Union Tax Fairness Act of 2013

Madam President, I have come to the floor today to moderate a colloquy between my colleagues for the next 20 minutes or so regarding a very important amendment that has been filed to the Defense authorization bill we are considering. The colloquy will be between myself, Senator Wicker, Senator Warren, Senator Cochran, Senator Hoeven, Senator Nelson, and Senator Merkley. I ask unanimous consent that we have the next 20 minutes to conduct the colloquy.

Madam President, I really appreciate the courtesies of the manager of the bill on the floor, Senator Reed. I really appreciate his courtesies because those of us who have come to the floor today to speak about this issue are extremely concerned about this problem that has presented itself based on a bill that was passed 2 years ago called Biggert-Waters. With all the best intentions, a bill was passed 2 years ago to try to fix and reform and reauthorize the Nation's Flood Insurance Program, which is a very important program that allows millions of people who live not just along the coast but along our rivers and bayous and streams--from coast to coast, inland and coastal communities--to live safely and to live affordably and to have flood insurance they can count on. That was the intention of the bill, but something went awry through the passage of the bill, and the consequences are devastating.

Now, as we look back 2 years, and we see how FEMA and some of these Federal agencies are implementing the law we passed, we have some very serious concerns not only about how they are implementing it, but about the law itself.

So a group of us have come together to change that law so we can provide opportunities for our families, for our individuals and our businesses, to be able to buy and keep the kind of flood insurance they need to stay in business and to keep their communities intact.

In the last couple of weeks all we have heard about is health care insurance, and that is important, and we have some things to fix and move forward on, providing the country with a health care system they can depend on, but we also have a real challenge in flood insurance and affordability to our communities.

In Louisiana alone we have 400,000 flood insurance policies. Florida--I see my good friend, Senator Nelson from Florida, on the floor. His State has the largest number of policies; followed by Texas, with the second largest number; and, of course, Mississippi has quite a few as well. Senator Wicker joins me on the floor.

I want to start by showing this map I have in the Chamber so everyone who is following this debate--and there are literally millions of people following this debate; not only homeowners, business owners, but bankers, realtors, developers, et cetera--because if we do not get this right, these communities where you see these dots on the map, which are shown in the Mardi Gras colors--purple, gold, and green--these dots represent communities that are being affected by this program that needs to be changed and reformed.

These are flood maps that are being issued. Look how many there are in Oregon, Washington, California, Texas. What really surprised me-- because I know the gulf coast well; that is the area, of course, that I represent, Louisiana; and I know Texas and Mississippi and Florida very well--but the area that surprised me was Pennsylvania and Illinois and, of course, New York, New Jersey, and the east coast because of Superstorm Sandy. But this is a national issue. It is not a Louisiana issue. It is not a gulf coast issue. It is a national issue.

You will notice that these flood maps are not just along the coast. Some people say to us who are working on this: Well, I am not concerned because I do not represent a coastal State. Well, heads up, everyone. Even if you do not represent a coastal State, you are having flood maps issued from North Dakota, South Dakota, interior States, Kansas, Arkansas, et cetera, because you have rivers and flood zones.

If we do not change this bill in a significant way--what we are asking for in the Menendez-Isakson bill, which we are here offering as an amendment to the defense authorization bill--many of these communities will be devastated. That is because the Biggert-Waters bill has mandated fairly steep and unsustainable and unaffordable--to the middle class--rate increases that will simply prevent people from being able to stay in their homes.

My friend Senator Wicker is following me in this colloquy. He wants to speak specifically about the hardships that some of our people are experiencing as they are getting these notices about the rate increases. I ask Senator Wicker, what is he hearing in Mississippi? Could the Senator elaborate a minute about the unintended consequences of Biggert-Waters and the increases that some of our people are seeing in their primary homes as well as their businesses.

I thank the Senator from Mississippi for his comments and engaging in this exchange on the floor this morning.

The Senator from Florida has been particularly concerned because Florida has a very robust population as one of our largest States. I think the Senator has over 2 million policies in Florida.

