Floor Statements

Earlier this year I came to the floor to pose a simple question about President Obama's final years in office: Did he want to be remembered as a hero to the left or as a champion for the middle class? That is the question. I asked the question this way because for the past several years the left has basically had its run of this White House. During that period the politically connected and the already powerful have clearly prospered. But what about the middle class? They feel as though they have been shut out altogether as household income has plummeted and families who were struggling to pay the bills have gotten left behind by a President and a party who claimed to act in their name.

So I wanted to know: Did the President plan to continue down the same ideological road he has taken us on or would he change course and embrace effective proposals that would make a real difference in the lives of middle-class Americans? Would he reach across the aisle to jump-start job creation and make the economy work for the middle class again?

Well, over the last few months we appear to have gotten our answer. Once more, the real concerns of ordinary Americans have been pushed aside in favor of the preoccupation of the political left. Yet again we have seen the truth of the old saying that a liberal never lets the facts get in the way of a good theory. Once again we have seen how liberal policies end up hurting the very people they claim to help.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in the debate over the minimum wage. As a recent CBO report made clear, the President's bill basically amounts to a terrible real-world tradeoff, helping one group of low- income Americans by undercutting another group of low-income Americans. How is that fair? Americans are crying out for jobs. Job creation is the top issue in our country. Our unemployment and underemployment rates have remained abysmally high more than half a decade after this President took office. What is the White House's solution? A bill that might sound good in theory but could cost as many as 1 million jobs, according to CBO.

The Congressional Budget Office released another report, this one on ObamaCare. There is a similar story: 2.5 million fewer Americans in jobs thanks to ObamaCare; huge disincentives to work thanks to ObamaCare. That is what CBO says.

Of course, Washington Democrats--the same folks who promised you could keep your health plan if you liked it--told Americans not to believe their own eyes, that ObamaCare would simply liberate them from jobs. ObamaCare would simply liberate them from jobs. It is just unbelievable, especially when we consider that the law's medical device tax alone is projected to kill as many as 33,000 jobs and that 60 percent of business owners and HR professionals recently surveyed said ObamaCare will negatively impact jobs. As a member of that group recently put it, ``Small businesses have an incentive to stay small'' under ObamaCare. That is because ObamaCare can punish businesses that choose to hire more workers.

In my home State of Kentucky, the tension between the priorities of the left and the needs of real people is on full display. That is because the Obama administration has trained its sights on some of our most vulnerable citizens. One administration adviser actually used the words ``war on coal'' to essentially describe what the administration is doing or, in his view, probably should be doing to hard-working miners who just want to put food on the table.

Those were his words, not mine. Here is why: Because according to liberal elites in Washington, these folks are standing in the way of their theories. A practical approach that actually takes the concerns and anxieties of those people into account would promote clean energy even as it acknowledged the real-world benefits of traditional sources of energy.

My point is this: The administration has broken faith with the middle class, and it has stirred up strong emotions, especially among those who actually want to see a better life for those struggling to make it in our States. Almost everyone feels let down. A lot of folks are very angry.

It is a real tragedy, not only because of the missed opportunities and the human cost of these policies but also because when the President ran for office, he promised a very different approach.

It is tragic because the very folks he has talked about helping are the ones who seem to suffer the most under his Presidency.

It is tragic because it appears as if he has answered the question I posed in January: that he is prepared to double down on the left and throw in the towel on the middle class. How else can you explain the obsession with all of these peripheral ideological issues at a time when Americans are demanding good, stable, high-paying jobs and a new direction, at a time when folks' wages are stagnant but their costs always seem to be rising, at a time when younger Americans seem to be resigned to a harder life than their parents had? How else can you explain why the President has refused to sign off on projects such as Keystone Pipeline that would create thousands of jobs or why he refuses to push his own party to join Republicans and support trade legislation that could create even more jobs?

This cannot be the legacy the President really wants to leave, but it is the legacy he will be ensuring for himself if he does not change. There is still time to alter the course. There is still time for the President to acknowledge that there is no reconciling the demands of his base and the concerns of the middle class. It is one or the other.

The real solution here is liberating the private sector. The real solution is to implement policies that will increase wages for everyone instead of pursuing policies that essentially seek to distribute slices of a smaller pie to some. Of course, making a turn toward authentic job creation might make the left mad, but it is the only way to get the gears of our economy working again and college graduates off their parents' couches and onto a path of earned success.

Maybe the President will show some change of heart in Minnesota today. Maybe he will recognize, for instance, that killing thousands of high-tech jobs in the medical device industry is not worth the pain it is causing. Who knows? Who knows? I sure hope so because if you have entered the sixth year of trying to fix an economy and you are still talking about emergency unemployment benefits, it is time to recognize that your policies have not worked for the middle class. It is time for a fresh start.

Before I go, I would like to highlight one more dividing line between the dreams of the left and the well-being of our constituents. It is a topic I spoke about yesterday; that is, Medicare Advantage.

As I asked then: Why would the administration want to raid a program that is working, such as Medicare Advantage, to fund a program that does not work, such as ObamaCare? Why would Senate Democrats vote time and time again to do that? They must have known that taking $300 billion from Medicare Advantage to fund ObamaCare would have real-world impacts on seniors, such as losing choices and coverage and doctors they now enjoy. It is not fair. It is not right. Several of my colleagues will be coming to the floor to speak more about this issue this morning.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize an innovative educator from my home State of Kentucky--Mr. William King--who, earlier this month, was awarded the prestigious Milken Education Award.

If you were to ask William King about his occupation, he may not respond that he is a ``teacher'' or ``educator.'' Instead, he is more inclined to give himself the label of ``educational entrepreneur.'' That's because in his 12 years in education, Mr. King has been relentless in his search to find new and better ways to educate our Nation's schoolchildren.

In his current capacity as freshman principal at Bowling Green High School--his alma mater--William is charged with shepherding his students through the all-important transition from middle to high school. King has spearheaded initiatives such as TeachMeet Kentucky and TeachMeet Nashville--which are informal meetings where teachers gather to share ideas and best practices--and No Office Day, where school administrators spend an entire day with students in the classroom. It is his Jump Start program, however, that has earned him one of, if not the most, prestigious awards in education--the Milken Education Award.

