Floor Statements

Mr. President, there has been a great deal of talk lately about earmarks. Some Members are even talking about bringing them back.

I grew up earmarking. I grew up on a ranch, where we earmarked cattle. That is where earmarking gets its name. I didn't think much of the practice then. We already had a brand on the critter. An earmark seemed to be redundant. After a while, we didn't do it any more.

Then I came to Congress--first in the House and now in the Senate-- and I had hoped not to be earmarking any more. But when I got to the House I found out the practice was not just prolific but rampant, so I come here today, after hearing some people want to bring the practice back--after we had the moratorium placed a couple years ago--and urge caution. Let me explain a few reasons why.

One reason we lamented the absence of earmarks was the saying: Earmarks are the glue that helps legislation get passed.

I would say it is a little more accurate to say: Earmarks usually represent the lard that allows earmarks to squeeze through the door and get through to the President's desk.

Senator Tom Coburn has spoken often about earmarks. I think he at one point said the best statement ever made about earmarks: They are the gateway drug to spending addiction.

Earmarks are usually small items, but they lead to massive spending overall. They leverage greater spending. Once you get an earmark in a bill, you usually vote for that bill no matter how big it becomes. We had years and years of that, and we shouldn't return to it.

But now earmark fans have a new argument--spending oversight. They say we can provide better oversight when we earmark; we will keep better track of that spending.

They argue that Congress is derelict in its article 1 constitutional responsibilities, the power-of-the-purse argument: By not allowing earmarks, we are somehow derelict in our duty. That is an interesting argument which we ought to explore for a minute.

The same people who will defend earmarking as a constitutional right and responsibility will also note: Don't worry, it is only 1 percent or less than 1 percent of all Federal spending.

But think about that for a minute. If it is our constitutional responsibility, why would we stop at 1 percent? That is not a valid argument at all. If it is constitutional, for our constitutional responsibility, shouldn't more than 1 percent be earmarked?

When we look at when earmarks were here, they were never evenly spaced. Every Member of Congress in the House and the Senate has the same constitutional right, I would assume. But with earmarks, committee chairs or those on the appropriate committees get the lion's share of the earmarks when rank-and-file members get far fewer. So the constitutional argument is specious at best.

I do share a concern that Congress has ceded to agency bureaucrats and administration officials much of our discretion over spending decisions. The culprit is not a lack of earmarks but the lack of oversight opportunities. The problem is we haven't gone through regular order for a long time.

Right here in the Senate is the perfect example. We have only had nine votes on Republican amendments in this Senate Chamber since July. Nine votes. This is the most deliberative body in the world. The hallmark of this body is an open amendment process, open debate-- unlimited debate. Yet we have only had nine Republican amendments rollcalled in the Senate Chamber since last July. That is no way to provide oversight. We have to get back to regular order if we want to have oversight.

We have a pretty dismal record lately on appropriations bills. We have become addicted to continuing resolutions, so-called CRs.

According to the Congressional Research Service, between fiscal year 1977 and fiscal year 2014, in all that 30-year period there were only 4 years where all appropriations bills were enacted on time, and in only one other year were more than half of them completed on time. The last year Congress actually moved through all the appropriations bills and did it on time was 1997. That is the problem we are having with oversight: When we don't authorize and pass appropriations bills one by one, we lose the ability to conduct oversight over the Federal agencies and over Federal spending in general. Since then, there has been an average of six CRs per year. This year will be no different.

I will consider some of the arguments.

We are often told this is a way we can have a check on the agencies. But what we have seen in the past is that when we earmark, the bulk of the time spent by the Appropriations Committee is not spent in doing oversight but is spent in doling out earmarks.

The last year we had earmarks, 2009, there were 9,000 earmarks in 1 Omnibus appropriations bill. What was the Appropriations Committee doing for months prior to that? Most of their time and staff's time-- time that should have been spent on the other 99 percent of Federal spending--was spent securing that 1 percent of Federal spending that constituted earmarks for the Members. So we are not exercising oversight with earmarks. We are abdicating our responsibility and spending far too much time on these earmarks.

There are 43 Members of the Senate who are in their first 6 years in this body, myself included. I happened to have spent some time in the House, so I have some perspective there. For those who haven't seen the appropriations process with earmarks, I think it is useful to take a little walk down memory lane and see what it was like in years past.

Jack Abramoff, who spent some time in prison for working the appropriations process pretty well, called the Appropriations Committee the earmark favor factory. That I don't think has been seriously refuted by anyone. That is what the Appropriations Committees became during that time--earmark favor factories.

It is worth remembering some of the earmarks that finally galvanized the country against them: the Bridge to Nowhere; the indoor rainforest in Iowa. We could go on and on. I went to the House floor myself several hundred times over the period of a couple of years to challenge these individual spending projects.

In 2008, there was a lobbying firm founded by a former Appropriations Committee staffer that specialized in getting particularly defense earmarks from the Appropriations Committee. The FBI finally got wind of some of this and started to investigate. Politico reported that sources within the FBI indicated they were ``conducting research on earmarks and campaign contributions.'' While they did so, this investigation commenced and within weeks the firm imploded.

According to analysis by Taxpayers for Common Sense, clients of the firm received at least $299 million in earmarks. The firm or individuals from the firm made campaign contributions of more than $3 million to nearly 300 elected officials.

ABC News said at the time of the firm's operation: Millions out to lawmakers, hundreds of millions back in the form of earmarks for clients, have made it for many observers the poster child for tacit pay-to-play politics.

I don't think we want to go back to that time. News reports every day were looking at the link between earmarks and campaign contributions. There was a smack of corruption there.

As I said, as soon as the FBI turned its attention to this firm doing a lot of this earmarking, it imploded almost overnight and went away. There was great public distrust in the process, and well there should have been.

At that time I remember going to the House floor and offering over a series of weeks nine separate privileged resolutions asking for the Ethics Committee to look at that relationship between campaign contributions and earmarks.

Let me take this time to say this is not a partisan issue. Republicans as well as Democrats over years past participated in this process of earmarking with equal abandon. I am not pointing the finger at either party. There are Members of both parties who seek to return to the practice. But we ought to remember that it wasn't good for this institution. For those who say we ought to go back to it, I don't understand. I would argue it doesn't give us any better oversight because we spend all of our time actually earmarking projects rather than providing oversight over the other 99 percent of government funding.

There is no constitutional requirement. And, frankly, if it is just 1 percent of all spending, how can we argue it is our constitutional responsibility? Why wouldn't we be earmarking more of it? I don't know how the corruption that comes with it is avoided.

Members may say it will be better now than it was before--names will be attached to earmarks. We will have total transparency. The investigation of this firm and others happened when there was transparency, when names were attached to earmarks. That didn't help. The corruption continued. There is no way to police this process adequately when we earmark in that way.

I encourage my colleagues, when we hear Members pining for the old days when we earmarked, remember that Congress went for decades and decades with maybe one here or one there on the margins. It was only in those last couple of decades, the 1990s through about 2010, where we had a rampant corrupt process which I would argue we wouldn't want to return to. So let's think twice before doing that.

I thank the senior Senator from Arizona Mr. McCain for the work he has done to bring this panel forward with six judges to be confirmed this week. That is a big deal, a big deal for any State, and for a State such as Arizona that has had such a shortage for so long, this is particularly important. I just want to say a few words about the three judges we will vote on after I speak: Judge Steven Logan, John Tuchi, and Diane Humetewa.

Judge Logan has a distinguished record in the military, where he earned a Bronze Star among many other honors. In discussing his military service at his nomination hearing, one of his statements stuck out because it exemplifies his dedication for the rule of law and his fitness to be a district judge. He said:

The rule of law in the United States is very, very

important. I have seen what happens in a country, two

countries in particular--

He is referring to Iran and Afghanistan--

when there is no rule of law that is active.

Judge Logan will bring this important perspective to the bench, as well as insights he has gained as an assistant U.S. attorney, both in Minnesota and in Arizona. He is familiar with immigration issues as well, which provide the bulk of the cases he will be looking at as a district court judge.

