Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the outstanding work of Clay Larkin, who is retiring after serving for 13 years as Mayor of Post Falls, ID.

Mayor Larkin has dedicated immense time and covered considerable ground serving the people of Post Falls. He has devoted nearly 18 years to advancing the community, and Post Falls has thrived under his leadership. He served on the city council for 5 years before becoming mayor. As a strong and consistent advocate for the city, he helped bring considerable commerce to the area. His efforts also helped establish a foundation for further economic development and infrastructure improvements.

Additionally, under his leadership, community resources, including a library, city hall and police station, have been constructed, and he has worked to protect essential resources. Further, he has invested time and effort into emphasizing opportunities for youth, who are the future of our communities, State, and Nation. Mayor Larkin's work has understandably been recognized through numerous awards and honors. He is acknowledged for his devotion to making progress, his ability to adapt to changes, and his perseverance.

Post Falls and Idaho have been blessed to benefit from Clay's sound leadership. I thank Clay Larkin for his exceptional service, congratulate him on his retirement, and wish him all the best. I hope that retirement provides him more time with loved ones and the time for fishing he so greatly deserves.

Mr. President, I join my colleagues on the floor today because, like many of them, my constituents are upset. Idahoans are finding out that America's promise to the American people that ``if you liked your health care plan you could keep it'' simply was not true.

Over 100,000 Idahoans will find out that they cannot keep their current plans. Idahoans such as Jennifer from Salmon, ID, are finding this out the hard way. Jennifer is a working self-employed mother of three whose current health care costs her family $375 a month. Now Jennifer is being told that her current plan is no longer available under the President's health care law and that the next available plan to her family will cost $900 per month with a $10,000 deductible. That plan will require Jennifer to spend $20,000 a year between premiums and deductibles before she has benefit coverage.

This is Kelly, another hard-working mother who was promised affordable and successful health care coverage under ObamaCare.

Optimistic to enroll, Kelly and her husband looked to sign up, only to find the plans available to their family were unaffordable and thus inaccessible.

The health care law was sold on the premise that it would help families

such as Kelly's--those struggling to get by month-to-month in our stifled economy--to obtain affordable, quality health insurance. Instead, Kelly and her husband are now considering taking the penalty fine for being uninsured under the new law as it is a more feasible option for their family at this time.

There are many more just like Kelly and Jennifer in Idaho and across the country dealing with new hardships as a result of this law. The President needs to work with Congress to find reasonable solutions to amend the many broken promises made about this law.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Madam President, before I make my remarks, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Reed from Rhode Island be recognized immediately following my remarks.

Madam President, I rise today, also, to speak about a subject on the minds of all Americans and that is the rollout of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or ObamaCare.

Many of us have predicted the implementation of ObamaCare would result in difficulties for American families, businesses, and our still fragile economy.

We spoke about the tax hikes that would come, the rising premiums, the canceled policies, the benefit cuts to Medicare programs for seniors, and other problems in the flawed law. Still, the President insisted that he was right and that he knew best what Americans wanted.

Since then, countless opportunities have been provided for our colleagues to join us in defunding or at least delaying the implementation of this damaging law.

To further sow confusion, the administration has selectively changed the law to suit its political advantage.

And now that October 1 has come and gone, millions of Americans are becoming painfully aware of the reality of how ObamaCare will affect them.

The American people are seeing the effects of ObamaCare, not based on the rhetoric of politicians or the debate here in Congress, but by their own personal experiences in dealing with it.

The initial feedback is clear, and it is not pretty. The trillion dollars in new taxes that I led the fight against on the floor during the initial ObamaCare debate are now largely in effect.

And as I said, and many others warned, and the Joint Tax Committee has actually confirmed, a significant portion of those tax increases are hitting squarely on the middle-income families the President solemnly pledged to protect. He said that people in America who make less than $250,000 per couple or $200,000 per individual would not see one dime of tax increases as a result of the act.

Yet now we are seeing that the burden of this huge tax increase is falling squarely on those in what the President has defined as the middle class. The American people are also now experiencing for themselves the reality we have long warned against--that the President has also broken his promise that his health care plan would lower premiums by $2,500 on average for Americans.

In fact, the Washington Post fact checker gave that President's pledge a three Pinocchios score for not being true. Yet another promise proven to be false is the President's pledge to the American people that if you like your doctor and you like your current health care plan, you can keep it.

Again, the Washington Post reviewed this pledge. But this time it gave the President four Pinocchios saying, ``The President's promise apparently came with a very large caveat: If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan--if we deem it to be adequate.''

I recently received a letter from Nancy from Eagle, ID, about the loss of her husband's employer-provided coverage. The cancellation notification reads that ``due to the Affordable Health Care Act and unprecedented increases in healthcare costs, effective January 1, 2014 traditional comprehensive medical insurance will no longer be available.'' Instead, his employer will offer two preventive health care plans and refer them to the exchange to purchase his insurance.