William created Jump Start to help better prepare students to excel in their first year of high school. Now, I face a lot of challenges here in the Senate, but few are more trying than those faced by a teenager who is about to enter high school. Mr. King not only recognized just how daunting this transition can be for students, but he also had the ability and the selfless inclination to do something about it.

With his innovative program, King works with students and parents and also coordinates between eighth- and ninth-grade teachers to ensure that his kids are prepared for the academic challenges they are about to face.

The Milken Education Award is a prestigious one; it is not given out just for good intentions. Wining an ``Oscar of Teaching,'' as it's known by teachers across the country, requires results--and William King unquestionably delivers results. Since implementing Jump Start, ninth-grade retentions have dropped by 68 percent. For this, he was recognized with the Milken Education Award, as well as $25,000 to spend as he chooses, at a surprise assembly at Bowling Green High School.

Lowell Milken, chairman and co-founder of the Milken Family Foundation, once said, ``A sound education provides the opportunity to realize one's potential.'' William King has shown that he is wholeheartedly dedicated to this proposition, and that he is deserving of praise from this body. I ask that my Senate colleges join me in recognizing this exemplary Kentucky citizen.

The Park City Daily News recently published an article highlighting William's work and his award. I ask unanimous consent that the full article be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, late last week the Obama administration proposed yet another round of drastic cuts to a popular Medicare program used by millions--millions--of American seniors. Not surprisingly, they did it quietly, in the hopes that these latest cuts to Medicare Advantage would somehow get lost in what folks around here call the ``Friday news dump.'' But the American people are not easily fooled.

The far left has always hated Medicare Advantage. It is a program that offends them ideologically because it offers more market-based choices to seniors than traditional Medicare. But the left's prodding is not the only reason the Obama administration has already cut this successful program so deeply, and why now it plans to cut it even deeper.

The hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of cuts that Washington Democrats want to impose on Medicare Advantage--cuts that will cause millions of seniors to lose access to doctors and face higher premiums--are basically all to fund ObamaCare.

Some folks might describe this as ``robbing Peter to pay Paul.'' But I have a better analogy: It is like ripping parts off a Cadillac to patch up a Pinto. America's seniors actually understand this.

Our constituents like--they like--the choices Medicare Advantage offers. And they do not like ObamaCare. That is why seniors from all across Kentucky have written to protest this misguided policy.

Jack and Alda Rice from Fairdale wrote that Medicare Advantage has been there for them when they needed it, and that it is ``tough for seniors to have to find new doctors, especially for those who live in rural areas. It means traveling greater distances and spending more on gas.''

``It is a sad thing,'' they wrote, ``when good doctors leave a plan because of funding cuts.''

Ronald and Linda Baynum from Edgewood wrote that they ``[found] it appalling'' that money that was put away for senior citizens is now being used for things like ObamaCare. ``It seems like most politicians are only working for themselves instead of the people,'' they wrote.

Well, look, they have every right to be frustrated. I mean, why on Earth would we want to ruin one program that is helping people in order to fund another that is causing them so much pain? The question answers itself.

That is why I, along with Senators Cornyn, Thune, Barrasso, Moran, and Blunt sent a letter to the administration today--to express our deep concerns with these proposed cuts to Medicare Advantage and other proposals that would increase premiums, reduce choices, and cause America's seniors to lose access to the health plans they were promised they could keep. Our letter asks the administration to act within the bounds of the law to limit the negative impact these misguided policies would have on seniors.

It is notable that even some of our friends on the other side of the aisle seem to understand the pain all of this is causing. That is why 19--19--Senate Democrats recently signed a bipartisan letter with 21 Republicans that called on the administration to mitigate the impact of these cuts to Medicare Advantage. We appreciate Democratic support on any issue. It is good when they acknowledge the senselessness of cutting one successful program to fund a failed one, of cuts that will make it even harder for America's seniors to keep the benefits, plans, and doctors of their choice. But, frankly, it is hard to believe they are really being serious on this one. That is because nearly every one of these Senators voted for ObamaCare, the very law that imposed the same cuts they are now railing against. Nearly every single one of them voted later to keep these cuts in place.

Senator Hatch proposed an amendment that would have reversed ObamaCare's cuts to Medicare Advantage. It only failed because nearly every Democratic Senator voted against it. So Washington Democrats had their chance for a mulligan. They took a pass. They actually cannot have it both ways. Signing on to some letter will not absolve them of responsibility now. It will not erase the fact that even when they were given a second chance to help American's seniors, many voted a second time to take a whack at Medicare.

Let's not forget that these folks and their allies are basically the same ones--the very same ones--who promised up and down that Americans could keep their health care plans that they had and they liked, under ObamaCare--a promise that was voted the ``Lie of the Year'' in 2013. So Americans are not about to be taken in on the latest ObamaCare spin.

Let's be honest. The only realistic solution is to undo the damage altogether by starting over with real reform. That means replacing

ObamaCare and its more than $700 billion in Medicare cuts--cuts imposed solely to fund ObamaCare--and replacing that with bipartisan reforms that can actually help struggling middle-class Americans.

I urge the Democrats to follow the lead of one prominent Senate Democrat who said just the other day he would vote tomorrow--vote tomorrow--to repeal ObamaCare. If he is serious about what he said, that means he is finally listening to the American people instead of the party bosses in Washington. If more of his colleagues on the other side of the aisle would only do the same, we could finally move forward with real patient-centered health reform; we could finally do away with the practice of raiding Medicare to fund ObamaCare; we could finally be done with the hurt this law is imposing on men and women all across our country--college graduates, moms, dads, small business women, constituents who struggle every day just to get by, and, of course, millions, literally millions of seniors. Republicans are on their side. We agree with them that ObamaCare is a law that just does not work, and we agree with them that now is not the time to impose higher costs and reduce choices for senior citizens, as the partisan ObamaCare law proposes.

I know the authors of this law may have had good intentions, but now is the time for them to admit past mistakes and to work with Republicans in a bipartisan fashion to remedy these errors before even more people get hurt by ObamaCare.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I spent the morning over at the Supreme Court. I was there to support the plaintiffs in a very important case against overreach by the Environmental Protection Agency. And here is why I say this case is important--not only for Kentucky but for the entire country.