Mr. Tuchi has a long career as a prosecutor, having served the bulk of his career in the Arizona U.S. attorney's office from 1998 until now. He is presently serving as chief assistant U.S. attorney, where he oversees civil and criminal personnel operations. In 2009 he served as interim U.S. attorney for several months. He began his legal career as a judicial clerk in the Ninth Circuit, and I think he is going to make a stellar district court judge as well.

Ms. Humetewa, similar to Judge Logan, has served as both a prosecutor and a judge, serving in the Arizona U.S. attorney's office as an assistant U.S. attorney and then as a Senate-confirmed U.S. attorney for Arizona from 2007 to 2009. She was also acting chief prosecutor for the Hopi Tribe and appellate court judge for the tribe. As Senator McCain noted earlier, she will be the first Native American woman to serve on the Federal bench. I know her varied experience as a judge and prosecutor will serve her well in this capacity.

Let me just say what a thrill it was to be on the Judiciary Committee and have all six of these prospective judges come with their families and talk about their experience and how it would relate to their new role if they were to be confirmed. It was great to

be there to see Diane Humetewa and family and note that on the reservation there were many other family members watching that hearing being streamed and being proud that the first female Native American would be on the Federal bench. What a great occasion, what a great event to witness, and it speaks well for not only her qualifications but the qualifications of the others as well.

We look forward in the coming days--hopefully tomorrow--to vote on Judge Rayes as well as Rosemary Marquez. Senator McCain mentioned Judge Soto. I have had the honor of getting to know Judge Soto and his family a bit. He served 13 years on the County of Santa Cruz's Superior Court and is currently a presiding judge. The comment in the confirmation hearing that came up is that the people of Santa Cruz County are going to be sad to lose him as a judge; he has been great there, and he will be a great district court judge.

I am so happy to go through this process. This is my first time, being relatively new to this position, of nominating judges and going through the confirmation process. It was a pleasure working with Senator McCain and with the White House and the President in bringing these nominations forward.

I urge my colleagues to vote both for cloture and for final confirmation of these three judges today and hopefully the other three tomorrow or later. I appreciate the President making these nominations. Arizona has waited a long time to fill these judgeships and we are pleased to do so this week.

I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the unfortunate allegations of mismanagement and neglect that have been leveled against the Phoenix VA health care system.

By now we have all seen the headlines highlighting unsettling allegations that veterans may be dying while awaiting care in Phoenix. These revelations have come to light after whistleblowers in Arizona have suggested that Phoenix VA officials were manipulating appointment requests and waiting lists.

Recent reports suggest that some veterans may have been placed on an unofficial waiting list outside of the VA's official electronic waiting list, which exists to calculate how long a veteran has to wait for care.

The alleged reason for the existence of this secret--or unofficial-- list was to keep officially reported wait times down and to disguise longer actual waiting times. This apparently would help the Phoenix VA save face and reflect more positively on the VA's system as a whole. As a result, as many as 1,400 veterans' actual wait times may have been significantly longer than what was reported by Phoenix VA officials.

Now the VA's inspector general's office has launched an investigation, and senior officials with the Phoenix VA have been placed on administrative leave.

At a recent hearing in the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, after cautioning that there should be no ``rush to judgment,'' a senior VA official indicated that after a preliminary review they found no evidence of a ``secret list.''

Nothing would make me happier than to believe the allegations that were leveled were just as a result of sour grapes from some unhappy current or former employees. But, sadly, similar allegations surrounding delayed care have also surfaced elsewhere in the country.

Just this week, CNN has reported that two VA officials in North Carolina have been placed on administrative leave because of ``inappropriate scheduling.'' CNN also reports that a scheduler at a VA facility in San Antonio suggested there had been some ``cooking [of] the books'' there to hide lengthy wait times.

Will it be any surprise if more VA health care facilities share these issues? We have all heard about the backlog of more than 300,000 claims made by veterans to the Department of Veterans Affairs. This backlog has resulted in a wait time for compensation for disability claims that reportedly averages a dismal 5 months.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have resulted in greater numbers of veterans seeking treatment in VA facilities. As more and more servicemembers leave the Armed Forces, these numbers are sure to increase.

Clearly, the VA is having a hard time providing adequate and timely care to veterans. This is and should be a nationwide concern.

While backlogs are one thing, efforts to obscure or hide them is something else entirely, and a disturbing pattern of allegations to that end are coming into focus.

What is alleged to have gone on just in the Phoenix VA system demands an honest, independent, and timely investigation. If these allegations are confirmed, anyone behind an effort to cover up these wait times or interfere with the truth coming out needs to be held accountable. Heads should roll. Veterans and families impacted by any sort of neglect and mismanagement in the Phoenix VA system deserve nothing less.

In addition, an apparent pattern of similar problems around the country would suggest that Congress needs to ensure that its own role in substantive, rigorous, and effective oversight has not been blatantly ignored.

VA Secretary Eric Shinseki will be testifying before the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs later this week to answer questions about the ``state of veterans health care.'' Given what appear to be pervasive failures at a growing number of VA health care facilities, he will have more than a few questions to answer. I look forward to the results from that hearing.

This situation cannot go on. In Phoenix and around Arizona people are concerned. We are receiving a record number of calls to our office from veterans who are concerned who want to tell their story of the care they are receiving or not receiving on a timely basis. This is something we cannot countenance in our oversight responsibilities here in Congress.

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

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

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Alexander and I be permitted to engage in a colloquy.

We come to the floor today to call attention to the tax extender bill currently being debated before the Senate. Included in this legislation is a provision extending the wind production tax credit, known as the PTC, for 2 additional years. This would be the ninth extension of a supposedly temporary tax credit.

The PTC was first enacted in 1992 to jump-start the nascent wind industry. It was meant to expire in 1999, 15 years ago. But this one- time stimulus has turned into a never-ending tax subsidy that has been extended eight times,

and the prospect for a ninth extension seems likely.

The PTC spends precious tax dollars subsidizing a very mature industry and distorting our energy markets.

My friend from Tennessee, Senator Alexander, and I have been vocal opponents of this Federal subsidy for years. Unfortunately, this credit has survived under the canard that wind power is an infant industry in need of Federal support.

With the PTC's expiration on January 1 of this year, wind producers are once again igniting the rallying cry to continue their taxpayer- funded handout.

I ask my friend from Tennessee, for those taxpayers who may not be familiar with this use of their hard-earned dollars, what is the PTC and why is it so valuable?

I thank the Senator. I don't think there is justification.

The justification that often is given is that we have to give some kind of surety moving ahead, and people won't invest in this industry if they don't know that the subsidy is there.

Again, this has been around since 1992. It was meant to expire in 1999. But it has been extended eight times. If anything is unsure, we are creating that unsurety--or insecurity--when Congress simply goes again and again and renews it.

The Senator from Tennessee had a great column in the Wall Street Journal talking about part of the problem we have when we subsidize this kind of industry and what that does to baseload power--nuclear and coal--in the interim. Does the Senator wish to talk about that?

In that same column, the Senator also talked about the environmental impact. It is often thought that these renewables are all the same in terms of their impact on the environment. But the Senator points out where these need to be built generally, and they are not your typical picturesque windmill somewhere in Holland but something quite different.

He also mentioned what it would take to generate the same amount of power that perhaps eight nuclear powerplants generate, what it would take in terms of these wind units. Does the Senator want to talk a bit about that?

Yes. And I want to point out as well that neither of us is saying there is no place for wind energy.

It is an increasing part of our energy load. In fact, the most new capacity actually went to wind as a percentage of the current output. There is an important place for it. It can and is being done in environmentally sensitive ways around the country. But it is time for the Federal subsidy to end.

The problem is, when we distort the market the way we do--when at times you can actually pay a utility to take your power because that is the only time the wind is blowing, at night, and still make a profit from the Federal subsidy--there is a distortion in the markets we just shouldn't have, and we ought to let capital flow where it is most needed.

So neither of us is saying there is no place for wind energy, but there is no place now or no reason to continue for the ninth time an extension of this Federal subsidy for wind.

I thank the Senator.