Through the Chair, I wish to ask what the Senator is hearing in Florida about this situation.

I thank the Senator from Florida.

The Senator is correct about urgency. As the Presiding Officer knows, in her own home State, we are hearing from people who are stuck literally between a rock and a hard place because they can't get their insurance renewed. They can't afford the premium increases.

If they were thinking about selling their home, their home basically has become literally worthless, losing what equity they have-- temporarily we hope because we intend to fix this--because no one can purchase a home if the flood insurance went from $300 a year to $13,000 or $15,000 a year. It is affecting home ownership.

This is why I am proud to say--I see the Senator from Mississippi on the floor.

I wish to say how grateful I am to the great coalition of Senators who have come together, 24 Senators and 128 House Members. In addition, we have the National Association of Realtors, the National Association of Home Builders, and the Independent Community Bankers of America.

I wish to ask the Senator from Mississippi, through the Chair, does the Senator think we have a better chance of getting attention for our bill with the national strong support of the realtors, the homebuilders, and the bankers?

What is the Senator hearing from them in his State of Mississippi?

I thank the distinguished Senator from Mississippi. I appreciate his hard work as well as the staff. It has been a real team effort and without him we wouldn't be where we are today.

The Senator from Massachusetts is scheduled next in this colloquy. She has brought a particularly spectacular view, a different view, and a much needed view from the east coast, not only in light of the devastation from Hurricane Sandy but the ongoing challenges to that region.

I wish to ask unanimous consent, as it is 12:30 p.m., when we were supposed to end, if each of us takes 4 minutes in the order of Senator Warren, Senator Hoeven, and Senator Merkley, we could then recess for lunch as was required earlier.

What is the Senator hearing at home from the people of Massachusetts about this, and how important does she think it is for us to have the support of the realtors and the homebuilders and other national organizations that understand the dire consequences if we are not able to get some of these fixes in place?

Madam President, I thank the Senator so much.

Senator Hoeven has joined us, and he has been particularly forceful on the issue of basements in a State that doesn't have an ocean anywhere around it but has some serious flooding challenges. I would hope the Senator would take a minute to explain to everyone what he has been telling us and how important this particular piece of this bill is for the basement situation in his State.

Madam President, we have all been extremely helpful, of course, as a team in bringing this issue forward and crafting a bill, but literally we would not be here if it were not for the leadership of the subcommittee chairman who has jurisdiction over this issue--if he had not said yes when we asked him for a hearing in his committee to allow us to present the facts in hopes that we could find a way, as all of us have said, to make this program self-sustainable for the taxpayers but helpful to the people who need it. These are twin goals, both of which must be met or there won't be any program because no one will be able to afford to be in it. I thank the Senator for getting to that so quickly.

He is the last in our colloquy. Again, what is he hearing from home and can he give us, as chair of the subcommittee, some insight into how he thinks this will affect real estate markets if we are not able to fix this.

Our time has come to an end. In conclusion, I thank the Senator from Oregon again, the subcommittee chair, for his leadership. I also particularly thank Senator Menendez and Senator Isakson, the two lead sponsors of this bill, who have come together to provide the leadership to move this bill forward. They will be looking for a vehicle. We filed it on this bill in the event we have an opportunity for an amendment on the Defense bill. If not, we will be looking for the next possible opportunity.

I thank the Presiding Officer for her cosponsorship and her leadership for North Dakota.

This is a map of all the counties which have levees. I was surprised when I saw this map. I am very familiar with the levees in Louisiana. I helped to build a lot of them. I am very familiar with the Mississippi River generally because we have so much commerce along the Mississippi. I am generally familiar with Missouri, Illinois, and Arkansas. But what really

stood out for me was the levee systems in Montana, Arizona, and California. A lot of these are levees, dikes, and dams that are different from the river levees that we see. But look at Pittsburgh, New York, North Dakota, Montana, Washington. There is not a place in this country--not on the coast, not on the interior--that doesn't have a threat of flooding. Either a levee can break, a dam can break, a river can overflow, or there can be flash flooding because of droughts. Even in Texas where there is a lot of flash flooding. So not only on the coast, but inland as well, in Kansas.