First of all, it involves the all-important question of whether elections actually still matter in our country. I say that because 4 years ago President Obama tried to push far-reaching energy-regulating legislation through a Congress which was at the time completely dominated by his own party. He had a 40-seat majority in the House and he had 60 votes in the Senate. The cap-and-trade bill passed the House but did not pass the Senate. Even with then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi and a Democratic majority leader in the Senate, he just couldn't get the votes to enact the cap-and-trade bill. A Democrat-controlled Congress beat back the President's plan to radically upend energy regulation in our country. They stopped the national energy tax.

Just a few months later the American people rendered a harsh verdict on the Obama agenda in an election wipeout which the President himself referred to as a ``shellacking.'' Others have described the November 2010 midterm elections as a national restraining order.

My point is that this should have been the end of the story on the President's energy regulation plan. Instead, it was just the beginning.

The President's base wasn't about to back off from divisive policies just because they couldn't achieve them legislatively. So the far-left fringe pressured the White House to push similar regulations through the back door, to achieve through Presidential fiat what they could not achieve through legislation. That, of course, is what the Obama administration has done. The administration has attempted to use

statutes such as the Clean Air Act to regulate what those laws were never intended to regulate and don't even mention.

The administration itself effectively acknowledges that if it actually followed the plain language of the Clean Air Act in regulating carbon emissions, that would lead to ``absurd results.'' The administration itself said that if they actually followed the plain language of the Clean Air Act in regulating carbon emissions, it would lead to ``absurd results.''

So here is what the Obama administration decided to do about the absurdity: just unilaterally rewrite parts of the law it didn't like, on its own, without the input of Congress--the branch of government that is supposed to write our laws. This kind of Presidential overreach should concern every Member of this body, regardless of party. From a constitutional perspective, this is a wholly troubling practice which needs to be rectified by the High Court.

But this case is about more than just constitutional theory; it is also about people's lives. Regardless of their constitutionality, the energy regulations imposed by this administration are simply bad policy. Coupled with cheaper natural gas, the administration's regulations have helped foster hardship in many of America's coal communities--hardship which has ruined lives and has hurt some of the most vulnerable people in our country.

In Kentucky these regulations have helped devastate families who haven't done anything wrong--other than to be on the wrong side of a certain set of liberals who don't seem to approve of the hard work they do to support their families.

When President Obama took office, there were more than 18,000 coal jobs in Kentucky. At last count that figure has dropped to less than 12,000--with eastern Kentucky coal employment dropping by 23.4 percent this last year alone.

Let's be clear. These regulations are unfair, and they represent the conquest of liberal elites imposing their political will on working- class Kentuckians who just want to feed their families. That is why I have filed an amicus brief in the case I was referring to. It is on behalf of the Kentuckians who are voiceless in this debate, the families that find themselves on the losing end of a ``war'' that has been declared on them by their own government.

I held a listening session on these EPA regulations with coal miners in December, and many of their stories were heartbreaking. Listen to what Howard Abshire of Fedscreek had to say:

I say to you, Mister President of the United States . . .

We're hurting. You say you're the president of the people?

Well, we're people too. No one loves the mountains . . . more

than we do. We live here. We crawl between them. We get up

every morning and we go on top of a mountain in a strip job

in the cold rain, snow, to put bread on the table . . . Come

and look at our little children, look at our people, Mr.

President. You're not hurting for a job; you've got one. I

don't have one.

I hope the President is listening.

As far as the Supreme Court is concerned, it now has the opportunity to end this latest abuse of the Constitution by the Obama administration. I hope the justices will make the right decision in this case. Either way, I am going to keep fighting. I have already filed a proposal that would allow Congress to have a say in the administration's job-killing regulations.

It is time for Washington elites to think about ways to help, instead of hurt, the hard-working people of eastern and western Kentucky.

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

I ask unanimous consent to proceed on my leader time.

Yesterday President Obama was asked about the administration's latest ObamaCare delay. Instead of finally explaining to the American people why he believes certain employers would get ObamaCare exemptions while the middle class should not, he just doubled down again on the same old talking points. It is truly disappointing.

I wish he would finally agree to work with Republicans on a way to replace ObamaCare with bipartisan reforms that could help the middle class and those who are hurting the most because this much is now perfectly clear: ObamaCare is not working the way the administration promised. It is hurting the middle class, it is eliminating incentives to work in the middle of a jobs crisis, and it will lower overall compensation--things such as salaries, wages, and benefits for the American people--with those who earn the least potentially the most negatively impacted of all.

ObamaCare is a law that is not fair, and this is essentially true for many of those it purports to help. For all the disruption and pain, it is a law that will still leave 31 million Americans uninsured at the end of the day. That is why it is not surprising when we hear that nearly 90 percent--9 out of 10--of the new enrollees in ObamaCare exchange plans are actually folks who were already insured, many of them simply shifting from plans they liked to more expensive plans the government thinks they should have. This leads so many Americans to ask: What was the point? What was the point of ObamaCare?

For months the folks in my State have watched the administration hand out exemption after exemption to its friends and waiver after waiver to the politically connected. They are left to think, how is that fair? More than one-quarter of a million Kentuckians received notice last year that their health insurance plans would be canceled because of ObamaCare. Kentuckians lost plans they liked and wanted to keep. Many realized that they wouldn't be able to afford new coverage or that new plans wouldn't cover the doctors and hospitals they have come to know and trust or that massively increased premiums and deductibles would radically alter the ways they lived and worked.

So while I am sure the folks who conceived the law meant well, this much seems perfectly clear by now: Trying to run folks' lives from hundreds of miles away is not the way to help. It is often the way to make things worse.

Kentuckians are capable of making the decisions that worked best for them, for their own medical needs and financial situations. I am sure there is some think-tank report that might disagree. I know there is no end to well-

paid Washington bureaucrats with ``better ideas,'' but people do not want Washington's enlightened judgment ruling over their lies.