After browsing the exchange Web site, Nancy and her husband have realized they will either be forced to pay $500 more a month on health insurance premiums or pay a lower premium rate which would result in limited access to providers and hospitals.

Simply put, this is wrong. But I fear that there will be many more like Nancy with similar experiences. This week I was contacted by Matt from Meridian, ID, about his wife who receives coverage through her employer. They will see their premiums rise and a considerably higher deductible due to the increased cost to her employer because of ObamaCare.

Just 1 month after the ObamaCare exchange rollout, at least 3.5 million Americans have received insurance cancellation notices. This number is expected to dramatically increase in coming months. Over 100,000 of those people live in Idaho, according to the Associated Press. According to media reports, the administration knew Americans would not be able to keep their current coverage, even though the President continued to push the message that people could.

After breaking this promise, the President is now telling millions of Americans who have had their insurance cancelled that they should shop around for policies that frankly could be more costly and require them to change their doctors.

Many of my colleagues in the Senate, as a response to this, are cosponsoring a measure known as the If You Like Your Health Plan, You Can Keep It Act. This act is one the Senate should immediately take up and pass.

Idahoans are now learning that the flawed health care law will force them to change their plans and in many cases pay higher premiums. While this law was sold on the promise of providing health care coverage for the uninsured, it is creating new uninsured Americans who will be forced to enter the troubled Federal health care exchanges.

At the same time, the administration refuses calls for transparency and hides information about enrollment numbers. It is hard for me to believe that in the year 2013, when we have iPhones, tablets, Twitter and Google, the administration has no idea or ability to release enrollment numbers.

According to documents released recently from the House oversight committee, six people signed up for ObamaCare on day one. We understand that more are signing up now, but it could be that the administration has such low numbers of enrollments for their signature achievement that they do not want to present the accurate facts.

Many of us in this body are concerned also about the security risks posed by ObamaCare. Several weeks ago, Republican members of the Senate Finance Committee wrote to Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, asking whether all Federal privacy and security standards were met prior to the launch of healthcare.gov, the Web site to sign up for ObamaCare.

We have asked Secretary Sebelius to provide answers and information to a series of questions detailing what levels of security and privacy measures were undertaken prior to the launch of the Web site to safeguard the privacy of those Americans signing up for coverage through healthcare.gov. This is a serious concern that must be addressed.

Additionally, because of the law, some businesses are cutting back on employees and on hours, making it harder for Americans to find full- time jobs. Those who do hold on to their full-time jobs could lose their employer-sponsored private insurance and are instead being dumped into the exchange or into the failing Medicaid system.

These are just some of the unfortunate realities we are facing with the implementation of ObamaCare. As these stories continue to pour in, I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, along with the President, to carefully listen to the American people, to American businesses and this feedback and work together to defund and repeal every element that proves not to work.

We must replace those failed policies with true reforms that are in the best interests of the American people and in the best interests of the American economy. From day one, the administration has continued to make excuses for why healthCare.gov is not functioning properly, even though they have had years to prepare and perform testing.

The American people see now that this law is more than just a Web site problem; it is a train wreck. This system was not ready and the law looks impossible to fix. Simply put, the promises of this law are nothing like its realities.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, today I wish to honor the life and legacy of an outstanding conservationist, sportsman, and dear friend.

Paul Ralstin's interest in the outdoors and wildlife conservation began at a young age, when he was an active Boy Scout and Eagle Scout. He grew that appreciation into a strong devotion to advancing conservation efforts as an active Ducks Unlimited volunteer, hunter, and fisherman. A graduate of Capital High School, Paul grew up and lived in Boise. In addition to serving in multiple leadership roles in Ducks Unlimited, Inc., Ducks Unlimited Canada, and Ducks Unlimited de Mexico, Paul was successful in the construction industry as owner of the family construction business, Gem State Builders. Paul also helped develop opportunities for others through serving as a mentor.

Throughout his life, Paul led with a heartfelt exuberance. His wit, friendliness, sense of adventure, and fun-loving spirit will be forever remembered. I have greatly valued his friendship and insight and extend my deep condolences to his wife Jeanne, children, and many friends and family. Paul's exemplary commitment to improving our natural resources and wildlife habitat will not be forgotten. His enthusiasm and dedication will live on in the many lives he touched throughout his life.

Mr. President, my colleague Senator Risch joins me today in honoring the life of former Idaho Secretary of State Pete Cenarrusa. The State of Idaho lost a dear friend with the passing of Pete Cenarrusa.

Pete had a unique capacity to lead people and institutions with good will, great humor and wise counsel. Pete was a personal friend and adviser to both of us, and we will forever remember the example he set for all public servants.

Throughout his distinguished career, Pete was widely respected for his integrity, fairness, determination and dependability. He dedicated more than 50 years to public service, serving nearly 36 years as Idaho's Secretary of State and nine terms in the Idaho House of Representatives, three of which he served as Speaker of the House. In addition to his public service, Pete ran a successful sheep operation with his wife of 66 years, Freda. He was also a private pilot for 59 years and was a high school teacher in Cambridge, Carey and Glenns Ferry, ID. Additionally, he served as a U.S. Marine Corps officer, aviator and instructor, which included his service as a pilot in World War II. Further, Pete was a strong advocate for the Basque community. Pete and Freda founded the Cenarrusa Foundation for Basque Culture that has provided resources for the promotion of the Basque culture.

