval, done administratively. The Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation informed Senator Hatch this week that this delay will increase the cost of the new insurance program established by law by $12 billion. It is not as if we had an extra $12 billion laying around here.

In particular, the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that the Federal Government will be required to pay an additional $3 billion in subsidies for people on the exchanges. A lot of extra costs were just kicked in there. This delay not only increases the costs on hard-working Americans, but it fails the original intent of health care reform, and that is to provide Americans with high quality, affordable health care.

In addition, the law requires the administration to set up health insurance exchanges in a number of States, including Wyoming. We are sparsely populated, low numbers. The numbers wouldn't work out to do our own exchange.

One problem is the administration has yet to tell anyone exactly how they are going to do those exchanges or what even a basic plan is. If you are going to have a range of plans that insurance companies can bid on, that you can look up on the computer, doesn't it seem, before you can even start, that you would have to know what the basic plan is?

How the President can argue that everyone will love the health care law once it goes into effect is beyond me. This administration can't even tell anyone where they can buy their insurance, what plan options will be available, and, most importantly, what the costs will be.

Remember what Nancy Pelosi said before they passed the law? They will have to pass the bill before we get to know what is in it. The administration is shopping its own version of that statement.

As the Senate Finance Committee chairman put it recently: this law is a train wreck waiting to happen. That is the Democratic Senate Finance Committee chairman.

Of course, on top of all of this, the law relies in part on new taxes and tax subsidies to support the coverage expansion.

This means the IRS will be involved in implementation. I have significant concerns with the ability of the IRS, particularly in the wake of the current scandal. The fact that this organization, the IRS-- tainted by such political behavior--is involved in implementing the new health care law has increased my belief that the health care law is not something the country wants or needs. Of course, the IRS employees don't want to come under this law either. I don't know of anybody who really wants to come under it.

I will take a close look at proposals to remove the IRS from any implementation activities, but I do think they should be subject to the law too. At the same time, I will continue to work to provide folks with relief from the health care law as a whole.

One of the things they have said if you are going on the exchange is, if you are in certain income categories, then you get a subsidy from the government to help you purchase your insurance. We are told now that will be self-reporting and will not be subject to audit. Doesn't that sound like something that could be fraught with a lot of fraud, where you say you just make enough to get into the biggest subsidies? Everybody wouldn't do that, of course, but I think there are some who would.

How is the government doing on some of the things that they already put into effect? I saw a little article on high-risk pools. When the bill went in, a lot of the States already had high-risk pools, and we worked with States to make those viable, but the Federal Government said we could do it for less. They put in a high-risk pool.

To keep people from jumping from the State ones, which, yes, are more expensive, over into the Federal one, which is less expensive, they said you couldn't make the jump unless you were without insurance for 6 months. People who are in the high-risk pool can't afford to be without insurance for 6 months.

There wasn't a big jump to the high-risk pool. But in spite of the fact that there wasn't a jump to the high-risk pool, the Federal high- risk pool went broke. It ran out of money.

Here is the disturbing part of that article. They said, well, they would just shift that cost over to the States. The States are already doing it, and they are doing the right thing. Now they are going to be asked to pick up the additional costs. How many parts of ObamaCare are going to get shifted over to the States? The States have had a lot of promises. Can any of those promises be met? Will they be met? A lot of decisions are being based on what the Federal Government promised.

Of course, in truth, we are out of money. The new law also tried to address the problem of rising health care costs. I believe the Federal fiscal situation is untenable, and we need to implement significant and far-reaching spending cuts to get our fiscal house in order. We cannot continue on our current path.

The President and his administration will argue that the new law will expand access and lower costs. While the law certainly increases access to insurance, it also moved billions of dollars from the Medicare Program to pay for this new insurance program. That is not exactly saving the government money.

The projections for lower costs also don't add up for the average American either. Insurance premiums and rates are increasing. Small businesses are unable to continue to provide health insurance for their workers.

Businesses in general have delayed hiring or are only hiring people part time--although I hope they listen to the part that I gave about the little part-time catch that is built into the law.

All of these decisions are directly driven by the economic impact of the health care law. My Senate Republican colleagues and I are focused on developing proposals that address the worst aspects of the health care law. The law increases premiums and health care costs, forces employers to stop offering insurance to their employees, and slashes benefits for millions of Medicare beneficiaries.

I support repealing both the cap on health savings accounts, flexible spending accounts, and the prohibition on over-the-counter purchases included in the health care law.

Flexible spending accounts help make consumers more aware and engage in their health care spending.

Health savings accounts are something that young, healthy staffers of the Senate like to do. They can do the math real easy. They can look at the regular program and see how much that would cost or they could take a look at health savings accounts. The difference in the price, in only 3 years they could cover the whole deductible part as long as they were healthy for 3 years. They would be covered for that part until something major happened--and they were covered for catastrophic--so they found that to be a real bargain. But not anymore.

Additionally, a number of other Senators and I have put forward bills to repeal the taxes imposed by the President's health care law. That would be

relief from new taxes on prescription drugs, relief from new taxes on medical devices, and relief from new taxes on health insurance plans. I wish to provide relief to employers from new regulations imposed on them by the law.

These ideas preserve competition in a private market for health care coverage and lower the cost of care for the consumer. All of these steps are commonsense reforms to the health care law that take us off the path toward a national, Federal health care system.

One of the most effective ways Congress can address the rising costs of health care is to focus on the way it is delivered as part of the Nation's current cost-driven and ineffective patient care system. America's broken fee-for-service structure is driving our Nation's health care system further downward.

Today's method of payment encourages providers to see as many patients and prescribe as many treatments as possible, but it does nothing to reward providers who keep patients healthy. Maligned incentives created by the fee-for-service system drive up costs and hurt patient care.

Tackling this issue is a good start to reining in rising health care costs. The health care law championed by President Obama and the majority party in the Senate did little to address these problems because the vast majority of the legislation involved a massive expansion of the government price controls found in the fee-for-service Medicare and Medicaid Programs.

If we wish to address the threat posed by out-of-control entitlement spending, we need to restructure Medicare to better align incentives for providers and beneficiaries. This will not only lower health care costs, it will also improve the quality of care for millions of Americans. It is very important that we protect access to rural health care services too.

There is more that can be done to better align Federal programs to meet the needs of rural and frontier States. The criteria that determine eligibility for Federal funds to support rural health care programs are based on factors that make it difficult to prove the needs of the underserved, rural, and frontier areas.

For example, one provider for 3,500 people in New York City is entirely different than the 3,500 people living in Fremont, Campbell County or, perhaps more so, Niobrara County. I use Niobrara County quite a bit, for example, because Niobrara County is the size of Delaware and has 2,500 people living in it. It is 90 miles tall, 75 miles wide, and near the bottom of the center is a town called Lusk. This is where almost all of the people live. They do have a hospital there.

When they have a doctor or a physician's assistant, the hospital is open. When they do not, they are 104 miles from a trauma center.

You can't apply the same rules to that hospital that you apply to New York City hospitals. In addition, we need to think more creatively about how to use technology services, to improve telemedicine capabilities, particularly for the rural areas so that where a person lives has less impact on the level of care they are able to receive.