ObamaCare is what you get when you put decisions that belong in the hands of the middle class in the hands of the government class. You get 2,700 pages of law that lead to 20,000 pages of rules and regulations. You get a Web site that doesn't work as a symbol of a law that won't work. You get a maze of bureaucracies and government contractors with indecipherable acronyms--CMS, CCIIO, CGI, QSSI--that seem to exist to obscure accountability when things go wrong. You get decisions that are based upon the needs of a political calendar rather than what it will take to get the job done.

Worst of all, we hear stories from Kentuckians such as this one from a woman who was about to lose her plan and was shopping on the exchange. She said:

I can't afford the options that have been made available to

me. I make too much money to qualify for any ``help'' from

the ACA but I don't make enough to afford paying double what

my premium is now. To get a plan that is ``comparable'' to

what I have now, I will have to pay about $12,000 a year

in premiums alone.

You hear stories like the one Rebecca Stuart recently shared with President Obama himself. She told the President that she had to change health insurance plans even though she liked her old plan--and that she was having ``a panicked experience'' trying to get consistent answers about whether her 10-year-old son would continue being able to see his specialist under ObamaCare.

This isn't right. I know the President can't be unmoved by these stories, so I am calling on President Obama to move to the center. I am saying it is time to start over on health care--to replace ObamaCare with real bipartisan reforms that can actually help the people who need it, because a plan such as ObamaCare that costs this much, that hurts this many Americans, and that still fails to achieve its principal goal at the end of the day just won't work.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the two parties have engaged in a lot of big debates over the past several years, and no one, obviously, should be surprised by that. The President came into office vowing to fundamentally transform the country, and a lot of us have had big problems with the policies he has tried to implement in pursuit of that goal. But there are some things we should all agree on, and one of them is this: No President--no President of either party--should use the power of the Federal Government to punish his ideological opponents. That is why, when the targeting of conservative groups by the IRS came to light after the last Presidential election, just about everybody denounced the Nixonian tactics up and down and loudly declared that it should never be allowed to happen again. They knew that this kind of targeting represented a direct attack on our most fundamental freedoms--on our abilities to organize and educate and engage in the democratic process. And while the abuse may have been aimed at conservatives this time, it is easy to see how it could one day be used against organizations of any ideological hue.

So America's culture of civic engagement simply has to be defended-- by all of us. Yet, with the passage of time, that is not what we have seen. Instead of putting safeguards in place to protect our civil liberties, the Obama administration is now dragging the IRS back in the opposite direction. It is now pushing a regulation that would actually entrench and encourage the harassment of groups who dare to speak up and engage in the conversation. It is trying to intimidate into silence those who send donations to civic groups too.

Predictably, the Obama administration has tried to spin these regulations as some sort of ``good government'' measure, as reforms initiated in response to the IRS scandal, but, of course, we know that is simply not true. In recent days we learned that these regulations-- regulations designed to suppress free speech--have been in the works for years.

So let's be clear. All of this is simply unacceptable. After denouncing the abuse last year, I believe it is shortsighted of our friends on the other side not to oppose these rules forcefully today. The path this administration is embarking on is a dangerous one with the slipperiest of slopes. Left-leaning civic groups should be just as alarmed about what these regulations could mean for them in the future as what the rules almost certainly will mean for conservative groups today. That is why some, such as the ACLU, have begun to speak out against these regulations.

Last week I joined several of my colleagues in sending a letter to the new Commissioner for the IRS that laid out these concerns. We reminded Commissioner Koskinen that he was confirmed with a mandate to reform the IRS and return the agency to its actual mission--processing tax returns, not suppressing speech. We expect him to fulfill that mandate--to prove his reformist credentials--by halting the regulations immediately and to enact new rules that would stop similar harassment from occurring in the future. This is something the Commissioner can and must do now. He needs to realize this isn't some issue to move past but a serious threat to be confronted.

Commissioner Koskinen could go down in history as a hero, as did the IRS Commissioner who stood up to Nixon and said no to harassment of political opponents. I want to believe that this is the choice he will make, that he wants to be remembered as a strong and independent public servant rather than some political pawn. But we can't be sure what he will do, and the American people need a backup plan in case he decides his fealty lies with the opponents of free speech rather than with them.

That is why today I, along with Senators Flake, Roberts, Hatch, and others, have introduced legislation that would prevent the IRS from enacting regulations that would permit the suppression of First Amendment rights. It aims to return the agency to its mission and get it out of the speech police business altogether--a goal that should be a bipartisan one.

This is something worth fighting for. It is something I hope Commissioner Koskinen will work with us to achieve. But if he does not--if he does not--he should know we are prepared to go to the mat to defend the First Amendment rights of our constituents and our neighbors--and that we will continue to do so until those rights are safe once again.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today with a heavy heart to report some sad news to my colleagues. John James McGinty III--raised in my hometown of Louisville, KY--succumbed to bone cancer on Friday, January 17, after 73 years of life. Although his wife Elaine passed in 1991, he is survived by his sons Michael and John IV. Mr. McGinty was a veteran of the U.S. Marine Corps who received the Medal of Honor for his exemplary record of valor in the Vietnam War. Our country owes him, as we do all of our veterans, an unimaginable debt of gratitude for his service.

John J. McGinty III was born to John and Eve McGinty on January 21, 1940, in Boston, MA. The family soon moved to Louisville, where John completed grammar school and began high school. The call to serve his country, however, rang more loudly and clearly than the school bell. After a year and a half, he dropped out and enlisted in the Marine Corps Reserves in February 1957.

John enlisted in the regular Marine Corps the following year. He served as a drill instructor and a brig officer until 1966, when he volunteered for duty in Vietnam. In June of that year he took part in Operation Hastings, during which his service to his country would extend above and beyond the typical call of duty. Three days into the operation, McGinty's company, reduced to a strength of 100 men, was ordered to withdraw. On July 18, Sergeant McGinty's platoon was providing rear security for the withdrawal when they were attacked by what was estimated to be 1,000 North Vietnamese soldiers.

Amidst the chaos of the attack, two squads from his platoon were cut off and nearly surrounded. Sergeant McGinty rushed through the jungle under a hail of gunfire to find his men in dire straits--20 were wounded and their medical corpsman had been killed. Showing little regard for his own shrapnel wounds to his leg, back, and left eye, Sergeant McGinty reloaded the wounded men's weapons and, according to his Medal of Honor citation, ``directed their fire upon the enemy.'' When the attackers inched closer and closer to his men, Sergeant McGinty drew his .45-caliber pistol and killed five enemy soldiers at point-blank range. Then, with enemies at all sides and still taking heavy gunfire, he accurately called in naval airstrikes to within 50 yards of his position.