The conclusion is this is a real challenge for our whole Nation. We have a bill led by Senator Menendez and Senator Isakson that costs and scores zero. We have written this bill in a way that just postpones these draconian rate increases so we can take a little more time to study it, do some modeling, and get it right. This bill was passed with very good intentions, but prematurely, without the data we need to make smart decisions for our communities. This is giving us time to get it right. There is zero cost the way this bill is structured.

Again, I appreciate the courtesies of our leader managing this bill on the floor.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to discuss again how ObamaCare is negatively impacting American families.

NBC News is reporting that 5 million Americans have received cancellation notices from health insurers. In my home State of South Dakota, the Sioux Falls Argus Leader is reporting that nearly 3,000 people have lost the plan they had. Yet this administration is merely pursuing political bandaids for the problem created by the President's health care law. The President is trying to fix this problem of canceled plans, but his solution is a politically motivated bandaid in response to pressure from Members of his own party who are nervous about the next election. The unfortunate reality of his bandaid is that it won't work.

Instead of taking responsibility for his failed policies and broken promises, he is changing his mind about how he wants his law to work at the eleventh hour. He is kicking the can to State insurance regulators to determine whether, in 48 days--which is from the date of his announcement on Thursday--they can reverse a train wreck that has been barreling down the tracks for nearly 4 years.

The President's health care law told the entire country that compliance with the President's law must occur on January 1, 2014. In response, industry and State regulators complied. Now, after relentlessly pushing a law that is fundamentally flawed, the President is changing his mind. He is expecting the State insurance commissioners to bail him out, to allow Americans to keep the plans they were promised they could keep.

Since passage of his health care law, the President has continued to tout his law and has continued to make promises to the American people that he knowingly cannot keep. While I agree that Americans should be able to keep the plans they have and like, this eleventh-hour attempt at a fix is an indication that the underpinnings of this law are irreversibly flawed.

The administration is now trying to live up to a promise it made despite the fact that they knew the promise wasn't true. In fact, the President repeated and reiterated that promise as recently as September 26 despite the fact that the administration knew it wasn't true. In 2010 the administration knew that up to 93 million Americans in the private market were in danger of losing their current health care plan. But the deeper problem with the President's fix is that it is merely a bandaid. By this time next year Americans will be in this exact same situation all over again.

The President is not focused on finding a good permanent solution but a good political solution. Putting this bandaid on the problem now may get him and his party past next year's elections. He seems more interested in preserving that power than creating real solutions to the underlying issues. In fact, the President is so concerned about the politics of his actions that he is considering yet again a way to bail out his union friends. As part of the health care law, unions agree to pay a tax to help pay for the cost of expanding coverage. This tax, known as the reinsurance tax, is scheduled to be paid by self-insured plans, including plans administered by unions and many of the largest businesses in America. But the unions are unhappy that they have to pay money into a fund to help fund a benefit for someone other than their dues-paying members. They took their complaints to the administration, and, buried in a regulation issued last month, the administration announced they intend to exempt unions from paying this tax.

Yesterday the Wall Street Journal editorial page articulated exactly why the unions should not be exempt from this tax. The editorial, called ``ObamaCare's Union Favor,'' argues that ``the unions ought to consider this tax a civic obligation in solidarity with the (uninsured) working folk they claim to support.'' It further states that ``there's no conceivable rationale--other than politics--for releasing union-only plans from a tax.'' As the editorial pointed out, exempting unions from this tax will only mean increased taxes on nonunionized Americans in self-insured plans since the tax is structured in a way that it must raise a total of $25 billion and isn't structured as a straight percentage like most taxes.

Granting this political deal to unions is why I am introducing the Union Tax Fairness Act. This bill would ensure that unions live up to the commitments they made when they put their political weight behind the health care law. It is political deals such as this that highlight how this law is failing the average American.