Like the many people who greatly respected him, Pete's list of qualities and experiences is remarkably long. Pete lived life to the fullest. He developed skills in a variety of fields and utilized his talents and principles for the betterment of Idaho. We are truly blessed to have known Pete and to have learned from his example of committed service, honesty and resolve. Pete's long and dedicated service to the people of Idaho will last forever. He was a beloved public servant, rancher, pilot, veteran, teacher, son, brother, husband, father, uncle, grandfather, great-grandfather and friend. Our thoughts and prayers are with Freda, their family and all of Pete's friends.

Madam President, I rise today to discuss the multiple issues that have now presented themselves to us in the Senate and to the U.S. Congress and, frankly, the American people.

I have been in several hearings this morning. The first was with Secretary of the Treasury Jack Lew, where the Finance Committee discussed with him the pending expiration of our debt ceiling and what his understanding is of how that will impact the country. He raised a lot of serious concerns--very legitimate serious concerns--that others are raising.

We then followed that up with a hearing in the Banking Committee where we had representatives from a number of the various industries in the United States also discussing what is going to happen in the United States if the country does not increase the debt ceiling. And there are serious consequences that will happen if we do not do this.

But what I tried to do in both of those hearings--and I will refer to my conversation with Secretary Lew--was to focus us back on the broader, bigger threat. Secretary Lew basically said that we have a manufactured crisis in the United States because of our unwillingness at this point to face the debt ceiling and simply extend the debt ceiling without any kinds of conditions or negotiations.

I reminded him that the crisis we face--the big crisis we face--is the debt crisis, and it is very real. I guess in a sense it has been manufactured over the last 20 or 30 years by Congresses and Presidents who have refused to control spending and have put us into tremendous debt.

Our debt ceiling we are negotiating about right now--or I think wishing we could negotiate about right now--is $16.7 trillion. It has grown by trillions of dollars over the last 5 or 6 years.

What the President has asked us to do is to once again increase the debt ceiling by another $1 trillion or more with no reforms, no fiscal changes in our policies to deal with the mounting spending crisis we face. The President's position is: You give me this $1 trillion or more of new debt authority, and I will then talk to you about reforming our fiscal policy. The problem is we have been trying to negotiate over fiscal policy now and trying to get reforms put into place for years and we have not been able to get there.

When I asked Secretary Lew about this, he basically said: We have made progress on our overall debt crisis in the past few years, and I think we can continue to work on those kinds of steps if you will simply pass this clean debt ceiling extension and do so in a way that involves no negotiations from the President in any way.

I reminded him that a major part of the progress we have made in the last couple of years was made when we met the debt ceiling 2 years ago in 2011. It was the Budget Control Act that put into statute over $2 trillion of reductions in our spending path. That was attached to the debt ceiling as we moved forward. It was literally the debt ceiling negotiation that generated the only significant spending controls this Congress, this country, has seen for years and years. Yet the President refuses to take another step now that we have met the debt ceiling again and negotiate for further reforms.

By the way, there is another reason we have made some progress in the past few years. That is that we have implemented massive new taxes on the American people. The ObamaCare legislation itself contains nearly $1 trillion of new taxes, and although they were delayed for a few years, they are now beginning to fully hit the American people. Last January, the President was able to win his argument and succeed in getting the top income tax brackets raised, an impact on our Tax Code that I think was harmful rather than helpful and clearly was damaging to the creation of jobs and to businesses across the United States. But, nevertheless, another $500 billion to $600 billion of tax revenue was put into the mix there.

So what have we done? We have made a plan to control discretionary spending over the next 10 years and reduce it by about $2 trillion. If we stick to that, we will get $2 trillion worth of spending reductions. We have raised taxes by at least $1.6 trillion over the next 10 years, all of which, I believe, has been harmful to our economy, but has generated revenue to try to help reduce the debt cycle. But we have not addressed the two critical parts of reform that we must address in this country if we are ever going to get control of our spending excesses and stop the out-of-control spiral toward insolvency that we see; that is, reforming our entitlement system and reforming our broken Tax Code.

What have we seen there? Virtually minimal, if any at all, reforms of entitlements. They seem to be off the table. Yet they are the part of our spending problem that is the biggest and the most out of control. On tax reform, we have seen no reform of the Tax Code. We have a Tax Code that is the most unfair, the most complicated, the most expensive to comply with, and the most anticompetitive code we probably could have created if we did it on purpose. Yet we have no reforms of the code. Instead what we have done is add to the code another $1.6 trillion of new taxes on the American people.