His actions that day were consistent with the highest traditions of the United States Marine Corps, and at a White House ceremony on March 12, 1968, President Lyndon Johnson bestowed upon then-Second Lieutenant McGinty the Medal of Honor.

Although he retired from the Marine Corps as a captain in 1976, Mr. McGinty continued to work to better the lives of America's service men and women. He worked for the Department of Veterans Affairs in various capacities, and along with fellow veterans, made several trips to Iraq and Afghanistan to visit with American troops. He would, however, stop wearing his Medal of Honor after becoming a born-again Christian in the early 1980s. His son Michael McGinty explains, ``He didn't have a problem with the honor.'' Rather, it was the medal's depiction of the Roman goddess Minerva that ran contrary to his deeply held belief that the reason he was still alive is the one true God.

Captain McGinty was modest about his own heroic actions. His son Michael has said, ``My father used to say that he did what any Marine sergeant would have done in that situation.'' There can be no doubt, with his record of valor, however, that CAPT John James McGinty III is indeed a hero, and America has lost a hero with his passing. John's service to his country, both as a U.S. Marine and as a private citizen, is deserving of the highest praise and respect of this body. Thus, I ask my U.S. Senate colleagues to join me in honoring and mourning this fallen soldier with roots in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. All Kentuckians, and all Americans, should be honored that he fought to protect us, and grateful for his service and sacrifice.

Mr. President, just last year, IRS officials and an inspector general report confirmed what we have been hearing from constituents for quite a while: The IRS was being used to target Americans for daring to exercise their first amendment rights, for daring to think differently, for daring to hold opinions contrary to high-ranking government officials. They confirmed that civic groups the administration opposed, including at least one in my home State of Kentucky, were harassed and bullied by the IRS. They confirmed that individuals who supported these groups were intimidated and attacked, and they confirmed something else too--that this happened in the runup to a national election.

So Americans were rightly outraged--outraged--when the worst fears of citizen organizations came to light. The American people rightly expected the Obama administration to take concrete steps to end this harassment once and for all--to put safeguards in place that would ensure the same kind of abuse never, ever happens again.

But that is not what happened. No, in fact, basically, the opposite of that happened. The Obama administration now seems to be trying to legitimize the harassment after the fact, to enact regulations that would essentially allow the IRS to bully and intimidate Americans who exercise their right of free speech. It is something they were originally planning actually to slip by while the harassment was actually still going on.

But here is the thing. The administration knew it could never get anything like that through Congress the democratic way, so it is trying to quietly impose these new regulations through the back door--through the back door--by executive fiat. Administration officials insist the rules change is just a minor bureaucratic adjustment. Nothing to it, they say. They claim it is just a ``good government'' idea from the IRS--a response to the inspector general report that brought these terrible abuses to light.

Of course, we know that is not true. We know the administration had been working on this proposed rule for at least 2 years--2 years-- before the inspector general report came out, and from the looks of things there is nothing ``good government'' about this at all. As with so much of what we have seen with the Obama administration, it is almost purely political--transparently political.

Under the administration's proposed regulations, many citizen groups could be prohibited--prohibited--from participating in some of the most basic civic engagement activities--things such as voter registration, issue advocacy, and educating citizens about candidates before an election. This is just plain wrong. Grassroots groups shouldn't be persecuted for doing what Americans expect them to do. They shouldn't be forced to shut up or shut down or for engaging in the very kinds of educational activities that the 501(c)(4) designation was designed to support.

The idea is to shut up and shut down the voices that oppose the administration's priorities, and it comes on the heels of a long- running pet project of this administration to expose conservative donors to harassment in order to try to dry up their funding.

Americans who care about the First Amendment need to stand up to this regulation before the administration has a chance to finalize it. The American people need to stand up to this regulation before the administration has a chance to finalize it. And they actually are. More than 20,000 citizens have already submitted comments on this proposed rule at regulations.gov. Nearly all the ones I saw were opposed.

In the House, Representative Dave Camp has introduced legislation that would prevent the IRS from implementing any such regulation, and next week, I, along with Senator Flake, Senator Roberts, and others, will introduce companion legislation that would do the same in the Senate.

But I hope it doesn't have to come to that. There is a much easier fix available. There is a way out of this dilemma. The new commissioner of the IRS, John Koskinen, can put a stop to the rule right now if he chooses. He can stop this right now if he chooses. If he means what he said when the Senate confirmed him--the comments we heard about restoring integrity to the IRS--then he will do just that. The Speaker and I, along with top Senate and House leadership and the leadership of the relevant authorizing and appropriating committees, have just sent a letter to Mr. Koskinen on this topic, and we look forward to his response.

Back in the 1970s, Richard Nixon famously tried to influence the IRS into helping him punish his political opponents. The IRS has been in this spot before. Back then, the IRS commissioner stood up to President Nixon and said, essentially: No, that is not what this agency is supposed to do. So the history is that when a previous IRS commissioner had a President of the United States try to use him to target his political enemies, the Commissioner of the IRS stood up to the President and said no. He said no to the President. The President cannot use the IRS to target the President's political enemies. That act of courage and independence became the defining act of an already distinguished career, and it was something for which the American taxpayer should be forever grateful.

So, today, Commissioner Koskinen has a similar choice. He can either be remembered as the man who reformed this IRS at a time when Americans were deeply distrustful of it or he can be remembered as the man who allowed himself to be used by the administration for its own political ends. That is the choice.

The bottom line is this. Americans need to be able to trust the IRS again, and that means getting our Nation's tax agency back into the mission it was designed to perform such as processing tax returns, not regulating free speech. The Obama administration's proposed rule has almost nothing to do with actual tax policy. It is more about making harassment of its political opponents the official policy of the IRS. That is completely unacceptable. Remember, this is an agency that has access to some of America's most sensitive personal information: the power to audit, to penalize, to harass--power that is pretty wide- ranging.