This reinsurance fee exemption isn't the only backroom deal the administration is trying to grant unions. Earlier this fall the administration tried to find a way to provide ObamaCare subsidies to ineligible union employees. I introduced a bill called the Union Bailout Prevention Act which was aimed at ensuring the administration could not make that special deal either.

It is clear that this President--President Obama--is trying to fix problems in his health care law by making decisions and exemptions based on favors to his political allies.

Democrats are on the run from the law they once championed. They recognize this law is sagging under its own weight. Last week there were 39 House Democrats who voted against the Obama administration by supporting the Upton bill that provides a better solution to allowing Americans to keep plans they like than what the President proposed. Even former President Bill Clinton said President Obama should keep his word when it comes to allowing Americans to keep the plans they have and like. In this Chamber, several Senate Democrats are running for the exits and looking for a legislative escape hatch of their own.

Unfortunately, the solutions proposed by this administration to fix problems in the health care law are only temporary solutions. Their solutions to problems are either temporary delays--as they did with the employer mandate and the 1-year extension of 2013 plans--or political favors to their friends and allies. Instead, this administration should agree to delay this entire law for all Americans.

Americans are deeply skeptical of the Affordable Care Act. According to last week's Gallup poll, 55 percent of Americans now disapprove of the health care law. There is a more recent poll this morning in which ABC News and the Washington Post have that number at 57 percent disapproving.

The time to act is now to ensure Americans can keep the plans they have and like. This ``fix'' won't prevent Americans from losing their coverage, facing sticker shock and premium increases, or losing their doctors. This law is fundamentally broken, and we need to start over and enact real reforms that decrease costs and improve access to care.

As do so many of us in this Chamber, I hear on a daily basis from my constituents in South Dakota about the very real impact this is having on middle-income Americans. This is an email I received last week:

My wife just received our health care insurance policy

renewals for 2014 and we are in shock!

Our monthly premiums increased from $400 per month to

$1,000, or over $7,000 more per year. My wife age 59 and me

age 60 now receive maternity benefits and some other very

limited coverage. We lost our prescription drug co-pay and

doctor visits co-pay. These expenses will now be included in

our $6,300 deductible. I will have no option for any subsidy

to offset these increases in premiums.

He goes on to say:

Please, please push for a reversal of this horrible health

care plan.

My wife and I are physically ill after receiving this

letter from our insurance carrier. Again, the government is

destroying our lives and we need you to stop this madness.

This is just one example of many that I have heard from my State of South Dakota and many that my colleagues here in the Senate are hearing from all across this country. It is clear this program, this health insurance law, is not ready for prime time. It is time for us to take a timeout and to go back to the drawing board and construct a plan, an insurance program for this country, legislation that will help reduce the costs for working-class Americans, give them access to better quality of care, and allow them to keep the doctor they choose, which is very much in jeopardy as well as a result of this takeover, literally, of one-sixth of our economy.

There is a better way, as I think countless--millions--Americans are finding out through canceled coverages, sticker shock from skyrocketing premiums, and the new knowledge that they may not be able to keep not only their health insurance plan but also the doctors they like. This is a grim reality for way too many Americans, and it is time for us to step forward and do something about it.

The President's proposal is a bandaid. It is a political solution. It is not a permanent solution; it is temporary. We need long-term fixes put in place that will address the health care concerns people have. The way to do that isn't to have the Federal Government literally assume control of one-sixth of the American economy and all the decisionmaking that takes out of the hands of ordinary, middle-class families--people across this country who are working hard to take care of their families.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to discuss again how ObamaCare is negatively impacting American families.

NBC News is reporting that 5 million Americans have received cancellation notices from health insurers. In my home State of South Dakota, the Sioux Falls Argus Leader is reporting that nearly 3,000 people have lost the plan they had. Yet this administration is merely pursuing political bandaids for the problem created by the President's health care law. The President is trying to fix this problem of canceled plans, but his solution is a politically motivated bandaid in response to pressure from Members of his own party who are nervous about the next election. The unfortunate reality of his bandaid is that it won't work.