Senator Alexander and I are introducing an amendment to the tax extenders bill currently on the floor. This

amendment would simply strike that extension, do away with it completely.

We also have another amendment as to when producers of wind energy claim the subsidy right now, they can claim it now but not have the clock start until they start producing. So if they do not start producing for another 10 years, the end point of that subsidy is a full 20 years from now and taxpayers are on the hook much longer than was anticipated. So this would simply say that the point at which the subsidy begins has to be immediately so we won't go too far in the future.

Those amendments will be introduced tomorrow, and we hope to be able to debate those on the floor with this bill.

I thank the Senator.

I have just one other point. The second amendment, as I mentioned-- and the Senator mentioned that this 2-year extension leads to another 10 years in subsidies. Depending on when they actually start production, it could be another 20 years. So it really distorts our budget process, our appropriations and authorizations and everything else, for a longer period of time than it should.

I thank the Senator for his work and look forward to hopefully seeing these amendments debated.

I yield the floor, unless the Senator has any closing remarks.

Reserving the right to object.

Mr. President, I understand there are 75 amendments filed at the desk to this bill. Some of them are mine. Twenty-four of them have been filed by Democratic Senators who hope to offer them to this bill.

We keep hearing about amendments that are being allowed. These are amendments or amendment language which has been drafted into a manager's amendment to the bill, not to be offered on the floor. I should note that the vote on the Keystone Pipeline is one of those amendments that could be offered to the bill if there was agreement to move ahead.

So I ask unanimous consent that the unanimous consent be modified so that all filed amendments to Calendar No. 368, S. 2262, be in order for floor consideration of this bill.

I object.

Mr. President, the notion that Republicans are trying to repeal the Clean Air Act--if somebody were offering an amendment to that, then it would simply be defeated on this floor.

Let the amendments be offered. That is what the Senate is all about. This is a place of unlimited debate and usually unlimited amendments. But we are told now they can only agree to amendments the majority leader agrees should be offered. That is not right. That is not the Senate.

Let's go ahead and allow the amendments to be offered. If the amendments are wild-eyed and out there, they will surely be defeated. But let's debate the bill. Let's actually have an opportunity to amend the bill with amendments of our own choosing, not somebody else's choosing. That is what this debate is about.

Production Tax Credit

Mr. President, last month the Senate Finance Committee considered legislation to extend a number of expired tax provisions.

We have become so accustomed to extending various tax credits and deductions on a year-by-year basis, we have given this bill the name ``tax extenders'' when it comes up every year.

Unfortunately, these short-term fixes passed by Congress fail to give any certainty to taxpayers in the future, other than the fact that the government continues to give preferential treatment to certain chosen industries.

Now, rather than blindly extend these provisions, what we ought to do is eliminate these wasteful extenders which are really just subsidies. These benefit just a few. Those that are necessary for the economy let's extend permanently so we don't go through this exercise year after year.

But today I will discuss for a minute one extender that is ripe for elimination--the Production Tax Credit, otherwise known as the PTC.

In 1992, the PTC was temporarily established to promote development of renewable energy--electricity, particularly. This was for the then- fledgling wind power industry.

Congress gave energy producers a lengthy 7-year window to take advantage of and prepare for the eventual expiration of this tax credit in 1999. But as we know, here in Washington, very few of these programs are temporary. So here we are 15 years later, and the PTC is still hanging around.

Since its inception, this credit has been extended eight times. Having expired on January 1 of this year, there is now another effort afoot to resurrect what can only be described as a zombie credit. Do we really need a ninth extension? Wouldn't it be more intellectually honest to decide, if this government's policy is worth it, to simply permanently renew? Yet we go through this exercise year after year.

Last month there was a glimmer of hope that common sense would prevail. The tax extender package put forward by Senator Wyden and Ranking Member Hatch excluded the PTC--allowing the credit to finally expire so it wouldn't have been part of this package. However, it didn't take long for those who benefit from this government subsidy to activate the rallying cry.

A few short days later, the PTC was back in the package to provide the wind industry 2 additional years, until the end of 2015, to start construction on projects that would be eligible for the subsidy.

According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, this short extension would cost more than $13 billion over the next 10 years. But this isn't a true cost. Wind producers get to claim the credit for 10 years, beginning on the date of first production, as opposed to the start of construction.

In reality, the Federal Government's financial commitment extends well beyond the 10-year period considered in the JTC's initial estimate. The government will still likely be passing out these credits in 2027 and beyond.

That is a long commitment for a technology that former Energy Secretary Steven Chu said was mature in 2009. In fact, he projected that wind would be cost competitive with other forms of energy without subsidies by the end of this decade.

Wind power generation is no longer an infant industry. It is no longer in need of Federal support. By the end of last year, more than 61,000 megawatts of wind power capacity had been installed around the U.S., which is 15 times the amount that existed in 2001. In 2012, wind power was the top source of new generating capacity, beating out additional capacity from natural gas. The PTC is, in fact, so generous that at times it is more valuable than the wholesale price of electricity. That is a whopper of a subsidy. According to the Congressional Research Service, as a result of government subsidies, there are times when wind producers actually pay the market to take their power.

Recently, some of my colleagues who support this tax credit have pointed to the growing share of wind power generation in the U.S. and more than 550 wind-related manufacturing facilities around the country which will supply tens of thousands of jobs.

Rather than depicting an infant industry, these advances describe an industry that should be ready to stand on its own two feet.

We all know the U.S. has a $17.5 trillion debt. All subsidies like this need to be eliminated.

The production tax credit distorts the market by having the government favor one source of energy over another. An ideal energy market is one largely absent of the government's convoluted tax policies. Simply put, no industry's success should be predicated on congressional action.

Instead of extending an energy subsidy that picks winners and losers and creates market inefficiencies, Congress should eliminate the PTC and support an energy policy that encourages entrepreneurs to satisfy demand by providing consumers with alternative sources of energy.

This law has run its course. The PTC should meet its long overdue end.

I yield the floor.

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

I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Madam President, we heard news a week or so ago that the U.S. Government, through the Agency for International Development, was conducting a program in Cuba titled ZunZuneo.

It was an attempt to set up a kind of alternative twitter account, and the intent was certainly noble--to increase access of ordinary Cubans to information that would help and assist them.

I have no issue with programs such as this. I think overall they are good. The more we can have people have Internet access and meaningful content is good, but I and many others do have an issue with the Agency for International Development--USAID--undertaking this program.

USAID's mission is to help with humanitarian needs and to promote democratic development around the world. It need not, should not, engage in covert--or in their case they are saying it wasn't covert, they are calling it discreet. Either way, it casts suspicion on other activities that USAID is undertaking around the world.

USAID is in some very tough places around the world--delivering supplies into South Sudan, for example. We work with the people in Syria--not within the country but just outside the country. We work in many dangerous parts of the world, and the last thing we need is suspicion cast on USAID where people think it is an arm of the CIA. It just shouldn't be done. I think USAID does great work around the world and shouldn't involve itself with work of this type.

With regard to Cuba itself, as I said, I think our goal should be to make sure that Cubans are better informed, that we have increased contact, and that we have more American influence there.

That could be most easily forwarded by simply allowing Americans to travel to Cuba. It is the only country in the world where we have a policy that you have to get a specific license--where only certain classes of people are allowed to go there. That simply makes no sense at all.

If our goal is to make sure that Cuban people are aware of what is going on in the world, that they get real information outside of the government sources--the government in Cuba denies Cuban people the ability to get good, meaningful information--we ought to be all about making sure they have access to that, but the best way to do that is simply allowing Americans to travel there. We do that with other repressive regimes around the world.

It has been said--I think Freedom House has Iran as the only government that is more restrictive, more authoritarian, and more repressive than the Cuban regime. Yet we allow Americans to travel to Iran. In Iran, the Iranian Government may restrict who may come in--as will the Cuban Government, I am sure, once we lift our travel ban there. But that ought to be their province. I have often said if someone is going to limit my travel, it should be a Communist government, not my government.