The advancement of more powerful, wireless technologies has substantial potential to remotely link individuals across the country to deliver health care in more accessible settings. Our Nation has made great strides in improving the quality of life for all Americans. We need to remember that every major legislative initiative that has helped transform our country has been forged in the spirit of cooperation. These qualities are essential to the success and longevity of crucial programs such as Medicare and Medicaid.

When it comes to health care decisions being made in Washington lately, the only thing the government is doing well is increasing partisanship and legislative gridlock. The President and Democrats need to listen. It is time to admit that this partisan experiment in government-run health care is failing. In order for this to get better, they must acknowledge the problem. Some of the law's authors and biggest supporters admit this law is a mess, and it will only get worse.

However, those in the Democratic leadership continue to support flawed health care laws out of pride, politics, or a belief that the government knows best. It makes no sense to stubbornly cling to a law that is so massive, burdensome, bureaucratic, and confusing that it is collapsing under its own weight.

By focusing on positive changes, Congress can give the failed law's proponents a way out. The key is finding common ground. More often than not, the country hears about what divides Congress instead of what unifies us. We could come together and focus on commonsense solutions with the kinds of step-by-step reforms that would protect Americans. I believe Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle can agree on 80 percent of an issue 100 percent of the time.

I want to be clear that this isn't compromise. When you compromise, each side gives up something they believe in, and in the end they get something no one believes in. I am about agreeing on common ground without compromise, without sacrificing each party's principles, by leaving out parts of the issue to look for a solution later.

Congress also needs to stop deal-making and start legislating. We need to stop developing comprehensive bills and then marketing them as the only option. To me, comprehensive means incomprehensible. The larger a bill is, the harder it is to agree. And, of course, you can tuck some things in there that people never see. This is especially true when we pass a bill that no one has fully read and then afterwards we find out what is in it.

No party has all the good ideas. By working together, the end result should be something that not only works but moves the country forward in a responsible way.

We still need health care reform, but it has to be the right way, with strong bipartisan support on individual health care issues. What happened to individual choice on a policy? What happened to liability reform? What about the sale of insurance across State lines or pooling through an association so they have leverage against the insurance companies? What happened to adequate compensation for providers? All of these have been left out. Providing Americans with access to affordable health care at a high quality is something Republicans and Democrats should be able to agree upon.

The challenges of the American health care system are not going away. If we improve health care in a practical instead of a political way, we can make its better. Good policy is good politics. Why do I have some hope this is going to happen? Congress is more interested now than they have ever been, and the reason is there was a Republican--yes, there was one Republican provision in the bill that forced Congress to go into the exchanges too. We and our staffs have to live under the law we passed. That is how it should be. But the result is hitting everyone in their offices right now. Every Senator and every Representative is looking at what may happen to their staff on January 1, and their staffs are concerned. It has changed the tenor of some of the hearings we are having. It is pretty hard-hitting on both sides. So with that, I do have hope.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to talk about the status of the ongoing Finance Committee investigation into the targeting scandal at the Internal Revenue Service.

As you can tell, my voice is a bit hoarse this afternoon. I am feeling a little bit under the weather. With the Senate about to go into recess, I thought it was important that I say a few words about this investigation, particularly with some of the statements we have heard coming from the administration this week.

In May, when the news broke that the IRS had been targeting conservative organizations applying for tax-exempt status with additional scrutiny, President Obama promised his administration would fully cooperate with Congress in its investigations. He also stated he directed Treasury Secretary Lew to follow up on the IRS inspector general audit to get more information as to how this happened, who was responsible, to make sure the public understood all of the facts.

I was encouraged by this initial response. As you recall, I worked to clear the way for Secretary Lew's confirmation in this Senate, even though many of my colleagues had expressed legitimate concerns about his nomination. I did so, in large part, because I believed him when he promised to be fully transparent and cooperative with Congress. When the President said he had ordered the Secretary to get to the bottom of this, I expected him to live up to his promises to do so and to work with us as we tried to do the same.

Imagine my surprise then to hear both the President and Secretary Lew state over the past week, with our investigations into the IRS targeting, Congress was creating a ``phony scandal.''

It started with the President who said:

With this endless parade of distractions and political

posturing and phony scandals, Washington is taking its eye

off the ball. And I'm here to say, this needs to stop.

That is what the President said.

That was followed by Secretary Lew stating on last Sunday's shows this past weekend that ``there is no evidence that this went to any political official'' and that congressional investigators' efforts to find evidence is ``creating the kind of sense of a phony scandal.''

In essence, they are saying our efforts to look into this mess are illegitimate and that the American people should simply ignore them. That is a far cry from the position the President and his administration took when this scandal was made public. As I said at that time, they were contrite. Officials were even apologizing for what went on at the IRS.

Today, however, it is a ``phony scandal.'' It is not worthy of the public's attention, they say. I have to wonder what they are basing their dismissal on, certainly not a thorough review of all the relevant documents, that is for sure.

In a letter to congressional leaders on June 4, Danny Werfel, the Acting IRS Commissioner, stated that the IRS had collected some 646 gigabytes of raw, electronically stored information, which is equal to 65 million pages' worth of documents relevant to this investigation.

Let me repeat that. The man in charge, Danny Werfel, stated that the IRS had collected some 646 gigabytes of raw, electronically stored information, which is equal to 65 million pages' worth of documents relevant to this administration. However, to date, only about 21,500 pages have been given to us--21,500 pages of documents. Those are the only documents produced to the Finance Committee to fulfill our comprehensive document request from May 20 of this year. The pace at which documents have been provided to our committee has been slow and often with long delays in between document productions.

Despite their initial pledges to be cooperative and responsive, the Obama administration has been slow-walking the Senate Finance Committee. We aren't the only ones being slow-walked.

Only last week, my colleagues on the Ways and Means Committee, chairman Dave Camp and ranking member Sander Levin, wrote to Danny Werfel, who is currently the principal Deputy IRS Commissioner, that at the rate the IRS is producing documents, a full and responsive production will take months. It is actually much worse than that.

Let me refer to this pie chart. Look at the documents we received from the IRS, 6,000 pages of, guess what, training materials. Come on, give me a break. There were 500 pages of Steven Miller, Douglas Shulman, and William Wilkins, and 15,000 pages of nonpriority custodians. That is what we have gotten from them since May. It is pathetic.

As that chart illustrates, given the intermittent document production and the very small number of priority documents we have received thus far, it could be 2016 before we ever would be able to draw any conclusions about what happened at the IRS. That is pathetic. I have a feeling that is exactly what this administration wants, and that is what I call slow-walking.

Since the initial report confirming the inappropriate targeting released by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, or TIGTA, on May 14, this ``phony scandal'' has evolved from what the IRS first claimed was a couple of rogue employees in Cincinnati to direct IRS involvement from high-level officials in Washington, DC, including, at the very least, individuals in the IRS's Office of Chief Counsel.

I should note that the IRS Chief Counsel is also an Assistant General Counsel in the Treasury Department, and he reports to the Treasury's General Counsel. Clearly, much more needs to be learned about who was involved, why decisions were made, and what motivated these decisions.

This is why the Senate Finance Committee has been conducting a thorough, balanced, and fact-based bipartisan investigation that carefully examines every aspect of this in order to get to the truth.

We are not interested----

Yes.

That is right.

It may be beyond that. It may actually go beyond that.

You got that right.

I thank my colleague from Kansas. All I can say is: Look, we were promised full cooperation, and we are not getting it.