What we are asking is whether we can move forward in trying to deal with our fiscal problems in this country by negotiating over entitlement reform and tax reform. I frankly believe we ought to be at the negotiating table talking about that. But what we have been told is: No, as soon as you raise the debt ceiling by--the amount we are hearing is somewhere in the neighborhood of $1 trillion--as soon as you raise the debt ceiling, then we can talk further about other negotiations, then we can get engaged in trying to deal with our debt crisis.

I pointed out, as I said to Secretary Lew, that the last major progress we made on spending reform happened in negotiations relating to our debt ceiling. Why cannot we negotiate now and

make significant fiscal reform in addition to dealing with our debt ceiling? It is that debt crisis that is the biggest problem.

I was on the Bowles-Simpson Commission, the President's own commission, that he put together some years back, 2 or 3 years now. We spent a full year studying the impacts on our economy of America's fiscal excess and what we needed to do. The Bowles-Simpson Commission came up with a plan. It was a proposal. We concluded that--this was 2 or 3 years back--we needed to reduce our spending path, our debt path in the United States by at least $4 trillion. We concluded we had to deal with that by reforming our entitlement system and we had to deal with it by controlling discretionary spending. We agreed to having some of that tax revenue the President was demanding. We also agreed that in the overall mix we would have about a 3-to-1 ratio of spending cuts to revenue.

The President did not accept that recommendation. Many of us tried for months and months and months afterward to get that recommendation to the floor for a vote. But it has not made it to the floor for a vote.

My point is, negotiations have been under way for years and years. Significant plans have been developed that would help us move forward. We know what to do. We need to have the will to do it. So far, the only reforms we have been able to get in the last few years as a result of the debt crisis that we face have come when we have met these pressure points dealing with our debt ceiling.

We are not asking to shut down the government for the purpose of simply making a point. We are trying to get to negotiations. We want to see the government reopened. We are not seeking to have the debt ceiling expire. We want to have negotiations to be able to put together the kinds of fiscal reforms that should always accompany extensions of the debt ceiling.

I believe the reason Congress put a statutory debt ceiling in place in the first place was because it wanted to give America a gut check every so often about the spending problems we have. We have put almost half of the entire spending system of the government on auto pilot. We do not even have the opportunity to vote on it here in Congress.

Ultimately, we have to deal with the debt ceiling. Ultimately, we have to deal with the funding to keep our government operational. Let's not just move forward and accomplish those objectives, leaving in place the unrestrained fiscal crisis we are dealing with in this country. Let's use this opportunity to put together the kinds of fiscal reforms that should accompany decisions to allow our country to increase its debt.

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

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

Mr. President, earlier today the Senate held a first of a series of cloture votes on controversial nominations by voting to invoke cloture on the nominee to be the Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. This agency is unlike any other Federal agency. Under its current structure, the CFPB has very broad discretion but very little in terms of executive or congressional oversight.

It is not a debate about whether Republicans in the Senate support consumer protection, as some would portray it. Both sides agree everyone benefits from a mortgage industry and marketplace free of fraud and other deceptive, exploitive practices.

Republicans did not object to consumer protection when it was placed in each of the prudential banking regulators. In fact, bills aimed specifically at consumer protection passed with an overwhelming majority in the Senate. The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 passed 95 to 2, and the Credit CARD Act of 2009 passed 90 to 5.

During the Dodd-Frank debate, the key point of contention was not the value of consumer protection but, rather, the Bureau's design.

One of the lessons of the financial crisis is that we need a supervisory program that looks and considers how safety, soundness, and consumer protection work together to create a better functioning financial system. What Republicans have been asking for is that the Bureau be restructured in the same way as other similarly situated financial regulators, with accountability and transparency to Congress and to the taxpayers.

As outlined in two letters to the President sent by Republican Senators in May 2011 and this past February, the changes highlighted are not new. In fact, they exist in the current Federal regulatory landscape. One of the key changes we seek is the establishment of a board of directors to oversee the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau with staggered terms.

This is the structure of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the

Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Federal Reserve.

A board of directors would allow for the consideration of multiple viewpoints in decisionmaking and would reduce the potential for politicization of regulations.

Indeed, the administration originally supported a board of directors for the Bureau. In 2009, the Obama administration proposed a stand- alone Consumer Financial Protection Agency with a board of directors funded through the congressional appropriations process. The Bureau also should be subject to the congressional appropriations process, rather than, as the Dodd-Frank legislation did, to fund it through the Federal Reserve with no review by Congress.

While Mr. Cordray stated that he would come and testify before the Appropriations Committee, this is quite different than Congress being able to oversee how the monies that the agency utilizes are spent. For example, the CFPB intends to spend close to $100 million to renovate its current headquarters. This amount is double the amount that the Government Services Administration has for property acquisition and renovation in any 1 year.

Finally, consumer protection cannot and must not be detached from prudential regulation. Although the Bureau must consult with other prudential regulators before finalizing its rulemaking, the Bureau can simply disregard their advice.