As we review this program and as we talk about it in the coming weeks--we had a hearing this morning with the head of USAID testifying about it--I hope we simply keep in mind the best way to help the Cuban people to have access to information and to have contact with Americans, to be subject to American influence, freedom, and economic opportunity, is to allow Americans to travel freely there. That would do more than any program we could install, any program administered by USAID, the State Department, the CIA or anybody else--just allow Americans to travel to Cuba.

I yield to the Senator.

It is. I thank the Senator.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Quorum Call

I ask unanimous consent to offer my amendment No. 2935.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak as in morning business.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I think it is unfortunate that we are not allowing amendments to be offered here for extending unemployment benefits. The least we ought to do is make it easier to find a job. Unfortunately, there is no room in the legislation to do that.

I would like to talk about one area where we could offer some help and relief. Hearing some of the discussion over the past few minutes in this Chamber, it seems that this Chamber has become an echo chamber for happy talk about the Affordable Care Act. Unfortunately, for those who talk about figures--enrollment figures and whatever--we seem to forget about the number of people who had their health care canceled, who may have been able to pick up new coverage under the Affordable Care Act, but it is hardly--hardly--affordable. In fact, in most cases the cost has gone up significantly.

So I am here today to join a number of my colleagues who are seeking to offer amendments to this legislation, to make it easier for those who don't have jobs and who cannot easily access jobs. As we all know, the ACA or Affordable Care Act placed requirements on what new plans are mandated to cover, including coverage of things--I think they named 10 essential health care benefits, essential being used loosely--like pediatric dentistry, maternity care, mental health.

We have all heard stories of those squeezed by the ACA's new mandates and regulations. For many, if it isn't higher premiums, it is higher deductibles, increased copays or even greater out-of-pocket costs. That is the case for most but not all. I think all of us should freely acknowledge that some people have been able to buy more affordable care, but I think those examples are overshadowed completely by those who are facing higher costs.

The Wall Street Journal noted in a March 22 article--they cited an eHealth report--that the average premium for an individual health plan that meets ACA requirements was $274 a month, up 39 percent from last year, before the ACA provisions took effect. The same article reported that family plans averaged $663 a month, a 56 percent increase from last year. These facts have real world implications and have a bearing on both a family's financial realities as well as their employment.

For instance, I previously referenced a case of Leanne from Eager, AZ. Her family is facing what she calls ``sky-high'' rates now. This is thanks to the Affordable Care Act. If that isn't bad enough, it looks as if she and her husband will have to put off buying their parents' business.

In January I introduced the ReLIEF Act as a response to the administration's announcement that those facing health cancellations due to the ACA will be able to enroll in catastrophic coverage. The relief act would allow health insurance providers to provide catastrophic coverage to everyone and would deem these plans as meeting the minimal essential coverage requirement. The bottom line is, if we are going to delay benefits, delay mandates on the Affordable Care Act or delay implementation of certain parts of the Affordable Care Act for some, we ought to do it for everyone. I get a real kick out of hearing everybody reference the happy talk about the Affordable Care Act, but the reality is that much of it has been delayed or postponed or changed. If there are no problems with it, why do we keep doing that? If we are doing that for some, why don't we delay the mandates for everyone or allow others to buy more affordable coverage by giving some relief on these mandates?

This ReLIEF Act that I have introduced will allow health providers to offer catastrophic plans that may cost a lot less, that families used to be able to access and simply no longer can because too few insurance companies will offer them because at a certain point they will have to offer compliant plans that are much more expensive. My goal is to provide affordable insurance options and to give individuals who don't need or don't want more extensive coverage options to purchase these plans.

I applied the relief act to this bill as an amendment. I hope to bring that up. That was the purpose of the unanimous consent request that was just rejected. Unfortunately, it appears that very few, if any, amendments will be allowed to this legislation. I think that is unfortunate.

If we are concerned about the unemployed, as I know we all are, then we ought to at least offer them alternatives, offer them ways to more easily find employment to give them some more relief.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

I rise to discuss the nomination of Mr. Debo Adegbile to

head the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice.

I attended Mr. Adegbile's hearing in the Judiciary Committee and submitted additional written questions after the hearing. Unfortunately, after hearing testimony and reviewing his responses to questions, I remain concerned with Mr. Adegbile's ability to set aside more than a decade of advocacy on behalf of this and other liberal causes to serve as a neutral enforcer of our Nation's civil rights laws. And it appears I am not the only person who has reached this conclusion.

His nomination is opposed by numerous law enforcement officers, including those represented by the Fraternal Order of Police, National Sheriff's Association, the Major County Sheriffs' Association, the National Association of Police Organizations, the New Jersey State Policeman's Benevolent Association, and the National Narcotics Officers' Association.

This widespread opposition is clearly not driven by partisanship but by a heartfelt concern that this nominee is not suited for the position.

I have no doubt Mr. Adegbile is an intelligent and hardworking lawyer with a commendable record of advocacy, but that does not mean he should head the Civil Rights Division.

One of the responsibilities of the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division is to handle civil rights violations by law enforcement officers from across the country. However, serious questions have been raised about Mr. Adegbile's ability to apply the law fairly in these cases, given his advocacy on behalf of a convicted cop killer.

As the Fraternal Order of Police stated in its letter of opposition, in the decades Mr. Adegbile pushed this effort, he ``falsely disparaged and savaged the good name and reputation of a lifeless police officer'' in order to further his case.

The National Narcotics Association shares this analysis of Mr. Adegbile's advocacy, noting that he:

. . . fabricated a baseless and unproven defense while also

defaming the victim, Police Officer Daniel Faulkner, which

raises serious questions about the nominee's judgment,

especially considering the important position to which he has

been nominated.

There is no doubt as to Mumia Abu-Jamal's guilt. Afterward, he bragged about shooting Daniel Faulkner, and four witnesses saw the shooting. After being convicted and sentenced, Mumia's lawyers filed dozens of appeals on his behalf, which would suggest he had more than adequate legal representation. However, almost 28 years after his conviction, Mr. Adegbile decided to volunteer his time to assist Mumia. In a series of appeals and press events, Mr. Adegbile's organization called into question the motivations of the law enforcement officers responsible for Mumia's conviction and distorted the record, calling his conviction and sentence a ``relic of a time and place that was notorious for police abuse and racial discrimination.''

As the Philadelphia district attorney's opposition letter states, Mr. Adegbile's work on this case ``sends a message of contempt to police officers who risk their lives every day to maintain the peace.''

The district attorney concluded that Mr. Adegbile ``is ill-suited for a pivotal role in the Justice Department.''

The appalling facts of this case are well known. In fact, in 2006, the House of Representatives passed a resolution condemning the history of this case and recognizing the culpability of Mumia by a vote of 368 to 31. There are others, such as myself, now serving in this Chamber who voted in favor of that resolution.

It is deeply troubling that we are faced with voting on this nominee now, after Senate rules have been broken and the minority has no say in executive or judicial nominations. Requiring the support of at least some minority Senators discourages both the nomination and appointment of fringe or problematic nominees, something which benefits the country as a whole. Those rules ensure the Senate was the cooling saucer that George Washington and the other Founders intended. They also ensured heads of executive agencies were responsive to both the majority and minority parties. That is no longer the case.

I do not think we would be moving forward on such a divisive nominee--one who elicits widespread opposition from across the political spectrum--if the majority had not employed the nuclear option last November. I hope we don't move forward with this nomination. I hope my colleagues will join me and others in voicing opposition to this nomination moving ahead.

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

Madam President, I would like to speak about an issue, but first I would like to yield to the minority leader.

That is. In fact, to give some kind of scale here, the Keystone Pipeline, which has been extremely controversial for months and months, has generated about 7,000 comments--7,000 comments for an issue such as that. This has generated north of 100,000.

That is correct. Many of the organizations that have sounded alarm bells here are organizations such as the ACLU, the Sierra Club, and others, social welfare organizations that advocate for policy as well, that are concerned that this goes too far.

I would certainly agree. If the IRS wants to establish or re-establish credibility that has been lost, then the Commissioner should say to the White House: I will act independently here.

To go forward with this rule, after what has gone on, would simply be going in the other direction and would be seen--and I think justifiably so--to be working hand in glove with the White House to stifle free speech.