I don't blame Mr. Werfel for this, although he is a very close friend of Mr. Lew's. I think he has wanted to be more cooperative. When I chatted with him today again, he indicated the attorneys are going over everything. Let me just say, are we going to get the right papers? Are we going to get the truth?

We are not interested in some perceptions of the truth based on limited documents and limited facts. We wish to know precisely what happened, and we are going to find out.

Today, in addition to the small number of documents we have been able to review, the Finance Committee investigators have interviewed 14 individuals from IRS offices in both Cincinnati and Washington, DC. So far those interviews have yielded more questions than answers. In fact, the list of additional questions keeps growing as the investigation wears on.

After more than 2 months of investigation, here are just a few of the questions I have. I will not take too much of the Senate's time tonight, but I have a lot more questions than this, and I am going to ask these in a bipartisan manner.

Why did IRS Commissioner Shulman visit the White House 157 times? That is the number we have been given. That is unheard of. It has never happened before.

I admit ObamaCare has taken some time, but you can't justify 157 times. It sounds to me as if there is something fishy going on.

Why is it that the unions get tax-exempt status under 501(c)(5)? There was a surge in the 501(c)(5) applications in recent years. Why weren't they subject to some of the scrutiny?

Did the IRS give extra scrutiny to union applications for tax-exempt status? The answer to that is, no, they didn't.

I am not suggesting they should, but they certainly shouldn't have traded preelection of so-called conservative groups the way they treated them.

Everybody knows that is a scandal. Yet they call this not a scandal?

Once Deputy Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin learned from Inspector General Russell George of the TIGTA audit regarding IRS targeting of conservative groups on June 4, 2012, did he tell anyone else at the Treasury Department or the White House about his findings, including then-Treasury Secretary Geithner? Not that I can understand, because we don't know. They are not answering these questions.

When did Assistant General Counsel for Treasury William Wilkins, who also holds the title of IRS Chief Counsel, first find out that the IRS was targeting conservative groups? When did he find that out? Why can't we get a simple answer on that?

Whom did Mr. Wilkins inform about this targeting when he found out about it? What was the extent of the Treasury Department's role regarding Lois Lerner revealing, in response to a planted question, that the IRS had targeted conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status at an American Bar Association conference? When did any employee of the Treasury Department first have involvement regarding the IRS targeting of conservative groups' applications for tax-exempt status?

What was first date that any White House official was informed about the IRS targeting of conservative applicants for tax-exempt status?

It has been reported that ProPublica obtained private information from the IRS about conservative groups that had applied for tax-exempt status. In addition, it has been reported that the National Organization for Marriage alleges that the IRS illegally leaked information about its donors.

What action, if any, has been taken by the IRS and the Department of Justice with respect to any IRS employee who may have illegally disclosed private taxpayer information in either of these cases? These are important questions.

Are there other cases where a conservative group or its members have had their private taxpayer information unlawfully disclosed?

It has been reported that the IRS attempted to impose gift taxes on donors to the conservative group Freedom's Watch. Did the IRS attempt to impose gift taxes on the donors of other tax-exempt groups? Has the IRS targeted individuals for an audit of their personal tax returns based on their membership in or donations to a conservative tax-exempt group?

It has been reported that Lois Lerner communicated with an attorney at the Federal Election Commission regarding a case before the FEC.

Did Lois Lerner violate section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code dealing with the protection of taxpayer privacy in her communications with the Federal Election Commission? She had a right to take the Fifth Amendment, but was that why she took it if she violated section 6103?

These are questions that have to be answered. Why did Sarah Hall- Ingram, who was in charge of the IRS's efforts in implementing ObamaCare, attend a meeting with then-IRS Commissioner Steve Miller in May 2012 regarding the IRS's targeting of conservative groups' applications for tax-exempt status?

It has been reported in the media that Christine O'Donnell had a tax lien put on her property the day she declared her candidacy for the Senate.

There is something wrong here. Anybody who is fair ought to be concerned about what is wrong here--not just this but in all these questions.

As part of the IRS internal investigation the President charged Secretary Lew with conducting, has the IRS examined whether any political candidates were inappropriately targeted?

Much has been made of the employees who have been ``relieved of duty'' and had ``administrative actions'' taken against them, allegedly in direct response to the inappropriate targeting. Once again, the facts do not add up, as the administrative actions discovered thus far were against low-level employees for actions that were not directly tied to the allegations of inappropriate targeting.

So my question is, Who was relieved of duty? Lois Lerner supposedly was after she took the Fifth Amendment and refused to testify. But even she was able to log in to her computer after being allegedly relieved, and she is still being paid her full salary.

Who else has been relieved of duty? What does Lois Lerner know that prompted her to invoke her Fifth Amendment right against self- incrimination?

Former IRS Commissioner Steve Miller and Doug Shulman were both aware of the targeting of conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status and the systematic practice of subjecting those

conservative groups to intrusive and unwarranted scrutiny about their activities. Why did they both deceive the Senate by failing to inform us that these practices were going on? Why? I was disappointed in Commissioner Shulman because he came to my office long before this all came up and I was quite impressed. But I think he had an obligation to come clean.

Why did the tea party cases sit for months at the IRS, through the 2010 election cycle without activity? Why? Why did Lois Lerner direct the IRS Chief Counsel's Office--an office that was purportedly slow in its response to requests for assistance from other IRS components--to get involved in reviewing tea party cases? Why did the IRS demand that tea party organizations seeking tax-exempt status provide a list of their donors to the IRS when that was not required? Why?

These types of inappropriate actions, as I said, are just some of the many questions we have about the IRS targeting scam. These questions will simply not go away, and our investigation will not stop until all of them are answered. And we are doing this in a bipartisan way.

Just today we learned President Obama has selected a new nominee to serve as the next Commissioner of the IRS. I have to say I was a bit surprised, although perhaps I really shouldn't be. Given the dark cloud that currently hangs over the IRS, I would have thought the President would have taken the time to consult Congress before choosing the agency's next leader. Yet I am the ranking member of the appropriate committee with sole jurisdiction over the IRS, and today's announcement is the first I have heard of this decision, and it was only after the decision was made. I like the President. I think we are friends. But that was improper, and it was a slight that should not have happened.

I asked Senator Baucus if he was informed by the President, and he said: About 3 hours ago. And he sounded a little disgusted himself.

I won't go into the merits of John Koskinen's nomination today. I have no intention of prejudging him. He will be fairly considered by the Finance Committee, and I have the reputation that he will be fairly considered. His record and qualifications will be thoroughly examined. But I want to assure my colleagues that I will demand significant answers from Mr. Koskinen when he comes before the committee, and I think other Republicans will as well.

My purpose will be twofold. First, we need to get to the truth about what happened at the IRS and, perhaps just as important, we need to make sure the Obama administration is fully cooperating with our efforts rather than using phony statements about phony scandals.

So today I want to call on President Obama and Secretary Lew to stop closing the door on this investigation that has just started and hasn't even been given a chance. If this is indeed a phony scandal, the burden is on them to prove it is. And just saying that it is isn't good enough. They should have the IRS produce all the requested documents and let the documents speak for themselves. There is no reason to hide these things, nor is there a reason to have a whole bunch of attorneys determining what can be released and what can't be released. Let them show how their partisan targeting began and why it continued for years. Let them show who was or was not involved and to what level within the IRS or elsewhere in government these activities were discussed and directed. Until then, this is certainly not a phony scandal. It is a legitimate bipartisan investigation being conducted in a fair and balanced way that seeks to let the facts dictate the outcome.