Instead of taking responsibility for his failed policies and broken promises, he is changing his mind about how he wants his law to work at the eleventh hour. He is kicking the can to State insurance regulators to determine whether, in 48 days--which is from the date of his announcement on Thursday--they can reverse a train wreck that has been barreling down the tracks for nearly 4 years.

The President's health care law told the entire country that compliance with the President's law must occur on January 1, 2014. In response, industry and State regulators complied. Now, after relentlessly pushing a law that is fundamentally flawed, the President is changing his mind. He is expecting the State insurance commissioners to bail him out, to allow Americans to keep the plans they were promised they could keep.

Since passage of his health care law, the President has continued to tout his law and has continued to make promises to the American people that he knowingly cannot keep. While I agree that Americans should be able to keep the plans they have and like, this eleventh-hour attempt at a fix is an indication that the underpinnings of this law are irreversibly flawed.

The administration is now trying to live up to a promise it made despite the fact that they knew the promise wasn't true. In fact, the President repeated and reiterated that promise as recently as September 26 despite the fact that the administration knew it wasn't true. In 2010 the administration knew that up to 93 million Americans in the private market were in danger of losing their current health care plan. But the deeper problem with the President's fix is that it is merely a bandaid. By this time next year Americans will be in this exact same situation all over again.

The President is not focused on finding a good permanent solution but a good political solution. Putting this bandaid on the problem now may get him and his party past next year's elections. He seems more interested in preserving that power than creating real solutions to the underlying issues. In fact, the President is so concerned about the politics of his actions that he is considering yet again a way to bail out his union friends. As part of the health care law, unions agree to pay a tax to help pay for the cost of expanding coverage. This tax, known as the reinsurance tax, is scheduled to be paid by self-insured plans, including plans administered by unions and many of the largest businesses in America. But the unions are unhappy that they have to pay money into a fund to help fund a benefit for someone other than their dues-paying members. They took their complaints to the administration, and, buried in a regulation issued last month, the administration announced they intend to exempt unions from paying this tax.

Yesterday the Wall Street Journal editorial page articulated exactly why the unions should not be exempt from this tax. The editorial, called ``ObamaCare's Union Favor,'' argues that ``the unions ought to consider this tax a civic obligation in solidarity with the (uninsured) working folk they claim to support.'' It further states that ``there's no conceivable rationale--other than politics--for releasing union-only plans from a tax.'' As the editorial pointed out, exempting unions from this tax will only mean increased taxes on nonunionized Americans in self-insured plans since the tax is structured in a way that it must raise a total of $25 billion and isn't structured as a straight percentage like most taxes.

Granting this political deal to unions is why I am introducing the Union Tax Fairness Act. This bill would ensure that unions live up to the commitments they made when they put their political weight behind the health care law. It is political deals such as this that highlight how this law is failing the average American.

This reinsurance fee exemption isn't the only backroom deal the administration is trying to grant unions. Earlier this fall the administration tried to find a way to provide ObamaCare subsidies to ineligible union employees. I introduced a bill called the Union Bailout Prevention Act which was aimed at ensuring the administration could not make that special deal either.

It is clear that this President--President Obama--is trying to fix problems in his health care law by making decisions and exemptions based on favors to his political allies.

Democrats are on the run from the law they once championed. They recognize this law is sagging under its own weight. Last week there were 39 House Democrats who voted against the Obama administration by supporting the Upton bill that provides a better solution to allowing Americans to keep plans they like than what the President proposed. Even former President Bill Clinton said President Obama should keep his word when it comes to allowing Americans to keep the plans they have and like. In this Chamber, several Senate Democrats are running for the exits and looking for a legislative escape hatch of their own.

Unfortunately, the solutions proposed by this administration to fix problems in the health care law are only temporary solutions. Their solutions to problems are either temporary delays--as they did with the employer mandate and the 1-year extension of 2013 plans--or political favors to their friends and allies. Instead, this administration should agree to delay this entire law for all Americans.