I thank the Senator from Kentucky. I certainly echo his comments. I do rise today to urge the Senate to pass legislation to prevent the IRS from trampling on free speech rights, particularly those of 501(c)(4) organizations.

The Stop Targeting of Political Beliefs by the IRS Act--it is a mouthful, I know--is sponsored by Senator Roberts from Kansas and myself. It would prohibit for 1 year the finalization of a proposed IRS regulation that would specifically limit the advocacy and educational activities of these groups.

This bill would also prevent additional targeting of 501(c)(4) organizations by restoring the IRS standards and definitions that were in place before the agency started targeting conservative groups back in 2010.

Last spring we learned that the IRS was targeting conservative groups applying for 501(c)(4) tax-exempt status, thanks to a report by the agency's inspector general. Since this discovery several IRS employees, including the Acting Commissioner, have resigned. Investigations by the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the Department of Justice are ongoing.

Nevertheless, on November 29 the IRS published a proposed rule that would restrict the activities of 501(c)(4) organizations, limit their speech, and curtail their civic participation. This rule singles out the same groups that were previously targeted by the IRS and threatens to limit their participation in a host of advocacy and educational activities, even nonpartisan voter registration and education drives. These activities have a clear role in promoting civic engagement and social welfare, which is the precise purpose for which 501(c)(4) organizations are structured.

Unfortunately, this proposed rule would suppress these organizations' voices by forcing them to quit these activities or be shut down.

While this administration may be focused on quieting its conservative critics, even liberal groups have denounced the rule and called attention to the detrimental impact on free speech by organizations of all ideologies. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, this rule ``will produce the same structural issues at the IRS that led to the use of inappropriate criteria in the selection of various charitable and social welfare groups for undue scrutiny.''

In response to the Obama administration's claim that these tax groups have become confusing in the aftermath of a Citizens United decision, Nan Aron of the Alliance for Justice Action Campaign has commented that 501(c)(4) organizations ``weren't invented in the last election cycle; they've been around for generations. Their purpose isn't to hide donors, it's to advance policies.''

Even the Sierra Club has hammered the IRS rule.

As of this morning, I believe it is at least 94,000 comments the minority leader mentioned, and it may be north of 100,000 now, on the proposed rule have been submitted. This marks the largest number of comments ever submitted to any rulemaking. Let me repeat that. This is the largest number of comments ever submitted to any rulemaking.

As I said before, to put it in perspective, the Keystone Pipeline proposed rule we have heard so much about has registered just over 7,000 comments. That is compared to somewhere near 100,000 comments here. Clearly the public sees through this administration's veiled attempt to quash free speech and to shut down opposition to its priorities.

Yesterday the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed this same legislation, identical legislation in the House, by a vote of 243- 176. Already, this legislation in the Senate has 40 Senate cosponsors. It clearly deserves the consideration and support of the full Senate.

However, this legislation has not been permitted to come up for debate in the full Senate. Earlier today Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to oppose it, stalling further consideration. I suppose the veto threat issued by the President may have had something to do with that. This veto threat is unfortunate. It is clearly a disproportionate response to legislation aimed at protecting free speech rights of conservatives and liberals alike.

This bill is simple. It only suspends new IRS rulemaking related to 501(c)(4)s until the ongoing investigations are completed. It simply suspends for 1 year. That is prudent and necessary.

I urge my colleagues to join me in support of free speech rights by these groups by approving this legislation to prevent the finalization of the IRS's rule or any other that seeks to continue to target groups based on ideology.

Madam President, with that, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 2011, that the bill be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

If I could, I want to respond to a few of the Senator's items.

The Senator is correct, it falls under the Finance Committee's jurisdiction. That is part of the reason why I bring this forward. The Finance Committee is undergoing an investigation that is not yet complete, so I think it would be prudent to forestall the implementation of new rules by the IRS while the Finance Committee investigation is ongoing. I think we all agree we shouldn't move forward on imprecise or incomplete information. That is why we are simply saying we are not proposing a rule, we are saying simply delay the new rule until investigations can be completed.

Also, with regard to the issue of fairness, I should note that this applies to 501(c)(4) organizations, nonprofit organizations. There are other organizations that are also nonprofit but are not included in this proposed rulemaking--for example, labor unions. They offer, under a nonprofit status as well, a 501(c)(5). They are not included here.

The Senator correctly says we should be concerned about fairness for all groups that are under this kind of nonprofit umbrella. That is concerning to a lot of people as well, because those organized under 501(c)(4) status are targeted here when those organized under (c)(5) status are not, when they have some of the same restrictions on what they can do. So we would be imposing new rulemaking and new rules on some organizations and not others. That is one concern and another reason to forestall new rulemaking until we have more complete information about what is going on at the IRS.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today to talk for a short period of time about the magnitude of our budget, debt, and deficit. Against the backdrop of a debt ceiling increase, Members of both parties are going to today, likely, repeal one of the deficit reduction measures included in the bipartisan budget agreement that was approved less than 2 months ago. How do we convey to the Nation the seriousness about solving the debt crisis when at the first sign of political pressure we repeal one of the deficit reduction measures?

As we all know, the Ryan-Murray budget deal included modest reductions in some spending programs over the next 10 years in order to increase discretionary spending caps in fiscal years 2014 and 2015. I voted against this agreement because I thought the spending cuts did not go far enough. I do not think we are treating our debt and deficit seriously enough.

Second, I have been down that road of trading spending increases today for spending cuts later many times. It does not work. We have seen that play before. We know how it ends. Year after year Members of Congress simply refuse to stick to the budget discipline we said we would stick to. Exhibit 1 is before us today. The Congress is about to undo--in fact, repeal--one of those provisions, as I mentioned.

It is important to note that the cost-of-living adjustment that will be repealed--or the reform that will be repealed was a cost-of-living adjustment--a COLA--for military retirees resulting in less than a 1- percent reduction for working-age military retirees. That is 1 percent. It stopped far short of the elimination of COLA requirements for retirees under the age of 62 that the Simpson-Bowles Commission recommended.

Certainly our veterans deserve the utmost respect and generous retirement pay. However, it has been reported that regardless of age, members of our armed services could easily, in some instances, receive retirement and health benefits for 40 years or more.

Some of my colleagues have suggested that failing to support measures to repeal the COLA reduction is tantamount to turning our backs on veterans. This is untrue. This is a mischaracterization of the issue at hand. I think we all know that. The U.S. military is at a crossroads. Fast-growing retirement pay and health benefits are threatening to displace investments in the readiness of our Armed Forces.

I encourage my colleagues to take a hard look at the fiscal mess we face before we vote to roll back one of the few deficit reduction measures the President and Congress have agreed to. Our fiscal situation is serious. We cannot ignore that forever.

This problem will continue to get worse. Yes, we ought to be reforming entitlement programs so they will be around for future beneficiaries, veterans and others, but for goodness' sake, when deficit reduction measures get signed into law, surely at some point we need to stand by them.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with my colleagues.

Mr. President, I rise today to bring attention to the latest installment concerning political targeting by the IRS. Last spring we learned of the IRS's targeting of conservative groups that were applying for 401(c)(4) tax exempt status, thanks to a report by the IRS's inspector general. This report detailed how the IRS singled out conservative groups for excessive scrutiny, which caused some applications to lie pending for more than 3 years and another 28 organizations to actually give up on their unanswered application.

The President claimed the targeting was due solely to ``boneheaded decisions.'' Unfortunately, with the head of the tax-exempt organizations unit at the agency, Lois Lerner, choosing to plead the Fifth and resigning rather than answer questions before Congress, we may find that the source of this problem is a little more troubling than that.

Thankfully, multiple investigations are taking place to answer lingering questions such as this one. I look forward to their findings wherever they may lead. Uncovering who directed and participated in the inappropriate targeting and why will allow us to bring justice to the groups affected and ensure that no such targeting like this occurs again.

So imagine my surprise when over the Thanksgiving holiday I learned that the IRS had diagnosed the problem and offered its regulatory solution, despite the fact that multiple investigations are far from complete. On Friday, November 29, without warning, the IRS published a proposed rule that would restrict the activities of 501(c)(4) organizations, effectively limiting their speech and curtailing their civic participation.