I have a reputation around here for being fair and honest, and I resent the way the Finance Committee is being treated. I can't speak for the chairman, but I believe he feels pretty much the same way because we are being mistreated with regard to our requests for information. This isn't some itty-bitty phony scandal. This is big-time stuff that should get into why the IRS was doing this to begin with.

People in this country are scared to death of the IRS, and with good reason. If they can do this to you, can you imagine what else they can do? And I have listed just a few things here today. I have a lot more I could say. This is an important investigation, and Senator Baucus and I intend to do it in a bipartisan way. But when we ask for documents, we want documents, and we don't want some bunch of partisan lawyers in the department stopping us from getting the documents they must provide. It sure looks as though they are deliberately trying to delay this as long as they can so they can say: Well, nobody cares about it. Well, I have to tell you, everybody in this country must care about it. If they can do this to these small, conservative tax-exempt organizations, then they can do it to every other organization when the time comes.

This is an important investigation, and this administration ought to be at the forefront of trying to get to the bottom of it instead of pulling from behind, saying there is nothing here when they know there is a lot here. I would like these questions answered. They are important questions. This is an important investigation. We should not allow the IRS to run rampant like this. That is the beginning of tyranny--except it began before 2010--and we should get to the bottom of it so it never, ever happens again.

I think there are a lot of people at the IRS who would like to see us get to the bottom of it because they are being besmirched by the bad things that have happened. There are a lot of decent, honorable people working at the IRS, and they have to be as concerned as I am about the mistreatment that occurred prior to the last election and after.

Is it going to happen again? Are these agencies of government going to be used by partisan people in the way they has been used up until now? It is enough to scare the daylights out of anybody, and it is enough to think, are we moving toward a totalitarian system where the people in government can get away with anything they want to and especially an agency as powerful and scary as the IRS? I hope we can get the answers to these questions. If we can't, this isn't going to stop until we do. And these are just preliminary questions; I will come back with some more in the coming weeks.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I would like to share some remarks about the economic condition of American workers, the immigration bill that passed here recently, and in general about where we are as a Nation and the difficulties we are facing.

I think there is a growing acceptance by most experts that we have, indeed, seen a decline in the wages of the middle-class and working Americans relative to inflation since maybe as long ago as 1999--a steady erosion of their income relative to the price of products they buy. That is not a healthy trend.

President Obama talked about it, our Democratic colleagues talked about it a lot when President Bush was President. But it has continued. I thought maybe it was an aberration, but I do not think so anymore. I think a lot of things are happening with robotics, ObamaCare, other things that are happening, that are making it more difficult for workers to find jobs--unemployment remains exceedingly high--and to have wage increases.

One of the things I noticed this week from the Republican side of the aisle is that Congress received two letters--one from Republican donors, according to some, and another from CEOs--urging that Congress act on immigration. This is primarily to the House Members.

Nearly 100 top Republican donors, they called themselves, and Bush administration officials sent a letter to the House Republicans on Tuesday urging lawmakers to pass a bill that legalizes illegal immigrants. The donor letter came the same day the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and 400 other businesses and umbrella groups fired off another letter to the House leaders of both parties urging them to pass something.

One word was not mentioned in either one of those letters: Wages. Nor was any discussion of jobs and unemployment raised in those letters.

Mr. Karl Rove--a man I know and like and a long-time friend--and these groups would have us believe this legislation is about the providing of amnesty to people who have been here a long time. That certainly is a large part of it. Businesses know that legalizing illegal workers will, indeed, expand the available labor pool for industries with the effect, I suggest, of bringing down wages, particularly in the areas where illegal workers might have previously not had access. So of the 11 million people, perhaps half, we understand, do not have fake documents, are not able to work in the labor force, effectively, and they take marginal jobs. If this bill were to pass, all would immediately be given Social Security Numbers, and they could apply to any job in America.

That is both a good thing and a difficult thing. It is good that they would be able to work. It is not so good if you wanted one of the jobs that would be taken.

But there is a phrase in the letter which has gotten too little attention and which explains what this is all about. Mr. Rove and the donors say, the legislation must ``provide a legal way for U.S.-based companies to hire the workers they need.''

So we are supposed to pass a law that guarantees American companies the right to hire whoever they need, whoever they say they need, whoever they believe is best for them. That means the best worker at the lowest price. That is what free markets are all about. That is what the law of supply and demand is all about. It has not been repealed, by the way, the law of supply and demand.

First and foremost, that cannot be the goal of an immigration policy of the United States of America. It cannot be the overriding policy of our system to provide and to make sure that whatever workers our companies want at whatever price, apparently, they are willing to pay or want to pay--that we allow workers to come in from abroad and take those jobs, regardless of the unemployment rate in America, regardless of the number of people who are on welfare, on unemployment compensation, who have not had a good paycheck in a number of years, perhaps.

Our responsibility and our goal is to serve the people of this country and to try to create a climate, an economic agenda that allows them to prosper and to actually find jobs and actually get pay raises, not pay reductions.

Of course, there is already a legal way for U.S.-based companies to hire workers they need. They can hire the people living here today who are unemployed. Or they can hire some of the million-plus immigrants whom we lawfully admit each year. We have a very generous immigration policy. No one is talking about ending that and not allowing immigration to continue. We allow about 1.1 million immigrants a year come to America lawfully, plus guest workers who come specifically to work. That is very generous. But this bill would double the number of guest workers and increase substantially the number of people who come through immigration to become permanent residents in our country, at a time of high unemployment--much higher unemployment than we had in 2007. That bill would have allowed much fewer people to come into the country, and it was rejected by the American people.

No one is saying these programs cannot and should not exist, and that they should not be improved. But I am afraid the businesses want the choicest pick of labor at the lowest cost they can get it. That is what businesses do. That is what businesses want every day. When they go out and interview people, they want the best person they can get at the least cost. That is what their stockholders demand. So they believe the immigration policy for the entire Nation should exist to create an abundance of low-cost labor. I do not agree with that.

They, in their bubble they live in, think lower wages are good. You hear

about it: There are concerns over rising wages. It might drive up prices, you hear the Wall Street Journal say.

Well, maybe some politicians think that way too. They are not concerned with how the plan impacts workers, the immigrants themselves, public resources, the education system, or taxpayer dollars. They are not focused on the broader economic and social concerns that happen when someone is not able to get a job for years at a decent wage. The focus tends to be on the reduction of the cost of labor.

But America has a larger concern. That concern is unemployment. It is workplace participation. It is wages. And it is the cost of social services to those in need. We all agree we must make America more competitive globally. Workers must be productive and competitive. But how do we close the income gap? How do we deal with that?

The best way to do that is not to reduce our wages and workers' quality of life. The way to do that is with a less burdensome Tax Code, a less intrusive regulatory system, and a tougher, smarter, fair trade policy. These policies would make us more competitive and help wages and working conditions improve.

So when these business voices and establishment figures say the GOP needs to support a comprehensive immigration bill, what they are really saying is the GOP and the Congress of both parties--which in the Senate, of course, a minority of Republicans voted for the bill, and every single Democrat voted for the bill. They would have done the things I am concerned about.