Americans are deeply skeptical of the Affordable Care Act. According to last week's Gallup poll, 55 percent of Americans now disapprove of the health care law. There is a more recent poll this morning in which ABC News and the Washington Post have that number at 57 percent disapproving.

The time to act is now to ensure Americans can keep the plans they have and like. This ``fix'' won't prevent Americans from losing their coverage, facing sticker shock and premium increases, or losing their doctors. This law is fundamentally broken, and we need to start over and enact real reforms that decrease costs and improve access to care.

As do so many of us in this Chamber, I hear on a daily basis from my constituents in South Dakota about the very real impact this is having on middle-income Americans. This is an email I received last week:

My wife just received our health care insurance policy

renewals for 2014 and we are in shock!

Our monthly premiums increased from $400 per month to

$1,000, or over $7,000 more per year. My wife age 59 and me

age 60 now receive maternity benefits and some other very

limited coverage. We lost our prescription drug co-pay and

doctor visits co-pay. These expenses will now be included in

our $6,300 deductible. I will have no option for any subsidy

to offset these increases in premiums.

He goes on to say:

Please, please push for a reversal of this horrible health

care plan.

My wife and I are physically ill after receiving this

letter from our insurance carrier. Again, the government is

destroying our lives and we need you to stop this madness.

This is just one example of many that I have heard from my State of South Dakota and many that my colleagues here in the Senate are hearing from all across this country. It is clear this program, this health insurance law, is not ready for prime time. It is time for us to take a timeout and to go back to the drawing board and construct a plan, an insurance program for this country, legislation that will help reduce the costs for working-class Americans, give them access to better quality of care, and allow them to keep the doctor they choose, which is very much in jeopardy as well as a result of this takeover, literally, of one-sixth of our economy.

There is a better way, as I think countless--millions--Americans are finding out through canceled coverages, sticker shock from skyrocketing premiums, and the new knowledge that they may not be able to keep not only their health insurance plan but also the doctors they like. This is a grim reality for way too many Americans, and it is time for us to step forward and do something about it.

The President's proposal is a bandaid. It is a political solution. It is not a permanent solution; it is temporary. We need long-term fixes put in place that will address the health care concerns people have. The way to do that isn't to have the Federal Government literally assume control of one-sixth of the American economy and all the decisionmaking that takes out of the hands of ordinary, middle-class families--people across this country who are working hard to take care of their families.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Clearing Unnecessary Regulatory Burdens Act of 2013, or the ``CURB Act.'' This legislation is designed to help relieve the onerous regulatory burden on our Nation's job creators.

When I ask employers in Maine what we need to do to help them add jobs, they tell me that Washington must reduce the cost and complexity of the regulations imposed on them. And this is not just a concern voiced by Maine businesses. Earlier this year, a Gallup poll of small business owners found that the vast majority are not hiring new workers right now, and more than half pointed to government regulations as one of the reasons why. The National Federation of Independent Business found the same when it polled its members last year.

No business owner I know questions the legitimate role of regulation in protecting the health, safety, and well-being of employees and the public. But the public is not well-served by regulations that bury small businesses under a mountain of paperwork, driving up costs unnecessarily, and impeding growth and job creation. Proper regulation should be as efficient and simple as possible. At the very least, the benefits of a regulation should exceed its costs.

Unfortunately, the burden of Federal regulations continues to grow. Right now, Federal agencies are at work on nearly 2,500 new rules, at least 229 of which affect small businesses. One hundred thirty-nine are major rules, costing more than $100 million each. These rules will go on top of a pile of regulations now measured in the millions of pages.

Year-by-year, this pile of pages gets ever deeper. In the 1970s, the Federal Register, the compilation of Federal regulations, added some 450,000 pages. In the first decade of the 21st Century, more than 730,000 pages were added--a rate of 73,000 pages per year. The pace continues to accelerate. On average since 2010, the Federal Government has added more than 80,000 pages to the Federal Register each year. This cannot continue.