This brings a whole new meaning to the term ``Black Friday.'' This rule singles out the same conservative groups that were previously targeted by the IRS and threatens to shut them down. It further attempts to legitimatize the targeting of organizations that hold ideological views that are inconsistent with the administration's views.

It should be no surprise, since critics of these conservative organizations have openly called for their extinction, that this is occurring. At the least, some would like to force 401(c)(4) organizations into ill-fitting structures devised more appropriately for political committees in order to require the disclosure of conservative supporters.

The IRS and the White House claim innocently that the proposed rule is meant to clear up confusion about the process of applications for 501(c)(4) organizations involved in political activities. Over the past several months, we have heard this administration tell the public multiple times how confusing the applications are. Yet 501(c)(4) applications have been processed for years without excessive complaints of confusion that has occurred in recent months.

In fact, before the IRS began flagging the applications of conservative groups in February 2010, these types of applications were being processed within 3 months. Email traffic between IRS employees shows that the applications of conservative organizations were not flagged out of confusion but, rather, because of media attention and potential interest to Washington.

So let's call this rule what it is. It is an attempt to silence the voices of conservative organizations. To be clear, 501(c)(4)s are permitted to engage in the political process and in political discourse, and they should continue to be allowed to do so. But this regulation seeks to limit their participation in a host of advocacy and education activities, even nonpartisan voter registration and education drives.

These activities have a clear role in promoting civic engagement and social welfare, the precise purpose of the 501(c)(4) structure. Unfortunately, the rule would suppress conservative voices by forcing organizations to quit these activities or to be shut down. In fact, according to evidence collected by the House Ways and Means Committee and Chairman Dave Camp, the administration has been working on this rule since 2011.

Not surprisingly, the Treasury Department kept quiet of its plans. In fact, it neglected to mention consideration of this rule in the agency's 2011 or 2012 policy guidance plan. These are usually the ones that detail upcoming projects. If it sounds suspicious, it is. Just 3 months after the IRS abuse surfaced, the Treasury Department listed in its 2013 plan the development of guidance related to the political activities of 501(c)(4)s.

Conveniently, the publicity of the IRS abuse provided an opportunity to finally roll out the agency's rule as a solution to its ``boneheaded decisions.'' But this administration is not fooling anyone. Over 20,000 people have already submitted comments to the proposed rule. According to the new IRS Commissioner, this is the largest number of comments ever received by any agency. Clearly, the public sees through the administration's veiled attempts to squash free speech and to shut down opposition to its priorities. This is not a way to win back trust.

Just this past December the IRS Commissioner, known for his ability to turn around organizations, was confirmed as the new IRS Commissioner. This is John Koskinen. He promised to work towards restoring trust to the scandal-ridden agency. But he has yet to turn things around and is allowing this politically charged rule to move ahead.

So I come to the floor today, along with my friend from Kansas, Senator Roberts, and with the support of 37 additional Members of this body, to introduce legislation to stop the rule's implementation. I see Senator Hatch from Utah and Senator Cornyn of Texas who will also speak to this in a moment.

The Stop Targeting of Political Beliefs by the IRS Act will prevent this rule or any other that seeks to continue the targeting of groups based on their ideology. It is time to end the intimidation and harassment. Let's preserve the First Amendment rights of all groups regardless of their ideology, especially those that commit themselves to improve our society. Let's restore the public's faith in the ability of the IRS to fairly administer our Nation's laws. I hope the rest of the Senate will join us in this effort. I look forward to coming back to the floor later in the week to ask unanimous consent to pass this legislation outright.

I yield the floor.

I thank the Senator from Kansas.

I yield to the Senator from Utah, the ranking minority member on the Finance Committee.

I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Utah and his recitation of the chronology and how this happened.

These regulations are supposedly in response to the scandal that came up, although the President is not calling it a scandal. He says there is not any evidence there was any wrongdoing. But these plans were actually being developed a couple years ago--long before we knew the IRS was targeting conservative organizations. So the notion this is in response to what just occurred is wrong.

What is equally troubling--or more troubling--as the Senator from Utah noted, these plans were described, in an internal memo, as ``offplan,'' around the process--that were hidden. So that is what we are asking for in this legislation. Let's not do any rulemaking until the results of the investigations that are going on come back to us. That is a prudent thing to do, and I hope we will follow through.

I now yield to the minority whip, Senator Cornyn.

I thank the Senator from Texas and my other colleagues who have participated in this colloquy. I hope we can speedily bring the Stop Targeting of Political Beliefs by the IRS Act to the floor. When the Senator from Texas talks about his constituents and what they endured at the hands of the IRS, how anybody can say there is nothing amiss there or there is nothing wrong, especially when somebody is asked, upon application for a 501(c)(4), to give up their Facebook posts and tweets and let the IRS review them to see if they are worthy of receiving such status, there is something wrong. I think Americans know that.

I appreciate the support of my colleagues on this legislation and I appreciate the Senator from Kansas, my partner in this effort.

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

Mr. President, as the Senate turns its attention this week to the farm bill conference report, my thoughts turn to the Wild West to put its provisions in context. Frankly, its 950 pages lend themselves to talking about the good, the bad, and the just plain ugly.

I mention the good, because while this farm bill falls far short of gaining my support, it is not entirely without provisions worth highlighting. Conferees, including a one-term extension of the Payments in Lieu of Taxes, or the PILT Program. That gives temporary predictability at least for counties with low tax bases due to Federal land ownership and provides Congress with time to chart a long-term solution in this regard.

In addition, the bill authorizes permanently the stewardship contracting authority. This is a critical land management tool that allows us to proactively reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires. It is one I have long called for. While reforms to the liability requirements are also included, the report fails to include necessary flexibility on cancelation ceilings. That is something I will continue to work on in the future.

Sadly, when it comes to the bad, there is not enough time to list all of the items in the report that should make any lawmaker cringe who is concerned about our crushing national debt or those of us trying to reform agriculture policy.

Rather than truthfully trimming the already generous agriculture safety net, taxpayers should prepare for yet another round of entirely new alphabet soup subsidy programs. The Senator from Illinois explained very well the Crop Insurance Program that is so heavily subsidized, 62 percent.

I think all of us with auto insurance or other types of insurance would love to have that kind of contribution from the Federal Government. This report does not even provide commonsense reforms that limit waste and largess to sustained hallmarks of agriculture subsidies. The report also fails to limit agricultural payments to those who are actually involved in farming.

It cannot even provide a reasonable income limit, as was discussed by the Senator from Illinois, for those who already receive crop insurance subsidies. Incomprehensibly, any renegotiation of the arrangement between crop insurers and the Federal Government would be required to be revenue neutral, despite billions of dollars in taxpayer savings having been found in previous renegotiations.

This bill is purported to be fiscally conservative because it saves $16 billion or so in tax dollars. Before we pat each other on the back in this regard, we need to remember that Congress has a pretty dismal record of actually knowing how much farm bills are going to cost.

According to Taxpayers for Common Sense, ``The last two farms bills are on pace to exceed their Congressional Budget Office score by more than $400 billion, and there's no assurance that this farm bill will be any different.''

Let's get to the ugly. For years, direct payments have been one of the clearest signs of what needs to be changed in Federal spending. The Federal Government has been handing out roughly $5 billion a year to farmers regardless of whether they are farming the land. I want to pay tribute to the Senator from Michigan who has fought to end these direct payments.

The Senate did a pretty good job there, but the House did not. I myself have long sought to end these direct payments. I was encouraged with the Senate action to end these payments outright. But despite our fiscal situation, the best we could get in the House was allowing direct payments to continue, albeit slightly reduced for cotton, for 2014 and 2015.

This conference report purports to end direct payments but ends them in name only for cotton. Let's be clear. It simply renames direct payments for cotton for 2 years. They will now be called transition payments. Cotton growers will continue to receive payments until--wait for it--the other new subsidy programs created in this report come online.