Now they are worried about the Republican House and they are trying to put the pressure on them. What they are saying is, we need to increase low-skill immigration, when we do not have enough jobs now. The Senate bill, based on CBO analysis, would provide legal status to 46 million people--mostly lower skilled immigrants--by 2033--46 million. Here is what the National Review editorialized on the subject:

By more than doubling the number of so-called guest workers

admitted each year, the bill would help create a permanent

underclass of foreign workers. The 2007 Bush-Kennedy proposal

was rejected in part because it would have added 125,000 new

guest workers. The Gang of Eight bill--The one we just passed

in the Senate--would add 1.6 million in the first year, and

about 600,000 a year after that and that is on top of a 50

percent or more increase in the total level of legal

immigration. The creation of a large population of second-

class workers is undesirable from the point of view of the

American national interest, which should be our guiding force

in this matter. The United States is a nation with an

economy, not an economy with a nation.

This Nation owes certain things to its citizens, the people who are here now. We have a lot--300 million--and many of them are hurting. We owe them the best opportunity--owe them the best opportunity--to be successful and have a decent job with increasing wages, not declining.

Here is what conservative writer Yuval Levin wrote in a recent op-ed. I am saying this because these are conservative writers.

The Left's economic policies (and the legacy of decades of

right-wing confusion about the difference between being pro-

market and being pro-business too) are making the American

economy less and less like the vision of capitalism that

conservatives should want to defend. They should consider

what now would be best for the cause of growth and

prosperity--the cause of free markets and free people.

Capitalism is fundamentally democratic, after all--we today

might say fundamentally populist and recovering this

understanding of conservative economics would help today's

Republicans see an enormous public need, and an enormous

political opportunity, they tend to miss, and to which

conservatism could be very usefully applied. It would point

to a conservative agenda to help working families better

afford life in the middle class, and to give more Americans a

chance to rise.

So this is, I guess, directed--too late now to deal with the Senate. It passed the Senate, but not too late to deal with in the House, which does have a Republican majority. If Members of Congress want to broaden their appeal, the answer lies in speaking to the real and legitimate concerns of millions of hurting Americans whose wages have declined and whose job prospects have diminished.

The New York Times talked about this in 2000. They forgot about all of this now. But in 2000, they editorialized against an amnesty bill, what they called a ``hasty call for amnesty'' and warned that ``between about 1980 and 1995 the gap between wages of high school dropouts and all other workers widened substantially.'' That is what the New York Times said then. It remains true.

Professor George Borjas, himself an immigrant to America as a young man from Cuba, now at Harvard, perhaps the most effective and knowledgeable and respected scholar of wages and immigration in the world, certainly in the United States, estimates--get this--that 40 percent, almost half, of the trend downward in wages today can be traced to immigration from unskilled workers. Businesses do not have to bid up salaries to get good workers if you constantly have a flow of people come in.

That data he reported has been updated. High levels of low-skilled immigration between 1980 and 2000--and those levels would be greatly increased if this bill that passed the Senate were to become law--have already reduced wages of native workers without a high school diploma by 8 percent, according to Professor Borjas. He has analyzed Labor Department statistics, census data, and all kinds of data, according to the highest academic standards.

Professor Borjas said their wages have fallen from 1980 to 2000 by 8 percent in real dollars as a result of the current flow of immigration. So that is about $250 a month. You think that does not make a difference to working Americans and their families, to lose $250 a month?

Oh, we do not want to talk about that. That is not a problem. The immigration bill will increase wages, we are told. Professor Borjas said it has already reduced wages enough to be very painful to people who are trying to take care of their families today. Wages continue to fall.

This is not only an economic problem, but it is a social problem. The idea that dramatically increasing the number of foreign workers to take a limited number of American jobs will reduce unemployment and raise wages is so ridiculous it is hard to think it worth discussing. The very idea of this is beyond my comprehension. Yet we have the President out there today sending out documents claiming just the opposite--the President of the United States. The law of supply and demand has not been eliminated. Wages today are lower than in 1999. Median household income has declined 8 percent in that time. Some 47 million of our residents are on food stamps today, including 1 in 3 households in Detroit. According to the Associated Press, four out of five U.S. adults struggle with joblessness, near poverty, or reliance on welfare.

There is no shortage of labor in the United States. There is a shortage of jobs in the United States. Our goal must be to help our struggling Americans move from dependency to being independent, to help them find steady jobs and rising pay, not declining pay. Our policy cannot be to simply relegate more and more of our citizens to dependence on the government while importing a steady stream of foreign workers to take the available jobs. That is not in the interest of our country or the people of this country.

Some contend our unemployed do not have the needed skills. Well, let's train them. We now spend over $750 billion a year on means-tested welfare-assistance type programs. That is the largest item in the budget, bigger than Social Security, bigger than defense, bigger than Medicare. Of that amount, for every $100 we spend on those programs, we only spend $1 on job training. So we need to wake up here. We need to quit paying people not to work, quit delivering money that creates dependence, and shift our policies in a way that puts people to work and gets them trained to take the jobs that are here today.

As we leave for recess, my message to my colleagues in the House is this: Do the right thing. Make your priority restoring the rule of law, defending working Americans, and helping those struggling, immigrant and native born.

People who immigrate here lawfully want to go to work here and see their wages rise too. Their wages are being pulled down if the flow of immigration is too large. It is amazing to me how the coalition has been put together. Some of the comments about it kind of take my breath away.

Here is what the President said today in his paper, claiming that everything

is going to be great with this huge increase of immigration that was in the bill he wants to see passed in the House. This is their report. The broader leisure and hospitality industry, one of the fastest growing sectors in the U.S. economy, also stands to benefit significantly from commonsense immigration reform.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the leisure and hospitality industry has consistently added jobs over the last 3 years. These sectors remain a source of robust economic activity and continue to exceed expectations. Leaders of these industries have been long-time proponents of legislation that would legalize workers in the United States and facilitate the lawful employment of future foreign-born workers.

The head of the American Hotel and Lodging Association this year applauded the Senate--I bet he did--on behalf of the lodging industry for its bipartisan commitment to immigration reform that ``creates jobs, boosts travel and tourism, preserves hoteliers' access to a strong seasonal workforce, and stimulates economic growth.''

Well, sure. He would rather be able to have a large flow of workers from abroad take the jobs. What happens to the Americans who are not getting jobs? Are they on the food stamp rolls, the assistance rolls? Are they on unemployment compensation? Are they otherwise struggling to get by with government assistance? Would it not be better for our Americans to have those jobs?

I mean, think about it, the President of the United States out here celebrating special interests, hotel magnates, casino magnates who want cheap foreign labor so they do not have to hire American workers who are unemployed. That is what we are talking about. I think it is time for the Republicans to stand up to the Republican 100 donors writing that letter. Give me a break. We need to reject their advice and the premise of their letter that the public policy of the United States should be based on giving U.S. companies a legal basis for hiring all the low-cost foreign workers they say they need.

They are not entitled to demand that. We are supposed to set national policy here. We are supposed to set policy that serves the national interest. We do not work for those donors and special interests. So the national interest is to reduce unemployment, certainly, and to create rising wages. That is our responsibility in this body. Let's get on with it.