By establishing a solid safety and soundness check for prudential regulation, the link and coordination between prudential supervision and protection would be strengthened by allowing potential regulators to provide meaningful input into the CFPB's actions and proposals. Such collaboration will only strengthen our financial system, not weaken consumer protection.

Without it, the CFPB and prudential regulators may issue rules that result in confusion for the regulated entities, as has already been the case with conflicting guidance for private student loans, and the many questions raised by the qualified mortgage final rule.

The Dodd-Frank solution was to have the Financial Stability Oversight Council review certain CFPB actions, but it set the threshold at two- thirds of the FSOC members. This very high threshold before the FSOC can act renders its veto virtually meaningless.

Since the beginning of this year, I have encountered a number of items with the CFPB that are a cause of concern and warrant greater scrutiny, but it is the Federal agency's data collection initiative that is the most disturbing to me. Recently, we learned from press accounts--not from the agency but from press accounts--that the CFPB was spending tens of millions of dollars to collect Americans' credit data. We have learned from the recent IRS, Associated Press, and NSA scandals what happens when government agencies cross the line and watch our citizens instead of watching out for them. There is a trust deficit in government today.

During the last several months, I have raised significant concerns with the CFPB's data collection efforts. I have been told that the Bureau needs big data to level the playing field. However, the Bureau's efforts go far beyond simply leveling the playing field. Unfortunately, for an agency that prides itself on transparency, I have encountered very little concrete answers to very basic questions.

For example, I have asked the Bureau on three occasions to give me information on the number of Americans' credit accounts that the CFPB is currently monitoring. In response, the CFPB said the information was confidential and could not be supplied.

Information coming from last week's hearing in the House Financial Services Committee indicates that the CFPB is undertaking unprecedented data collection on possibly hundreds of millions of Americans' accounts, possibly as many as 900 million credit card accounts in the United States. The size of this data collection and the amount of money being spent by the agency are a cause of concern and should be for those Americans whose financial and credit data is being sent to the Bureau each and every single month.

The CFPB is collecting credit card account data, bank account data, mortgage data, and student loan data. In addition, the Bureau has hired third parties to act as its agent to collect, aggregate, and produce consumer credit data on behalf of the agency. Some contracts even contain instructions to follow specific consumer accounts over time.

This ultimately allows the CFPB to monitor, on a monthly basis, an individual consumer's financial activity. Some of the data collected and provided to the CFPB monthly includes account balances, ZIP Code+4 location data, the year of birth, and other demographic information. Thus, the CFPB can know how much you owe, how much money you have, how much you pay each month, and where you live within a few blocks.

The Bureau has stated publicly on several occasions that it does not collect personally identifiable information other than the voluntary personally identifiable information consumers submit to the Consumer Complaint Database and in supervisory exams. However, two documents drafted by the CFPB seem to raise doubts about this Federal agency's actions.

Pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974, the CFPB's System of Records Notice of November 2012 for the consumer and market research database states that some of the collected data ``will be personally identifiable information.'' In addition, a CFPB contract with a third party data aggregator states:

Most, if not all, of the data will be confidential

supervisory information, and some of the data will contain

sensitive Personal Identifiable Information (PII).

Questions still remain about what type of personal information is collected by the CFPB and what is collected by the agency's contractors. But without the structural changes to the agency that we are asking for, it is hard to get answers to the question.

At the hearing in the House last week, a CFPB official was unable to state how many agency employees have access to this enormous amount of credit data. He was also unaware of any law which is used when employees access the data.

I also question whether the Bureau has put in proper policies and procedures to prevent the data from being reengineered and reverse engineered. I consider these to be very serious privacy concerns by the very agency that was created to watch out for consumers, not to watch consumers.

Banks constantly worry about cyber attacks. Recent news reports have run stories about the Federal Reserve and the IRS being susceptible to cyber attacks.

What assurances do we have from the CFPB that these massive troves of consumer credit information are safe? Data safety is particularly of concern, given that both the GAO and the CFPB's inspector general have found weaknesses in the CFPB data security programs and policies.

Because I was unable to get sufficient answers out of the CFPB, I turned to the Government Accountability Office and requested that it look into the agency's data collection and security efforts. That review is now underway.

With regard to the regulatory role of the agency, in the past 2 years the Bureau has issued numerous new rulemakings, resulting in significant cumulative burdens for affected institutions, especially small and community banks that often only have a handful of employees. Remember, there is no board directing this agency. There is no board to whom the Director of the agency responds. One single individual has been given the authority in this statute, without oversight by Congress of his or her budget, to single-handedly issue rules and regulations.

In the span of 10 days this past January, the CFPB issued more than 3,500 pages of final rules affecting mortgage markets and other industries. This represents more than 1 million total words of regulatory text. When I asked at an April hearing about the overwhelming number of regulations the Bureau issued in 1 single month, I was told that there were ``less than 100 pages of rules'' when translated into the Federal Register.

Well, 100 pages of rules is a lot, but this ignores the more than 2,500 pages of guidance, analysis, and interpretations--which are all admissible in court--and all of which are required reading for anyone who has to comply with this complex web of rules.