We are not in the fifth year of an economic ``recovery'' that has produced tepid economic growth and stubbornly high unemployment. The red-tape that is strangling our job creators is one of the chief reasons our economy has not fully recovered, and why millions of Americans still cannot find jobs. If we want to get our economy moving again and get Americans back to work, we must get serious about streamlining and reforming our regulatory system.

The CURB Act is designed to do that by requiring Federal agencies to take into account the impacts to small businesses and job growth before imposing new rules and regulations. It does this in four ways: first, by requiring Federal agencies to analyze the indirect costs of regulations, such as the impact on job creation, the cost of energy, and consumer prices; second, by requiring agencies to follow ``good guidance'' practices; third, by helping small businesses avoid unnecessary penalties for first-time, non-harmful paperwork violations; and fourth, by implementing reforms to the Regulatory Flexibility Act proposed by our former colleague, Senator Olympia Snowe. Let me explain each of these provisions in further detail.

First, as a general rule, Federal agencies are not required by statute to analyze the indirect costs regulations can have on the public, such as higher energy costs, higher prices, and the impact on job creation. However, Executive Order 12866, issued by President Clinton in 1993, obligates agencies to provide the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OIRA, with an assessment of the indirect costs of proposed regulations. The CURB Act would essentially codify this provision of President Clinton's Executive Order.

Second, our bill obligates Federal agencies to comply with public notice

and comment requirements and prohibits them from circumventing these requirements by issuing unofficial rules as ``guidance documents.'' Let me explain why this is necessary:

After President Clinton issued Executive Order 12866, Federal agencies found it easier to issue so-called ``guidance documents,'' rather than formal rules. Although these guidance documents are merely an agency's interpretation of how the public can comply with a particular rule, and are not enforceable in court, as a practical matter they operate as if they are legally binding. Thus, they have been used by agencies to circumvent OIRA regulatory review and public notice and comment requirements.

In 2007, OMB issued a Bulletin which contained a provision closing this loophole by imposing ``Good Guidance Practices'' on Federal agencies. This requires agencies to provide public notice and comment for significant guidance documents. The CURB Act would essentially codify this OMB Bulletin.

Third, the CURB Act helps out the ``little guy'' trying to navigate our incredibly complex and burdensome regulatory environment. So many small businesses do not have a lot of capital on hand. When a small business inadvertently runs afoul of a Federal regulation for the first time, that first penalty could sink the business and the jobs it supports. The CURB Act directs agencies to search their files to determine whether a small business is facing a paperwork violation for the first time, and to offer to waive the penalty for that violation if no harm has come of it. It simply does not make sense to me to punish small businesses the first time they accidently fail to comply with paperwork requirements, so long as no harm comes from that failure.

Fourth, as I mentioned, my bill also includes reforms to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, RFA. These reforms would build on the RFA by expanding its requirements to include guidance documents and indirect costs, in a manner consistent with what I have already described. In addition, the reforms to the RFA would allow small businesses to challenge burdensome rules when they are proposed, instead of when the rules have become final, which is often too late.

Finally, these proposed reforms would put teeth into the RFA's requirement that agencies review their rules for possible savings at least once a decade. The bill directs each agency's Inspector General to notify the head of the agency if a rule has not been reviewed in the time required. Once this notification is received, the agency has 6 months to conduct the required review. If it fails to do so, the bill directs the IG to notify Congress, triggering the recission of one percent of the offending agency's personnel budget unless Congress intervenes.

Before I close, I want to note that many Members of this body, on both sides of the aisle, have offered serious regulatory reform proposals for our consideration in recent years. Indeed, even the President's own ``Jobs Council''--before it was disbanded--stressed the need for regulatory reform, and put forward ideas consistent with many of the proposals I and other Members of this body have submitted as legislation. Last session, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, under the leadership of then- Chairman Lieberman and myself, held a series of hearings on regulatory reform. But the Senate as a whole did not act on these proposals last session, or dedicate any time whatsoever to their consideration. I am hopeful this session will be different, and room will be made on the Senate's agenda to consider regulatory reform. As we do so, I would ask my colleagues to consider the approach I have proposed in the CURB Act.