I want to say how great it is to see my friend Senator Enzi. I am taking up his time. I hope I have not kept him too late. He works late anyway. But he has been a great principled supporter of immigration reform and is opposed to the bill that came before us. I thank the Senator for his work on so many of these issues but immigration reform is on my mind today. It is great to see the Senator.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 145, H.R. 2668. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, without intervening action or debate, and the motion to reconsider be made and laid upon the table.

Madam President, let me address the first consent I offered, which was objected to. Last month the administration announced it would delay ObamaCare's employer mandate on business. It is not hard to see why they wanted to do that. We keep reading about why businesses large and small will have little option but to cut employee hours and paychecks as ObamaCare comes on line, about how restaurants such as White Castle, for example, are considering hiring only part-time workers moving forward, about how small businesses are citing ObamaCare as a top worry.

I think there are a lot of Members on this side who would question the legality of what the President did. But with midterm elections on the horizon, it is no mystery why the administration would want to delay the law for businesses, considering how many jobs it is likely to kill, how many paychecks it is likely to slash. Here is the thing, though: Don't families and individuals deserve the same kind of relief? I believe they do. I do not believe it is fair to give a break to business and leave Americans out in the cold.

Recently we learned that Ohioans buying health insurance next year can expect about a 40-percent premium increase. Next door, in Indiana, costs could rise by more than 70 percent. Some Georgians could face a nearly 200-percent premium spike. In my home State of Kentucky, actuaries are predicting cost increases that could exceed 30 percent. Remember, the President said costs would go down, that ObamaCare was the Affordable Care Act.

Millions face the prospect of losing the insurance they like and want to keep, which again is not what the President promised. That is why I have asked the Senate to pass H.R. 2668. This legislation passed the House on a strong bipartisan vote with nearly 2 dozen Democrats supporting it and it would delay some of ObamaCare's most burdensome mandates for everyone.

Shortly after its passage in the House my colleagues and I called on the majority leader to bring it to the floor for a vote. Those calls were unheeded. So I am disappointed to hear that some of our friends on the other side have objected to this vote as well. I do not understand, frankly, why they would want to leave Americans out in the cold. I note that Members on this side are united in our belief that at the very least Americans deserve the same relief as businesses do. So we will all be supporting this commonsense bipartisan bill if we have a chance to vote on it.

You would think this is a principle Members of the body would support unanimously. If it is OK for businesses, why not for individuals? Unfortunately, objection has been heard and we will not get an opportunity to have the same break for the average American citizen as the administration is giving through executive action to businesses. It is a shame, but that is where we are going into the August recess.

I yield the floor.

Honoring our Armed Forces PRIVATE FIRST CLASS DUSTIN P. NAPIER

Madam President, it is with sorrow that I rise to pay tribute to a young man from Kentucky who gave his life in service to our country. PFC Dustin P. Napier of London, KY, died on January 8, 2012, in Zabul Province, Afghanistan while in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. The cause of death was injuries sustained from small- arms fire. PFC Napier was 20 years old.

For his service in uniform, PFC Napier received several awards, medals, and decorations, including the Bronze Star Medal, the Army Achievement Medal, the Army Good Conduct Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, the Afghanistan Campaign Medal with Bronze Service Star, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, the Army Service Ribbon, the Overseas Service Ribbon, the NATO Medal, the Combat Infantryman Badge, and the Overseas Service Bar.

Dustin's father Darrell Napier says of his son, ``He was born in an Army hospital, and I'm sure he ended up dying in an Army hospital. He was my hero. Please pray for us.''

Dustin was born in an Army hospital because he followed his father's example of military service. Darrell Napier served in the U.S. Army from 1989 to 1994, and was stationed in Germany and Fort Polk, LA. Dustin, the youngest of Darrell's three sons, knew from an early age he wanted a military career.

``He'd been wanting to do that since he was a little boy, about when he was six years old,'' Darrell recalls. ``I encouraged him to do so. And he was a leader. He'd take the initiative to get things done. I've always raised my boys to do the right thing, no matter if the cause was popular or unpopular.''

By the time he reached high school, Dustin was a top cadet in his Junior ROTC program. ``I remember him as a model student, very quiet and serious. You always knew where he stood,'' says Colonel Mark Jones of the Air Force Junior ROTC program at South Laurel High School, Dustin's alma mater.

Dustin rose to be his Junior ROTC unit's corps commander and the most decorated cadet.

News of PFC Napier's loss shook many who remembered him at South

Laurel High, where Dustin graduated in 2010 and had many friends. ``When I . . . heard he died, my legs almost collapsed. It was unbelievable. He was a good friend, a good mentor, and truly a good person,'' says Devan Burkhart, a South Laurel student.

``I learned from him. He was the one who would tell me, `Stick with it,' when I got frustrated with the program, and I did stick with it.''

Steven Cheek, one of Dustin's best friends and a high-school classmate, recalls the fun he and Dustin had shooting rifles, going to ball games, watching movies, and listening to music. Dustin's favorite group was the Doors. Other friends remember Dustin loved to play the air guitar.

After graduating from South Laurel High in May 2010, Dustin joined the U.S. Army in July and completed basic training at Fort Benning, GA. In April 2011, he was deployed to Afghanistan with C Company, 1st Battalion, 24th Infantry Regiment, 25th Infantry Division, based out of Fort Wainwright, AK.

Darrell Napier recalls that Dustin would call home from Afghanistan every now and then. ``He did miss home a lot,'' Darrell says. ``He loved to hang out with his friends very much. He missed his friends at Save-A-Lot, where he worked for almost four years. And if there was one meal Dustin really loved from his mother, it was her chicken and dumplings.''

Dustin also found happiness thousands of feet in the air, while on R&R. It was in an airplane that he met Tabitha Sturgill Napier, who he married in October 2011.

Remembering her husband, Tabitha says, ``You are my very best friend and I love you very, very, very much. You are an amazing husband.''

A few days after his death, friends and classmates held a memorial service for Dustin at South Laurel High School. His friends from his old Junior ROTC unit thought it only fitting to hold the service where Dustin had served as such a fine example to past, present, and future cadets. Outside the school, the American flag stood at half-mast.

``Cadet Napier came here with a purpose from start to finish, from the first fall-in to the last fall-out,'' says CMSgt Randy Creech of Junior ROTC.

We are thinking of PFC Napier's loved ones today, including his wife, Tabitha Sturgill Napier; his parents, Darrell and Marianne Napier; his brother, Darrell Dean Napier; his stepbrother, Christopher Bittner; his stepson, Lane Robison; his grandmother, Monika Paul; his grandfather, James Napier; and many other beloved friends and family members.

I know that no words spoken in this chamber can take away the sadness and loss that Dustin's family must feel. But I do want them to know that this Nation, and this United States Senate, are deeply grateful for Private First Class Dustin P. Napier's service and sacrifice. And we are humbled to pay tribute to his life and legacy.

Burma

Madam President, today I rise to discuss U.S. policy toward the Southeast Asian nation of Burma.

In a little over 2\1/2\ half years, the world has witnessed dramatic change in Burma; change that would have been thought unimaginable not long ago. Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has been released from house arrest and now sits in parliament. Hundreds of political prisoners have been released from prison. A largely free and fair by-election was held in April 2012. Ceasefires have been signed between the central government and several ethnic minority groups.