In order to understand and comply with these regulations, institutions are forced to hire lawyers and compliance officers, tying up resources that could be better spent on growing business, creating jobs, and boosting the economy. Again, recall that the connection between safety and soundness regulations was severed with the creation of this agency.

Instead, these additional compliance costs are inevitably passed on to the consumers, which is especially harmful during a time of high unemployment and sluggish economic growth. If we were convinced that the agency was at least protecting consumers rather than collecting data on all individual Americans who have credit cards, student loans, mortgages, or bank accounts, then perhaps we could at least engage in a discussion or a debate about whether the agency's actions are appropriate and effective.

I am concerned that without the strong cost-benefit analysis and input from the small business panels in crafting rules, even well- intentioned rules could make consumer credit more expensive and less affordable.

Another concern I have with the CFPB is the enactment of policy changes outside of the established notice-and-comment rulemaking process.

In March, the CFPB posted a legal bulletin on its blog instructing auto lenders to adjust compensation practices to avoid violating fair lending laws. The bulletin includes significant legal interpretations and suggests that the Bureau may utilize its enforcement powers to ensure that lenders adhere to its guidance.

The only example the CFPB uses in this bulletin on how auto lenders can effectively comply with fair lending laws is flat pricing, as is interpreted by many, that any other type of pricing will be a clear violation in the CFPB's eyes. If the CFPB intends to make major policy changes, then it needs to go through a regular notice-and-comment rulemaking, not a blog post.

This bulletin also, frankly, represents a backdoor attempt by the CFPB to regulate auto dealers, a group that is explicitly exempted from the CFPB's regulatory purview by the Dodd-Frank legislation that created the agency, in what appears to be yet another example of CFPB's overreach.

In conclusion, I will continue to work toward oversight of the agency to ensure accountability and transparency for the American people. Those who are trying to paint our demands as being extraordinary need to look at the extraordinary data collection and actions of this agency and look at our regulatory landscape with similarly situated financial regulators.

Those who are trying to portray these demands as another attempt to water down consumer protection need to realize that consumer protection divested from safety and soundness does not make for a better financial system or for greater benefit to consumers.

We found in our review of the CFPB that the agency does have serious problems in a number of different areas. The lack of prompt and complete responses from the agency regarding its big data collection of Americans' credit accounts is very troubling but is indicative of the lack of transparency established when this agency was created.

The expenditure of nearly $100 million for building renovations is extremely troubling in these tight economic times.

While the confirmation of the nominee is now all but certain, there remains significant work and oversight to ensure the CFPB is an accountable agency and that it is transparent in its actions for all Americans to see.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today to recognize the outstanding work of Alan Cameron, who is retiring from serving as president and chief executive officer of the Idaho Credit Union League.

Alan has skillfully led the Idaho Credit Union League since 2000. Prior to serving as president and CEO for the Idaho Credit Union League and its wholly owned subsidiary League Services, Inc., he devoted more than 20 years to serving as the league's retained legal counsel and lobbyist. Before joining the Idaho Credit Union League, he graduated from the University of Idaho's College of Law, served as deputy prosecuting attorney with the Ada County Prosecuting Attorney's Office, and had a private practice.

Alan has given considerable time as an indispensable part of the community and represented the interests of Idahoans at the State and national levels. This includes his service on committees and task forces for the Credit Union National Association and his service as a member of the Federal Reserve Board's Consumer Advisory Council. He also served as treasurer of the Hispanic Financial Education Coalition, treasurer of the Consumer Information Council, and as a board member for the Consumer Credit Counseling Service of Idaho. We are fortunate to count Alan as a fellow Idahoan.

Throughout his career, Alan has been a widely respected and thoughtful leader. I have greatly valued his input and advocacy on behalf of Idaho's credit unions as we have worked together over the years. I especially appreciated the considerable amount of input and hard work that Alan invested into helping me craft and move my regulatory relief legislation. The Idaho Credit Union's release about his retirement included a fitting recognition of Alan's exemplary work:

The League's Board and staff have thrived under Cameron's

leadership. His passion for credit unions and their members

have been a beacon during a time of increasing regulatory

burden and financial upheaval. He is a trusted friend and

voice of reason to state government, business owners,

regulators and credit union leaders.

Thank you, Alan, for your remarkable service to Idaho and our Nation. I hope that your retirement will provide you with well-earned time to travel with your wife Janet and many good times with your family and friends. Congratulations on your retirement. I thank you for your hard work and wish you a very happy retirement.

Mr. President, my colleague Senator Jim Risch joins me today in recognizing the significant accomplishments of Sylvia Medina, who is retiring as president & chief executive officer of North Wind, Inc.

Sylvia is influential locally, regionally, nationally and internationally. She founded North Wind, headquartered in Idaho Falls, which provides engineering, construction and environmental services to Federal and State agencies and private industry. Through her hard work and innovation, she grew North Wind into a leading business employing more than 300 scientific, engineering, construction and professional personnel in 21 offices throughout the country. In 2009, Sylvia sold North Wind to Cook Inlet Regional, Inc., CIRI, but remained on as president and chief executive officer.