Perhaps, instead of western movies, I should have conjured up images of Shakespeare to describe this fiscal tragedy: a government-funded handout by another name is still a government-funded handout. It is also worth recalling that when originally created in 1996, in the 1996 farm bill, direct payments went by the name AMTA payments or Agricultural Market Transition Assistance payments.

It would appear that for some commodities, there will always be a transition from something to something else that will result in a taxpayer-funded handout.

According to the CBO score, the report actually takes the zero cost from the Senate proposal and the $443 million cost from the House proposal and compromises at a higher cost of $556 million in 2015. That is some compromise, to go well above both the House and the Senate numbers.

While the 10-year score for the transition payments in the report is lower than the House proposal, the first-year costs are actually higher. It is at this point that one can simply stop being surprised at what will happen when it comes to farm subsidies. Sadly, rather than a blockbuster of fiscal sanity, taxpayers are going to be saddled with what looks to be another rerun of missed opportunities to reform Federal agricultural policy. Although livestock groups have decried the absence of fixes to ongoing regulatory problems, and fiscal conservatives are chafing at the continued waste in spending, this report is still likely to be adopted.

There are other issues addressed, and I am pleased that some of this will end up on the President's desk, but I cannot support this conference report. I will continue to push for real fiscal discipline and sound agricultural policy.

I should note I remember when I first came to Congress, or about 1 year after, I came to the floor of the House to rail against the farm bill at that time, the 2002 reauthorization. We had gone in the 1990s from the Freedom to Farm Act to the Farm Security Act. For those of us conservatives who talk about moving from freedom to security and all that means, that was actually in the title of the bill, and we haven't improved much since that time. That was more than a decade ago. I have to say we should have made progress that was simply not made in this bill.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate my colleagues on the recent introduction of legislation to promote trade promotion authority.

Increasing free trade levels the playing field for U.S. companies. We all know that. It increases competition. We know that too. It also increases access to foreign markets, with all the attendant benefits. U.S. businesses stand the best chance to see gains in accessing foreign markets through bilateral and regional free-trade agreements. Given the complexity of these agreements, the consultation process and the expedited consideration provided by TPA is really the only way to go.

According to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, the United States is ``the world's largest economy and the largest exporter and importer of goods and services.'' We exported more than $2.2 trillion in goods and services last year.

For those of us who represent border States, the issue hits very close to home. In recent years Mexico has become America's third largest trading partner and our second largest export market. According to the Arizona-Mexico Commission, Arizona's ports of entry serve as gateways for $26 billion in U.S.-Mexican trade annually. Arizona benefits from more than $13 billion in bilateral trade with Mexico every year.

Given the benefits of vibrant export markets and access to low-cost imports, it is difficult to overstate the importance of getting trade agreements in place. A U.S. Chamber official recently noted in Roll Call that nearly half of U.S. exports go to our free-trade agreement partners and that these countries make up just one-tenth of the world economy. Let me repeat that. Half of our exports go to those countries with which we have free-trade agreements. Yet those countries represent just one-tenth of the world's economy. That tells us the importance of getting these free-trade agreements in place.

In a recent opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, former U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick noted that ``on average, in the past five years of a new free-trade agreement, U.S. exports grew nearly three to four times as rapidly as U.S. exports to others.''

This is great news given that negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, are ongoing. Its successful approval would yield the largest free-trade agreement the United States has ever been a part of. Approval of the TPP agreement would provide increased access to critical Asia-Pacific markets for U.S. businesses at a critical time. It is difficult to see how this agreement will be concluded without TPA reauthorization.

Given that a 2010 study prepared by the Business Roundtable found that 38 million jobs--1 in 5 jobs in the United States--are supported by trade, the introduction of TPA renewal legislation couldn't be more timely.

Again, I congratulate my colleagues for the introduction of this legislation. I look forward to its consideration.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise to address the nomination and some other issues.

I want to say a few words about nominations. The Senate just confirmed President Obama's third nominee to the DC Circuit this year, and did so without the support of a single Senator from the minority party.

I have only been in the Senate for a year, but I understand the importance of minority rights and the moderating effect that the minority has on the nominations and on legislation as a whole. Requiring the support of at least some of the minority Senators encourages both the nomination and appointment of more mainstream nominees.

I think in the case of executive nominees, it ensures the heads of executive agencies are responsible to both the minority and majority parties. Minority input reinforces the separation of powers and safeguards the ability of Congress to conduct effective oversight.

Let me give a couple examples of where I think this is important and something we have lost once the nuclear option was employed with regard to executive appointments.

Earlier this year we had the appointment of a person to head the Environmental Protection Agency. It is an extremely important agency. It is important to Arizona--particularly since Arizona has a lot of Federal, State, and public lands--where actions of the Federal Government are perhaps amplified, and so that was an extremely important appointment. I ended up voting for Gina McCarthy. I think she is a good nominee.

I understand that the President won the election, and he has the power to appoint his people and his team. Unless there are extraordinary circumstances, he ought to have that right. I have voted for nearly all of his nominees.

In this case, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, while she was the nominee she knew she needed 60 votes. She knew she ought to see not just the Members of the majority party but those in the minority as well, and she made the rounds to my office as well as others.

We had a good meeting. For example, I explained the importance of the dust regulations that are promulgated by the EPA where Arizona has a problem. We have occasional dust storms that are not recognized as such, and sometimes we have to fill out paperwork that is costly and time consuming just to convince the Federal Government that an occasional dust storm does blow through. It has nothing to do with the air quality protections or provisions that have been put in place but just because of the conditions on the ground. The Environmental Protection Agency's guidance and regulations have not caught up to that.

She was understanding of that. She worked at the State level and agreed to talk to the stakeholders and interested parties in Arizona about this issue. She made good on that promise. We had that conference call a few weeks later, and it was the first time that many of these people in Arizona had been heard on the issue. They had a good meeting with the EPA, and I think it will lead to better regulations coming out of the EPA.

That was a product of the process we had here which requires nominees from the President to not just go to the majority party, but to go to the minority party as well. I fear that has been lost, and I think that is a shame. I wish we could go back to the system we had and the system the Senate has operated on for a long time.

When I gave my maiden speech on the floor a few months ago, I mentioned that the party holding the gavel is on a short leash. Bringing even the most noncontroversial resolutions to the Senate floor requires the agreement, or at least the acquiescence, of the minority party. I mentioned at that time that over the past decade both parties have chafed under these arrangements. Both parties have, at times, considered changing the rules that would in some measure make the Senate more like the House. I mentioned at that time, up to that time, that both parties had resisted that urge. They had been convinced by their own Members and others that it wasn't the way to go. Unfortunately, that is no longer the case, and I think this body, this institution will be the poorer for it. I hope we can return to the traditions of the Senate, one where consensus is the hallmark of this body. I hope we can get there.

Let me turn my attention to one of the issues that I think is a good example of what happens when one party moves legislation through this body too quickly, without consultations from the other party. It has to do with the Affordable Care Act. The Affordable Care Act passed with not a single Republican vote in the House or in the Senate. I think it is a good example of what can happen if legislation is rushed through without consultation or input from both parties.

Let me speak about some of the issues that have come up with the Affordable Care Act, better known as ObamaCare. The Wall Street Journal had an editorial the other day that talked about some of the issues that are going on with the enrollment data. It says:

Most of Washington seems to have bought the White House

claim that 36 federal exchanges are finally working. . . .

They go on to explain what working really means:

A charitable reading suggests that ObamaCare's net

enrollment stands at about negative four million. That's the

estimated four million to five and a half million people who

had their individual plans liquidated as ObamaCare-

noncompliant--

They are liquidated because they were noncompliant with ObamaCare--

offset by about 364,682 who have signed up for a plan on a

state or federal exchange and the 803,077 who have been found

to be eligible to receive Medicaid.

So if we take that and net it out, it means that net enrollment-- people who now are covered by insurance of some type--has gone down by about 4 million. I think when we consider things are picking up in terms of people signing up, they are still being dropped far faster from private insurance plans than they are being picked up.