Yet, despite these welcome reforms, much work remains to be done. At the heart of Burma's existing problems is the need for constitutional reform. The current flawed constitution is not up to the task of supporting the country's democratic ambitions. Simply put, if Burma is to take the next big step toward economic and political reform and toward fully normalizing its relations with the United States, it needs to revise its constitution.

And there has been some encouraging news on that front. Just last week the Burmese parliament announced it would establish a committee to examine amending the constitution. This provides a great opportunity for the Burmese leadership to follow through on its commitment to full democratization.

As this parliamentary panel begins its efforts, I would highlight four areas of the constitution that are, in my view, in particular need of reform.

The first area of reform is the need to bring the Burmese military, called the Tatmadaw, under civilian control. Civilian control of the military is a fundamental condition of a stable, modern democratic country. Many of the stubborn problems Burma still needs to address stem from the continued outsized role of the military in Burmese political life. For example, Burma continues to maintain military ties with North Korea. Indications are that elements within the Burmese military want to continue enjoying the financial benefits of continued relations with North Korea.

The unfortunate result is that Burma's pro-reform president Thein Sein cannot formally rein in the Tatmadaw since, under the Constitution, the president is not head of the armed forces. A separate military Commander in Chief leads the armed forces and he is independent of the president.

Another example of the problems stemming from the lack of civilian control of the military is the tense state of relations between the armed forces and the Kachin ethnic group. The Kachin in northern Burma share a proud history with the United States stemming from our close cooperation during World War II. Ending the conflict in Kachin state-- and all other ethnic conflicts for that matter--is essential to achieving lasting peace, reconciliation and security in Burma after 60 years of civil war.

In Europe recently, President Thein Sein predicted that a national ceasefire was right around the corner. And a peace process led by one of his close ministers has been ongoing. However, military clashes continue in northern Shan state as well as in Kachin state. The Tatmadaw has every right to protect itself, but, without transparency and civilian oversight, questions remain about the extent to which military operations have conformed with the President's guidance and intentions.

Without ending its relationship with Pyongyang and without building peace with the Kachin and other ethnic nationalities, U.S.-Burmese relations will not become fully normalized. Without the military accepting civilian oversight and demonstrating a commitment to peace, our military relationship will likewise be limited. Such a result would be to the detriment of both countries.

Having U.S. diplomats continue to urge Burma to amend its Constitution to bring the military under civilian control is important. But there are other policy tools that I believe can help reform the Tatmadaw. I believe that beginning a modest military-to-military relationship would serve this purpose. Just to be clear. I am not advocating rushing into lethal training of the Burmese military or arms sales. What I am talking about is the U.S. armed forces engaging with the Tatmadaw on compliance with the law of armed conflict, and other issues related to international standards of military professionalism.

What better way is there to show the virtues of civilian control of the military than to have the most highly regarded armed forces in the world--the U.S. military--engaged with the Tatmadaw about respect for human rights, accountability and rule of law? I believe that a modest, targeted military-to-military relationship would work hand in glove with diplomatic efforts to convince the Burmese military that placing themselves under civilian control is good for the nation.

Beginning a military-to-military relationship is common sense. Since before independence, the Burmese military has been a significant political institution in the country. And no lasting reform in Burma can take place without convincing the Tatmadaw that such a step is a positive development for the country.

A second area of needed constitutional reform involves amending the constitution to permit the Burmese people to choose freely whom they want to serve as their leader. This is a fundamental democratic principle. Current restrictions include a requirement that no one in the President's immediate family can be a citizen born to parents who were not born in Burma.

Just think about that. That's a remarkably narrow requirement. Why does the Burmese government have so little faith in the ability of its citizens to freely and responsibly choose their own leaders?

These provisions, if left unamended, would cast a pall over the upcoming 2015 elections. And, those elections are viewed by many observers as the next high-profile step in Burma's reform efforts. If the 2015 elections are viewed as illegitimate, it will lead many to conclude that reform efforts have stalled in Burma and the country's stated commitment to democracy is hollow.

I think having the 2015 elections turn out to be flawed would cloud the reformist legacy of the current national leadership.

A third area of needed reform in this regard is judicial independence. Currently, the Burmese judiciary is not independent of the executive. As we ourselves have learned from experience in America, having judges who are not under the thumb of the other branches is not only a vital check on the other organs of government, but also a bulwark against violations of individual rights.

Finally, there need to be constitutional assurances for ethnic minorities. Burma faces no greater challenge than peacefully integrating its various ethnic groups. These groups have long harbored misstrust of the central government and the Tatmadaw. Building protections for ethnic minorities into the Constitution would, I suspect, go a long way toward making the ethnic groups more receptive to the new government. Such provisions would also be underscored by an independent judiciary to help enforce these protections.

As we know as Americans, amending a Constitution is not easy, nor should it be. But over the years, we in this country have amended our Constitution to make it more democratic and to provide greater protection of individual liberties.

Reforming the Burmese Constitution in areas such as the four I just raised is a necessary next step in Burma's own journey toward democracy and peaceful, national reconciliation.

There is still time for Burma to act ahead of the 2015 election and correct these problems. I urge the country's leadership to seize the moment, to take this vital step and to cement its reformist legacy.

Madam President, last week in Illinois President Obama attempted to blame opponents of the ObamaCare for the law's broken promises. He lashed out at what he called ``folks out there who are actively working to make this law fail.'' Those were his words. He further said: ``[A] politically motivated misinformation campaign'' is afoot. He strongly implied that fault rests not with those who conceived the law but those who have not, in his estimation, ``committed themselves to making [it] work.''

Think about it a minute. This flailing, of course, was nothing more than an effort by President Obama to dodge and deflect accountability for the law that bears his name. Let's be real. ObamaCare is not a failure because so many Americans reject it, rather so many Americans reject ObamaCare because it is a failure. I believe we should focus on what truly matters.

Americans are growing increasingly anxious about how the law will affect them and their families. They wonder what it will mean for health insurance and tax bills. They wonder whether they will be able to get the care they need when they need it. They wonder whether the quality of American health care will remain the best in the world and, yes, they wonder how a government reorganization of one-sixth of the economy will impact a weak jobs market. Unfortunately, neither the outset nor the outlook provides consolation.

President Obama has frequently sought to downplay the debacle surrounding the rollout of his health care law. He says ``that glitches and bumps'' are to be expected. But as the Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberly Strassel notes, the Democrats didn't ``count on the hiccups turning into cardiac arrest,'' and that is what happened.

Since the enactment of ObamaCare, a laundry list of unworkable provisions has been repealed or delayed. But recently the administration announced two particularly notable delays.

First, the administration will delay implementation of the law's employer mandate until 2015 because workable

reporting requirements are not yet in place. This provision requires all employers in this country with more than 50 employees to provide adequate health care coverage for full-time employees, defined as those employed at least 30 hours per week or pay a penalty. In anticipation of this mandate many employers are cutting back hours for current workers and holding off on hiring new ones.

I welcome any relief from ObamaCare for anyone in this country, but why should such relief not apply to individuals and families as well as businesses? If the administration hasn't gotten its act together by now, what leads us to believe it ever will? Instead of temporarily delaying part of ObamaCare for some, I believe the best course would be to permanently delay all of it for everyone.