So it is not surprising that groups all across the political spectrum, from the ACLU to the Chamber of Commerce, have expressed concerns about this rule.

Let's be clear. Let's be perfectly clear. Commissioner Koskinen knows the IRS has no business regulating free speech. He knows that. The eyes of America are on the IRS commissioner. They are counting on him to do the right thing.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to an accomplished educator from the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Dr. Frank Cheatham is the senior vice president for academic affairs and professor of math and computer science at Campbellsville University. His impending retirement in December will conclude a career of over 40 years devoted to Christian higher education. Campbellsville University is an acclaimed university in central Kentucky with more than 3,600 students that prepares them as Christian servant leaders for life-long learning, continued scholarship, and active participation in a diverse, global society.

No more than 20 miles of country road separates Frank's birthplace of Merrimac, KY, from the campus on which he has spent the majority of his life as both a student and a professor. Dr. Cheatham was born on February 3, 1943, to Gladys and the late Jeff Cheatham. Of his eight siblings, four went on to become teachers, including his brother, Don, who also teaches at Campbellsville.

Dr. Cheatham wields an impressive arsenal of post-secondary degrees. After completing his undergraduate studies at Campbellsville in 1965, he continued to earn a master of science from Tennessee Technological University, his Ph.D. in mathematics from the University of Kentucky, and a second master of science in computer science education from the University of Evansville.

Dr. Cheatham began his career teaching math and biology at Taylor County High School in 1965. He then served as a teaching assistant at Tennessee Tech and the University of Kentucky and as an assistant professor at Campbell College in North Carolina before landing at Campbellsville University in August of 1973. Ever since then, save for a single year of leave during which he taught at Western Kentucky University, Dr. Cheatham has taught math and computer science at Campbellsville. In 1999, he was offered and accepted the position of senior vice president for academic affairs. The university's president, Dr. Michael V. Carter, recalls that it was ``the very first decision I made after becoming president.''

Dr. Cheatham's excellence as an educator needs no validation aside from the many successes and accomplishments of his students. Nevertheless, he has been honored for his service at Campbellsville University time and

time again. He has twice been named Campbellsville/Taylor County Chamber of Commerce Educator of the Year, in 1992 and 2000. He was awarded the Sears-Roebuck Foundation Teaching Excellence and Campus Leadership Award in 1989 and the Campbellsville University Student Government Association Challenger Award a year later. In 1996, he received the Board of Advisors Academic Excellence Distinguished Professor award, and in 2002, he became a Campbellsville University Distinguished Alumnus.

Despite his tireless devotion to teaching, Dr. Cheatham has also found time to pursue his passions outside the classroom. Among his many extra-curricular pursuits, he led the discussion on bringing the internet to Campbellsville University in 1994, and served as president for the Consortium for Computing in Small Colleges. He also served as the national president of Sigma Zeta, the science and math honor society, and is on the board of directors at Taylor Regional Hospital.

Those who have crossed paths with Dr. Cheatham--whether as one of his students, as a colleague, as a fellow member of Frank's Campbellsville Baptist Church, or as a friend--know just how much he will be missed at Campbellsville University. His lifelong commitment to education and his devotion to bettering the lives of his students deserve the praise of this body.

Thus, I ask my Senate colleagues to join me in commending Dr. Cheatham for an exemplary career and wishing him nothing but the best as he enjoys retirement with his wife, Shirley, his daughter, Tammy, and his grandson--a junior at Campbellsville University--Drew.

Mr. President, over the past several years, I have often come to the floor of the Senate to draw attention to the Obama administration's radical environmental agenda and the deeply harmful effects it is having on the people of Kentucky. The Environmental Protection Agency's war on coal is the most obvious and tragic example.

Today I wish to highlight this administration's environmental agenda at perhaps its most absurd. At the heart of our story is a 2\1/2\ inch minnow--a 2\1/2\ inch minnow called the duskytail darter--a 2\1/2\ inch minnow called the duskytail darter.

Last week, the Obama administration sided with this minnow over the economic well-being of thousands of people in southeastern Kentucky who live near or depend on Lake Cumberland as a major driver of commerce, tourism, and recreation. The Obama administration did this by determining that the presence of the darter in the lake's tributaries meant that the raising of the lake's water level must be further delayed.

Lake Cumberland is a signature tourist destination in my State and one of the economic pillars of McCreary, Clinton, Laurel, Russell, Pulaski, and Wayne Counties. The water level of the lake was lowered back in January of 2007 due to problems with the dam which feeds the lake.

The past 7 years of reduced water levels have not only hurt small businesses that rely on tourism but have also strained local governments, as local towns have had to lower their water intake. Marinas have had to spend valuable dollars on both ramp upgrades and dock relocations--dollars that could have been spent on growing businesses, hiring new workers, and enhancing local commerce.

In addition, the drawdown of water has deterred tourism, as a misperception has been created among potential visitors that the lake is no longer suitable for boating, fishing, and water sports.

Every year, Lake Cumberland brings to the local community $200 million in economic activity and employs, on average, 6,000 people. Understandably, those in the local community have been anxious to see the water levels returned to their normal level, after 7 years of reduced water level.

2014 was supposed to be a great year for Lake Cumberland, as Kentuckians would mark the end of 7 years' worth of repairs to the dam and, therefore, reduced water levels and fewer visitors. Now, suddenly, the Obama administration has announced that the water level cannot be raised because it could potentially have a harmful effect on this minnow, the duskytail darter, which is on the endangered species list.

The absurdity of the Obama administration's posture on this issue is manifest. First, the administration is protecting a fish from water. Let me get this straight: Protecting a fish from water? The radical environmentalists in the Obama administration don't want this fish to be exposed to too much water? What is next, protecting birds from too much sky?

Second, the administration took this action because raising the water could--could, not would--potentially--potentially--have an adverse effect on this poor little minnow. Of course, anything in the universe could have an adverse effect on this minnow. To the people of southeastern Kentucky, the President's year of action is apparently beneficial only if you have gills.

The story of the darter would be humorous if it weren't so harmful to the economic well-being of thousands of southeastern Kentuckians. This misguided policy will have deeply harmful consequences for this region of Kentucky.