It goes on, this editorial from the Wall Street Journal, saying:

HHS is boasting of enrollment for November that was four

times as high as October, yet 62 percent of the total was in

the state exchanges, some of which are marginally less prone

to crashing than the federal version. Then again, 41 states

posted sign-ups only in the three or four figures, including

eight states that run their own exchanges. Oregon managed to

scrape up 44 people. Among the 137,204 federal sign-ups, no

state is reaching the critical mass necessary for stable

insurance prices.

One problem they mention as well is that these figures are probably misleading. They say:

A larger problem is that none of these represent true

enrollments. HHS is reporting how many people ``selected'' a

plan on the exchange, not how many people have actually

enrolled in the plan with an insurance company by paying the

first month's premium, which is how the private insurance

industry defines enrollment. HHS has made up its own

standard.

I think when we find out that there is probably a pretty large dropoff between those who actually enroll and those who actually sign up, then they will realize these figures are misleading as well.

Let me turn to another related issue. Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute had a piece the other day where he said:

The good news, if you want to call it that, is that roughly

1.6 million Americans have been enrolled in ObamaCare so far.

The not-so-good news is that 1.46 million of them actually

signed up for Medicaid. If that trend continues, it could

bankrupt both federal and state governments.

He notes:

Medicaid is already America's third-largest government

program, trailing only Social Security and Medicare, as a

proportion of the federal budget. Almost 8 cents out of every

dollar that the federal government spends goes to Medicaid.

That's more than $265 billion per year.

As these Medicaid rolls expand, we know that is going to be a huge expense and probably a greater number of people signing up than anybody we thought would do. The Federal Government has committed to pick up 100 percent of the cost of new enrollees for a 3-year period, and then 90 percent thereafter. If the Federal Government makes good on that pledge, it may cost us a lot more than we figured, and it will increase the budget pressure on the Federal Government. If the Federal Government does what it often does and shifts those costs to the States, then the States are going to need to be prepared for a big increase as well.

Mr. Tanner mentions:

State governments pay another $160 billion for Medicaid

today. For most states, Medicaid is the single-largest cost

of government, crowding out education, transportation and

everything else.

New York spent more than $15 billion on Medicaid last year,

roughly 30 percent of all state expenditures. The Kaiser

Foundation projects that over the next 10 years, New York

taxpayers will shell out some $433 billion for the program.

There are going to be increasing pressures on State budgets as well.

So these are some of the things we haven't considered yet.

As we go into the new year, the next big shoe to drop will be in April or so when insurance companies actually see who is enrolling and who is not in the exchanges. I think everyone's fear is that there are too few healthy 28-year-olds signing up and more who are more high-cost enrollees and the numbers just will not add up and the insurance companies will be forced to jack up their rates, which will make insurance even less affordable than it is today and could increase the pressures we are talking about both on the Federal Government, on State governments, and, most importantly, on families across the country.

I found of interest today a story by CNN. CNN looked at four stories after the ObamaCare so-called fix. They concluded in their headline ``many are still left out.'' Let me discuss briefly a couple of these and it gives some idea of what families are facing. This is exactly what I am hearing at home from neighbors and family and friends and exactly what I am experiencing enrolling in the Federal exchange as well--these kinds of cost increases. It reads:

In the face of mounting criticism, President Barack Obama

announced last month that he would allow insurance companies

to renew so-called ``subpar'' plans for existing customers.

But nearly a month later, not everyone is seeing the benefit

of this policy change.

They note that they spoke to four people in the days and weeks following the President's announcement to see how they have been affected. The results were varied, and for some of them the future remains uncertain.

When we read through the stories it seems for everyone it is a pretty uncertain and more costly future.

The first person they talk to is a woman by the name of Catherine. She said it is a 280-percent increase in premiums for her family.

It was in September when Catherine received her letter. The

much-maligned HealthCare.gov Web site had yet to be launched

and approval ratings for the President's signature health

care law were on the upswing.

Catherine knew she would have to sign up for a new

insurance plan but didn't expect her options to be so costly.

She is a mom and a Navy veteran employed part-time as a

nurse. Her husband is a small business owner. Her employer

offers insurance plans but because she was not working full-

time, getting a policy to cover her family of three was

expensive. Unfortunately for her, a provision in the new

health care law states that since her company offers plans

that she could afford to cover herself but not her family,

she does not qualify for a subsidy from the Federal

Government, even though she is below the income threshold.

She is, therefore, subject to an unusual loophole that

requires her to pay the full premium of a new policy if she

wants to cover her family or leave her job to get the

subsidy.

So we are seeing a huge increase in premiums. She experienced a 280- percent increase in premiums. That mirrors what I have been hearing from others as well.

Greg and Linda live just down the street from me at home. I got an email from Greg, a friend of ours, the other day. He said that he and Linda, who are near 60 years old, had their insurance canceled because it was noncompliant with the new law. They went out and shopped on the exchange and found that the cheapest policy or the policy that most closely mirrored theirs--actually not as good as theirs but most closely mirrored theirs--was double their previous cost to more than $800 a month. That is what I am hearing again and again and again. When we read through these stories, we see it again and again.

Here is another one, again from the CNN story:

By most people's standards, Valentina Holroyd is in

excellent health. She works out six to seven days a week and

competes in triathlons with a group of equally high-energy

friends. She participates in 10 or 12 races a year. She is a

moderate Democrat who hoped that this new law would help

people with preexisting conditions such as her husband get

access to insurance and would allow people who could not

afford insurance to get plans within their reach.

It goes on to say that she had a plan, but then everything changed in October. She was notified by her insurer that her plan could not be renewed for 2014. The comparable plan offered was a 29-percent increase in premiums with higher copays as well as significantly higher prescription drug costs.

The people I talk to, virtually all of them, are saying not only is there an increase in premiums but there are higher copays, higher max out-of-pocket costs. It is just not as affordable as it was before.

I think the fear all of us have is that as we go into the new year and we see the numbers of those who are actually signing up or not signing up, it simply means that rates are going to go up again and again. Once the employer mandate kicks in and a lot of businesses then unload their employees into the exchange, we are simply going to see the same problem. Only those who can afford it or those who are more expensive to insure will be signing up, by and large, and too few healthy individuals to lower the cost for everyone in a high pool, so costs will simply go up again.

We can't have this go on for very much longer. This is called the Affordable Care Act, but I think most of us are finding it is anything but.

Let me just go to one more of these stories while I have time. This is a Connecticut psychologist by the name of Martin Klein, and he is someone who has had plenty of experiences dealing with insurance companies. He has been practicing in the State for 11 years, runs two offices.

Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield sent him a letter notifying him that his plan would no longer be offered for renewal when it expires in January. They said he needed to shop on the exchange. He goes on to explain that it is simply not as affordable as his old plan.

As we go along in this coming year, we have to find out how we can actually make good on the promise that was given to have health care that is actually accessible and affordable for those who can't access it now. We all know the current system doesn't work very well. It needs to be changed. But change in this matter simply means that more people are uninsured and unsure about the future as well.

I appreciate the opportunity to be here and speak about this tonight and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to take the floor today and join my colleagues in opening the mailbag. All of us have received a lot of mail and email and faxes and texts from individuals who are being harmed by this law.

For example, Steve from Peoria, AZ, is looking at the premium for his policy through his employer going up in response to ObamaCare nearly 20 percent. In addition, his employers have told him to brace for more impacts like rising prices--all customers are going to get this--and falling salaries for new hires as well.

Leanne from Eager, AZ, is facing what she calls ``sky high'' rates now thanks to ObamaCare. If this is not bad enough, it looks as if she and her husband will have to put off buying their parents out of their family business. It looks likely that Leanne's parents are going to have to keep working for a while.

Cristian from Flagstaff, a young husband and father who has a young boy, says he might see his premiums actually decrease marginally. However, thanks to ObamaCare and thanks to changes his employer is making in response to ObamaCare, he is looking at higher copays, higher deductibles, and a decrease in the level of coverage. He is looking at ``a large increase in my

responsible portion of my medical bills.''

ObamaCare is far from ideal for those in the workplace, those looking to retire, and for new families.

With story after story like these, we clearly see that the Affordable Care Act is a misnomer.

I yield the floor.