The administration also recently announced postponement of a critical taxpayer protection under ObamaCare. Taxpayers were previously told the government would verify that applicants actually qualify for subsidies before receiving them. Now the administration says it is not ready to do that until 2015, although it will still go ahead with enrollment in the program in 2014. So for the coming year, the Obama administration will trust but not verify anything. The honor system, I believe, is no taxpayer protection.

These are not run-of-the-mill glitches and bumps, as the President would say. These provisions are central to the legislation and may foreshadow major problems to come, as we find out every day. These provisions are unworkable or problematic not because people don't like them but because they were poorly designed. This isn't about a lack of commitment on behalf of those forced to comply with these mandates. Rather, it is about a lack of confidence on behalf of those who conceived and crafted these provisions.

In light of the disastrous rollout of ObamaCare, Americans are also apprehensive about the cost--yes, the cost. How will all of this impact their health insurance premiums? What will be the tax burden? What will a new entitlement program do to our $17 trillion debt, which is growing?

With respect to premiums, President Obama told the American people his health care overhaul ``could save families $2,500 in the coming years.'' Those were his words. But despite this bold claim, health insurance premiums for the average American family have increased over $3,000 since 2008, and this is according to the Kaiser Family Foundation Employer Health Benefit Survey, which is very well respected.

Moreover, a recent Wall Street Journal analysis finds that premiums for healthy consumers could double or even triple under ObamaCare. Can we imagine that?

Although ObamaCare has not decreased premiums, it has certainly increased taxes. According to the Congressional Budget Office--CBO--and the Joint Committee on Taxation, ObamaCare imposes a $1 trillion tax hike on the American economy over just the first 10 years--a $1 trillion tax hike. Their analysis finds 21 tax hikes in ObamaCare due to the law's various mandates and restrictions. Among these, several affect individuals making less than $200,000 and married couples making less than $250,000--a clear violation of President Obama's often repeated campaign promise not to do so.

Despite this massive tax hike, ObamaCare will still add $6.2 trillion--yes, $6.2 trillion--to the debt in the years ahead. This is based on the Government Accountability Office projections. This clearly violates yet another promise by the President that he would ``not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficit--either now or in the future.'' Goodness.

I believe ObamaCare will not only fail to control costs but will also destroy the best quality health care in the world--ours. Why do I say this? In 2009, Dr. Martin Feldstein, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Reagan and a Harvard professor, wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal entitled ``ObamaCare Is All About Rationing.'' He backed up his statement by citing a report issued by President Obama's own Council of Economic Advisers which explained how the President would propose to reduce health spending by eliminating certain treatments--by rationing.

Dr. Feldstein went on to compare the Obama strategy to that of the British national health service. He concluded the existence of such a program in the United States would not only deny lifesaving care but would also cast a pall over medical researchers who would fear that government experts might project their discoveries as ``too expensive.''

Think of the implications of rationing health care. What does it mean for a patient sitting in the doctor's office when they get a life- changing diagnosis? I know that feeling. I have been there. It reassured me to know we have the best health care in the world and that everything possible would be done to save my life. I want others who encounter that situation to have the same reassurance. But will they?

Despite what President Obama may say, it is not just Republicans who have deep concerns about health care. This week, on the same Wall Street Journal opinion pages, Howard Dean, a former Democratic National Committee chairman and Governor, as well as a physician, concurred with Dr. Feldstein. Mr. Dean wrote that ObamaCare's independent payment advisory board--IPAB--``is essentially a health care rationing body.'' By setting doctor reimbursement rates for Medicare and determining which procedures and drugs will be covered and at what price, the IPAB will be able to stop certain treatments its members do not favor by simply setting rates to levels where no doctor or hospital will perform them. That was the plan.

Mr. Dean went on to say, ``These kinds of schemes do not control costs. The medical system simply becomes more bureaucratic.''

We all know now ObamaCare is a bureaucratic nightmare. With more than 20,000 pages of new rules and regulations, the law expands government to an unprecedented level, creating 159 new boards, commissions, and government offices. Think of it.

Adding to these concerns, Deloitte's 2013 Survey of U.S. Physicians finds that due to recent developments in health care, ``the future of the medical profession as we know it may be in jeopardy as it loses clinical autonomy and compensation.'' The survey by Deloitte also found that ``6 in 10 physicians''--6 in 10--``say it is likely that many physicians will retire earlier than planned in the next 1 to 3 years.''

Again, sitting in that doctor's office, I remember breathing a little easier to know we have not only the most advanced treatments but also the most skilled and experienced physicians in the world. We don't want to jeopardize that, do we?

In addition to concerns about the quality of care, the Obama administration has backtracked on still another of the President's promises. In 2009, he stated unambiguously: ``If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period.'' The President's words.

Despite this pledge, the Department of Health and Human Services, under the Obama administration, recently posted the following on healthcare.gov: ``Depending on the plan you choose in the marketplace, you may be able to keep your current doctor.'' It says ``may'' be able to keep your doctor. That is not what the President told the American people.

A University of Chicago study underscores this finding that more than half of current individual insurance plans do not meet ObamaCare's standard to be sold on the exchanges. So much for that ironclad promise.

But there is another area: ObamaCare is a job killer. How will ObamaCare affect jobs? In President Obama's recent Illinois speech I mentioned earlier, he made the following curious statement about Republicans and job creation: ``They'll bring up ObamaCare despite the fact that our businesses have created nearly twice as many jobs in this recovery as they had at the same point in the last recovery when there was no ObamaCare.''

This is a non sequitur. At a minimum, President Obama implied that ObamaCare has not hurt job creation. At worst, he implied it has helped.

In stark contrast, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's second quarter 2013 Small Business Survey in America finds that ``71 percent of small businesses--and that is the job creation machine in this country--say the health care law makes it harder to

hire.'' The same survey finds that ``one-half of small businesses say that they will either cut hours to reduce full-time employees or replace full-time employees with part-time workers to avoid the mandate.''

In addition, Gallup finds that ``41 percent of small business owners say they have held off on hiring new employees'' in response to ObamaCare.

The 1-year delay on ObamaCare's employer mandate provides momentary relief. But in light of sustained high unemployment in this country, I find it deeply troubling that perhaps the best thing President Obama has done for American business during his time in office is to provide only a brief reprieve from his own signature achievement.

Notably, labor unions agree with businesses now, that ObamaCare will hurt the economy. Recently, in a scathing letter to Democratic leaders in Congress, the president of the Teamsters Union, the UFCW, and UNITE- HERE, wrote that ``ObamaCare will shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40-hour workweek that is the backbone of the American middle class.''

This brings me full circle to where I began my remarks. President Obama conveniently blames Republican opposition for the stumbles and failures of ObamaCare, despite the fact that Americans across the political spectrum have spoken up about its many flaws.

President Obama rammed his health care legislation through Congress without a single Republican vote. Why? Because he knew he did not need our votes to put the entire Nation under his health care plan. Yet now he claims that ObamaCare works for those who are ``committed to it.'' Committed to it?

Republicans are committed to finding solutions that actually lower health costs, that do not tax and spend us into oblivion, that preserve the world's highest quality health care, and that foster economic growth. We have said all along that ObamaCare would fail on each of these counts.

I believe opposition to ObamaCare is not responsible for its failures, and commitment to it will not negate its deep flaws. The only way to achieve the goals we all share is to begin by repealing this failed law so we can replace it with a plan that works. I hope we can.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.