Sylvia steps in to address community needs, and she has a strong commitment to community service. She has supported youth and education programs, the arts and environmental conservation efforts. She was also instrumental in raising money for the construction of an animal shelter and dog park. In addition, Sylvia has served in leadership roles for several local and national organizations that include the Idaho State University Foundation, Holy Rosary School, Women Impacting Public Policy, Green Kids Inc., Grow Idaho Falls, Idaho Falls Symphony, the Snake River Animal Shelter, LLC and the Institute for Economic Empowerment of Women.

Sylvia's strong leadership and dedication have been recognized through awards and her selection to assist with important initiatives. For example, she was appointed by Governor Butch Otter to the Leadership in Nuclear Energy Commission. Among her numerous honors, the U.S. Small Business Administration recognized Sylvia as a Small Business Person of the Year in 2008. In 2009, she received the Latina Women Entrepreneur of the Year Award from the Anna Maria Aras Memorial Business Fund and a Torch Award from the Better Business Bureau.

Sylvia leads by example and demonstrates a constant commitment to integrity and bettering the community. It has been great to work with Sylvia. Sylvia, your expertise and insight on small business issues have been valuable and greatly appreciated, and we look forward to continuing to work with you on future joint efforts. We hope that your retirement from North Wind provides you deserved time with your family, including your husband and three children, and your many friends. Thank you, Sylvia, for your hard work and exemplary service.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the achievements of Laurel Sayer, who is retiring from congressional service.

For the past 14 years, Laurel has served as the Natural Resources and Idaho National Laboratory policy adviser for my fellow Idaho congressional delegation colleague, Representative Mike Simpson. Throughout her career, Laurel has served as a trusted advisor and resource to many. She has worked hard to develop partnerships and advocate for the interests of Idahoans.

Prior to working for Representative Simpson, Laurel served as an integral member of my staff for 6 years when I served in the U.S. House of Representatives. Among her responsibilities, she enhanced outreach efforts and provided valuable input on natural resources issues. Laurel joined my House staff with a wealth of community experience, which quickly translated into a great base for advocating for Idahoans in eastern Idaho. The years that she spent doing volunteer efforts in the community paid off for Idahoans as she transitioned into one of the most effective congressional staffers in the State.

She has been very involved throughout eastern Idaho and developed valuable relationships with local, State, regional, and Federal Government agencies and numerous organizations and individuals. For example, she has served in leadership roles for the Yellowstone Business Partnership, the Idaho Commission on the Arts, the Idaho Falls Arts Council, the Idaho Community Foundation, and the Education Foundation. Laurel has contributed significantly to the arts in Idaho, including promoting related projects, arts councils, and arts groups.

Laurel has served the community, State, and Nation with distinction, and I thank her for her hard work on behalf of Idahoans. I have enjoyed my years of friendship with Laurel and appreciated her kind demeanor, hard work, and tremendous will. Laurel, you have much to be proud of for your many years of dedication and committed service. I congratulate you on your retirement, wish you all the best, and thank you for all you have done for Idahoans.

Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to the life and legacy of an outstanding leader and friend, Shoshone-Paiute Tribal Chairman Terry Gibson. He left a lasting mark in his far too few years of life.

Terry carried an absolute commitment to better the lives of the people he led and those of future generations. He had a deep understanding of the strengths and challenges of the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes, and he focused on making progress. Prior to serving as chairman, he served on the tribal council and worked as health director, compliance officer and natural resource director for the tribes. His experience and knowledge contributed to his exemplary leadership.

He was dedicated to encouraging tribal youth to achieve educational and career success, and he worked to address unemployment, domestic violence and poverty. Terry furthered the mission of protecting and preserving the Shoshone-Paiute tribal culture and natural resources while also assisting and encouraging the economic development of the tribes. He was mindful of ensuring future generations would also have the opportunity to benefit from our resources.

We worked together on projects to benefit tribal members, and he was always a trusted partner and strong leader with the courage and foresight to tackle the many issues facing the tribes. He is recognized as a dedicated leader who thoughtfully carried out his duties in advancing the objectives of the tribal membership. Terry was a sensible, strong and reliable voice.

The unexpected passing of Chairman Gibson brings great sadness to the tribes, the Owyhee area, Idaho and me. My prayers are with his wife, Debbie, his children, his family, the people he led, and the many lives he reached. I join his family members and many friends in mourning his loss. I am thankful I had the opportunity to know Terry and work with him. While Terry will be sorely missed, his legacy will endure. His steady and dedicated leadership will not be forgotten.

Mr. President, although it has been a couple of years now since we passed the health care law, it is becoming evident to all Americans that there were in fact many new taxes--almost $1 trillion of new taxes--in the health care law. And despite the President's firm pledge at that time not to raise taxes by even one dime on middle- income Americans, I at that time asked the Joint Tax Committee to evaluate the law and tell us if there were such taxes in the law.