Madam President, we need to be moving forward with the Defense bill. It is very important. I am a member of Armed Services Committee, and we had a good bipartisan vote out of committee to bring the bill to the floor. Chairman Levin has been fair to us in committee, so we got a good committee process. But there are some disagreements over a number of issues that the full Senate needs to discuss and vote on. They just should be able to do that.

We are drifting into a process that is absolutely contrary to the history of the Senate--the real concept of the U.S. Senate--where we bring matters up and vote on them. Just because it cleared our committee does not mean the full Senate does not get to vote on some of these differing opinions.

I voted in the committee on a number of amendments that did not pass. We had amendments up in committee that we decided not to vote on, and the phrase was: Well, we will carry that to the floor. In other words, it will be brought up and the whole Senate will vote on it, not just the committee. Maybe in the interim something could be worked out. But if not, it would go to the full Senate, and the full Senate would work its will, would have its debate and vote.

We are going days now with nothing happening, no amendments being voted on. They could have already been voted on. So Senator Reid has filled the tree, and that means he has complete control over the process. He has the ability to say we will not have a single amendment. In fact, except for, I think, two, all he has agreed to in this process is to have maybe two amendments up, and that is unacceptable. Senator Reid ought to know that. You cannot move the Defense bill of the United States of America, spending $500 billion, and not have amendments and Senators actually offering suggestions on how to spend that money better and do better for America. What are we here for?

So I am really worried about this. I am afraid that this whole thing could collapse over the failure of amendments to be offered. I look here at a chart. Back, basically, when Republicans were in charge, we had 27 amendments, 25 amendments, 13 amendments actually voted on. The average number was 11.5 amendments voted on.

We already have well over 100 amendments filed. Over half of them, two-thirds of them, will eventually be withdrawn or the managers of the bill will agree to some form of that suggestion with different language and we would move on. But we should have already started on amendments, and we should recognize that a good Defense bill is going to require an open process where we can actually discuss how to fix it and make it better.

In addition, we are facing, under the Budget Control Act and the sequester, some real financial challenges for the Department of Defense that are historic. It is significant. We need to be able to talk about that and work on that and try to figure out a way to strengthen the ability of the Defense Department to function in a rational way and not do unnecessary damage to them while they work to contain spending. That is a critical thing.

So I would say to Senator Reid, who has a tough job--there is no doubt about that--Senator Reid, you should not attempt this dramatic reduction in the ability of the Senate to actually have amendments to a bill as large and as important as the Defense bill. You are overreaching, Senator Reid.

We cannot agree to that. The loyal opposition, the Republican opposition--I say, the bill that came out of committee was bipartisan, overwhelmingly bipartisan, with a big vote in the committee. But there are things that need to be voted on here, and we are not going to agree to a handful of amendments. So if you try to move forward with this bill without allowing at least a legitimate amendment process, you are not going to go forward because we are not going to agree to go forward when you fill the tree and block amendments and have the power to deny amendments of any significant degree on the floor of the Senate.

I am worried about that. I hope my friend, Senator Levin, and Senator

Reed, who is here, and others, can talk with the majority leader and reason with him, and let's get on with the business of proceeding with these amendments and some actual debate about the future of America's defense posture because we do have challenges in the years to come--a lot different than we have had--and we need to reconfigure defense, and we need to be asking ourselves honestly and in a bipartisan way, what will we need to do in 15 years, what will we need to be doing in 2025.

I had the honor to be at the Reagan Library this weekend for a national security conference dealing with what our defense structure should be in 2025. Senator Levin, along with former Secretary of Defense Gates, was given the first award they give for patriotic service. So our Armed Services chairman, let me note, was honored--our Democratic chairman--was honored at the Ronald Reagan Library for his commitment to national defense.

But I am just saying, ladies and gentlemen, in a bipartisan way we need to be thinking about what our future defense policy should be. We need to be thinking about how to move this bill. But it will not move, and I will not support going to a bill that does not allow this Senate to have a reasonable opportunity to have amendments.

I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.