Carolyn Mounce, who is responsible for promoting tourism at Lake Cumberland at the Somerset/Pulaski Convention and Visitors Bureau, put it best when she said: ``[This is] bureaucracy run amok!'' Bureaucracy run amok, said Carolyn Mounce. She just returned from attending travel and tourism shows in Cincinnati and Louisville 2 weeks ago.

She said:

The shows were crowded . . . people wanted to talk about

Lake Cumberland. They were excited about returning the lake

to normal operation. And now this.

J.D. Hamilton, who operates Lee's Ford Resort Marina in Lake Cumberland in Nancy, KY, was also disappointed to learn of this announcement. Disappointed is an understatement, as his business has been stifled by the lowering of water over the last 7 years. In response to this announcement, he said, ``The Corps is keeping its word to the fish but not to the economy.''

So, yesterday, my friend and colleague Senator Rand Paul and I, along with our colleagues in the House, Congressman Rogers and Congressman Whitfield, wrote the administration calling for an end to this intolerable further delay. I hope the Obama administration will take heed and concern itself more with endangered jobs and endangered livelihoods of actual Kentuckians and Americans than with the possible endangerment of this apparently water-averse minnow.

Honoring Our Armed Forces

Lance Corporal Adam D. Peak

Mr. President, I wish to speak about a young man from my State who gave his life while serving this Nation in uniform. LCpl Adam D. Peak of Florence, KY, was tragically killed by an improvised explosive device in Helmand Province, Afghanistan, on February 21, 2010. A member of the U.S. Marine Corps, he was 25 years old.

For his service in uniform, Lance Corporal Peak received many medals,

awards, and decorations, including the Afghanistan Campaign Medal, the Iraq Campaign Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, and the NATO International Security Assistance Force Medal.

Born on August 30, 1984, Adam was a native of Florence, where he grew up with a reputation as a performer who made his friends and family laugh with his quick wit. He and his older sister Sara would quote movie lines back and forth to each other in a blink of an eye, and Adam especially liked to entertain his younger sister Angela. ``Adam was sarcastic with a dry sense of humor, and could get people to laugh all the time,'' says Adam's mother Diana. ``I guess what I loved most about him was his love for his sister, who was born with Down Syndrome. He had unlimited patience with her, and I knew that when his dad and I were gone, he would take care of Angela.''

Although Adam did not get a chance to have a family of his own, he loved kids. ``He was like a second father to a lot of the other Marines' kids,'' says his sister Sara. Adam's mother certainly agrees. ``He loved kids and thought that someday he would have a large family,'' she says. ``He played Santa every year for his friend's family, and the kids loved him.''

Adam attended Boone County High School, where he graduated in 2002. He then attended Thomas More College in Crestview Hills, KY. In school, he was active in the Alpha Delta Gamma fraternity, the Saints Club, the Education Club, and the Villa Players Theater Club. His mother Diana particularly remembers Adam's interest in theater. ``He developed a love for the stage while in college at Thomas More,'' she says. ``He started out behind the scenes, but his friends got him on stage for a play and he loved it. He appeared in many productions while at school.''

Richard Shuey, a business administration professor at Thomas More, taught Adam in three classes. Adam ``was one of those really nice, clean-cut northern Kentucky kids,'' Richard says. ``Always polite and interested in doing well, and obviously a true patriot.''

One of Adam's fraternity brothers, Caleb Finch, remembers him as ``a big-hearted, free-spirited, fun-loving guy who would do anything for anybody.''

After graduation from Thomas More, Adam enlisted in the Marine Corps in July of 2007. By December of that year he had been promoted to the rank of lance corporal. Adam's younger brother Sean enlisted in the Marines as well, and the two brothers served together in the same unit in Iraq in 2008. ``Their personalities were night and day,'' says Robin Peak, Adam's sister-in-law. ``But they always had each other's backs and were there together.'' In October 2009, Adam and Sean were deployed to Afghanistan, both as members of the 2nd Battalion, 2nd Marine Division, Two Marine Expeditionary Force, based out of Camp Lejeune, NC. Sean accompanied his brother back home for burial, and Adam was laid to rest with full military honors in Taylor Mill, KY.

Mr. President, we are thinking of Adam's loved ones today, including his parents Bruce and Diana, his brother Sean, his sisters Sara and Angela, his sister-in-law Robin, and many other beloved family members and friends.

The loss of LCpl Adam D. Peak is tragic. Indeed, it is only appropriate that this Senate pause to honor his service and recognize his sacrifice.

I hope his family can take some comfort from the fact that both the Commonwealth of Kentucky and the country as a whole are grateful for and honored by the heroism and courage Adam displayed in his entirely too short life. The example he set for his loved ones and his country will not be forgotten.

I yield the floor.

reservation of leader time

Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Could we have order in the Chamber.

We have a number of ideas on this side of the aisle to promote economic growth and job creation, and we would like the opportunity to offer amendments to implement these ideas.

For example, Senator Paul has an amendment to create economic freedom zones to help struggling areas of our country to recover from the economic downturn. Senator Tim Scott's SKILLS Act would improve job training programs for the very long-term unemployed that this extension is actually designed to help. In addition, Senators Ayotte, Collins, Portman, and others have been working very hard--Senator Coats as well--to come up with a path forward on a meaningful offset that would extend unemployment benefits without adding to the deficit.

Their ideas have so far been blocked. So I would like to ask the majority leader to modify his request to provide for an orderly process for amendments. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments and motions be withdrawn and that the minority and majority sides be permitted to offer amendments in alternating fashion so that these important ideas can be considered.

I object.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, are we in morning business?

I ask unanimous consent to proceed on my leader time.

Mr. President, in his State of the Union speech last week, President Obama promised America a year of action. He said he wants to use his pen and his phone to make it happen. Here is what I say: The President should use that pen and that phone of his today for the Keystone XL Pipeline and the jobs that will be created almost immediately.

Here is something both parties can agree on. I see my colleague from North Dakota here, and nobody has been more aggressively advocating the Keystone Pipeline than he has. This is an important shovel-ready project for America. Here is the President's chance to work with Republicans on a bipartisan plan to create thousands--literally thousands--of private sector jobs almost immediately. Here is his chance to show he is not captive to the ideological extremists on the left. Here is his chance for action on a policy the American people actually want. Here is his chance.