The letter I received back from the Joint Tax Committee indicated there were at least seven taxes in the health care law that did squarely hit the middle class--and not just in a small way. It is at least a quarter trillion dollars of new taxes that the middle class will pay if we don't fix it. In fact, it is 73 million American families that will ultimately pay this new tax in the ObamaCare legislation if we don't reform it.

This is an amendment I brought during the consideration of the health care law. It was defeated then by a claim that there were no taxes in the bill. We now know there are taxes in the bill, and this is our chance, now that these taxes are beginning to be implemented, to remove them from the law.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 318.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to dispense with further reading of the amendment.

Mr. President, in the budget that has been put forward, there is a reconciliation instruction for almost $1 trillion of new taxes. On the spending side there is, I think, a relatively modest amount--not adequate--but there is an amount of health care savings in the amount of $275 billion. Interestingly, that is not in a reconciliation instruction. We do not have the protection and assistance of a reconciliation instruction for the economy reforms that are in the budget but we do for the tax increases that are in the budget which results in this interesting circumstance. The tax increases by this budget would be guaranteed to occur because the filibuster would be avoided through reconciliation, and the reforms of the entitlement system would be guaranteed not to occur because they would face a 60-vote margin, having been kept out of the reconciliation instructions.

What this amendment does is it would put the health care savings in the budget into a reconciliation instruction so we can at least start down the path of dealing with reforms of our entitlement system.

Mr. President, I too want to stand to congratulate the House for their passage of the Violence Against Women Act. I thank the Senator from New Hampshire for her kind remarks.

I am honored to have worked on this bill with Senator Leahy and my other colleagues in the Senate. Senator Leahy and I have worked together for years on issues of domestic violence and stalking, and this is one of the key endeavors we needed to get across the finish line. Now we see that we will, and we will send this important legislation to the President.

I would also like to commend the advocates across the Nation and specifically the Idaho Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence who have worked tirelessly on this issue.

As a longtime champion of the prevention of domestic violence, I am glad to see there are areas in Congress where we can come together to support these important causes.

This act provides critical services to victims of violent crime as well as agencies and organizations that provide important aid to those individuals. For nearly two decades, the Violence Against Women Act has been the centerpiece of our Nation's commitment to ending domestic violence, dating violence, and sexual violence. This legislation provides access to legal and social services for survivors. It provides training to law enforcement, prosecutors, judges, attorneys, and advocates to address these crimes in our Nation's communities. It provides intervention for those who have witnessed abuse and are more likely to be involved in this type of violence. It provides shelter and resources for victims who have nowhere else to turn.

There is significant evidence that these programs are working not just in Idaho but nationwide. The U.S. Department of Justice reported that the number of women killed by an intimate partner decreased by 35 percent between 1993 and 2008. In 2012 it was reported that in 1 day alone, 688 women and their children impacted by violence sought safety in an emergency shelter or received counseling, legal advocacy, and children's support.

These important provisions are making a difference in the lives of people across this Nation. I again wish to commend all of my colleagues who supported this legislation and helped to move this critical piece of legislation to the President's desk.

Thank you, Senator Reid.

I rise today to thank Chaplain Ronald L. Derrick for joining us today to offer the Senate's opening prayer. I am honored to have the privilege of welcoming this esteemed Idahoan to the U.S. Senate to serve as our guest chaplain.

Chaplain Derrick, who is joining us from Rigby, ID, has many years of service to our community and our Nation. He served our Nation in the U.S. Army from 1966 to 1968. He retired from his Bonneville County, ID, job after 23 years as a printer and mail clerk and he is also a former county coroner, Driggs Chamber of Commerce president, and volunteer EMT firefighter. In 1987, the American Legion recognized Chaplain Derrick as Idaho's firefighter of the year.

Chaplain Derrick was ordained into the ministry in 1979 through the Solid Rock Pentecostal Church, and he continues to serve in various aspects of ministry. Reflecting his long spiritual contributions to the community, he was given the high honor of serving as National Chaplain of the American Legion for the 2012-2013 term. Through this position, he performs and oversees services and provides prayers and guidance for the Legion's 2.4 million members. As a 40-year member of the American Legion, he has a strong connection with his fellow veterans, servicemembers, and the communities he serves. In addition to serving as National Chaplain, he has served at a number of other leadership positions in the American Legion. Truly, his devotion to those in his community and his Nation has touched the lives of many in civic and spiritual ways.

Chaplain Derrick has been married for 45 years to his wife Bird, who serves as the Department of Idaho Auxiliary Chaplain. They have three children: Tim, Andrew, and Dana Sue, and nine grandchildren.

Chaplain Derrick, thank you for your dedication and service and the blessing you are bringing to the Senate today.

This Congress and our Nation have considerable challenges ahead. These challenges require fortitude and understanding. I join you in praying for our country, and greatly value your prayer today and your service.

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