On Friday, the State Department released yet another report concluding what the President and everyone else already knew. The Keystone XL would meet the President's stated requirements on the environment, and there was basically no good reason not to build it.

So here is a project that essentially wouldn't cost the taxpayers a dime to build, that would have almost no net environmental effect, and that would put thousands of Americans to work right away. It is an initiative that is supported by an overwhelming majority of Americans. It is supported by unions, by businesses, by Republicans, by Independents, and even by prominent Democrats--close to 20 right here in the Senate alone. Yet the President has delayed and delayed for more than 5 years now, not because the project really needs to be studied further but because of pressure from the most doctrinaire fringe of the doctrinaire left.

These are the kinds of folks who care a lot more about ideology than what makes sense for the middle class. Yet these are the same folks who have a lot of influence in today's Democratic Party. Just look at the war on coal--a war that is being waged with scant concern for the lives of people who live in States such as Kentucky where people are really hurting, and it doesn't seem to matter much to these folks.

So here is the thing. The President has run out of excuses on Keystone. It is way past time to make a decision. Let's be honest: This decision shouldn't be a hard one at all because the science, the economics, and common sense all basically point in one direction. As far as I can tell, ideology is really the only thing that could lead to a different decision.

So is President Obama on the side of the middle class or is he on the side of leftwing special interests? He needs to use that pen to show us where he stands, and he really ought to do it today.

While he is at it, he should pick up the phone too because in his State of the Union Address the President called on Congress to help break down trade barriers that stand in the way of more American jobs. He called for legislation that would help prevent foreign countries from taking the trade jobs that should be going to America's middle class.

``China and Europe aren't standing on the sidelines,'' he said, and ``neither should we,'' he said. Republicans applauded him for that. He is absolutely right. But now the President's own party is standing in the way of getting anything done. So if there ever was a moment for the President to use his phone, this is it because trade should be a bipartisan issue. It sure used to be. Just ask President Clinton.

America's middle class is hurting. The very least Washington can do for them is to approve job-creating initiatives such as Keystone and enhancing American exports. So we will see soon enough if the President meant what he said about his pen and his phone--if his year of action will really be just that instead of another tired slogan.

The answer is pretty simple. The President needs to step up and lead. Middle class Americans have taken a back seat to the hard left extremists in this town for entirely too long. It is time for the President to stand up to these folks and to do the right thing. Pick up that phone and that pen and get this done.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, earlier this week President Obama explained to the American people what he hopes to accomplish in the year ahead, and I think it is safe to say that despite the hype, there was not a whole lot in this year's State of the Union that would do much to alleviate the concerns and anxieties of most Americans. There was not anything in there that would really address the kind of dramatic wage stagnation we have seen over the past several years among the middle class or the increasingly difficult situation people find themselves in trying to find stable, good-paying jobs. There was no creative proposal for increasing mobility or opportunity for folks who need it most.

Even more remarkable, the President completely ignored the serious hardship that folks in Kentucky and just about everywhere else in the country are dealing with right now as a result of his health care law. He just blew right past it like it was not even happening.

There are serious issues that demand a serious response, and if for some reason the President doesn't want to face up to them or offer meaningful solutions, Republicans certainly will. We have a lot of creative ideas on our side that speak to the day-to-day concerns of middle-class Americans. In the months ahead we will keep talking about them. In fact, just this morning the House Republican leadership reached out to the President in an effort to solicit his help in encouraging the Democratic leadership in the Senate to take up House- passed bills that do the types of things the President said the other night he supports. Maybe that would be a good use of the President's phone and his pen.

This morning I would like to take a moment to address something else the President did not address on Tuesday but that his administration is already quietly planning to do in the months ahead. I am referring to the administration's radical new proposal to codify the same kind of targeting of grassroots groups that an independent inspector general determined that the IRS engaged in in the run up to the 2012 election. I realize it just doesn't seem possible to a lot of people that the Obama administration would even think of touching an issue this radioactive after last year's scandal, but those who think that underestimate the extent to which this administration and its allies are willing to go to keep those who disagree with them from speaking out or participating in the political process. They underestimate the extent to which they are willing to go to hold onto power, and they forget how speech is usually stifled.

James Madison once wrote:

I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of

freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by

those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.

That was James Madison, and that is what is going on. The fact is that right now the Obama administration is getting ready to codify the same kind of intimidation and harassment of its political opponents that stunned the Nation last year, and hardly anybody is talking about it--certainly not the President on Tuesday night. It is time we start talking about it because what the administration is planning is nothing less than declaring a war, not just on its opponents but on free speech itself.

Here is their plan. The administration proposes to redefine political activity so broadly that grassroots groups all across the country that exist for the sole purpose of speaking out on issues of liberty or limited government or free enterprise or anything else that the administration doesn't want to hear about will be forced to literally shut down. Just by speaking out on these issues of broad public concern, they would be ruled out of bounds under new IRS rules--just in time, by the way, for the midterm elections.

If you think this kind of speech is precisely what the First Amendment was written to protect, you would be entirely right. This is exactly what the First Amendment was about. So this is a hugely important issue, and that is why groups all across the political spectrum and the folks who support them are increasingly concerned.

As usual, the folks who are pushing this new assault on speech tell us that it is some kind of good-government proposal that increases transparency, but the truth is that the only transparency here is the administration's thuggish attempt to shut down its critics. It is really incredible, when you think about it. Democrats think that 2014 is shaping up to be a tough year for them politically. So instead of trying to persuade the public that they have the best answers to the problems we face, they try to shut everything else out of the political process. They try to shut them up, and they have no problem using the powers of the government itself to do it--less than a year after presiding over one of the biggest abuses of government power in the modern memory. The arrogance here is literally breathtaking.

But we have seen this kind of thing again and again from our liberal friends over the years. They just cannot accept a public that disagrees with their plans for the country. They just cannot seem to accept a society in which ``we, the people,'' establish the rules--not them. Whether it is the fairness doctrine or the DISCLOSE Act, they want those who disagree with them to sit down and shut up. Their view is you can fight for your ideals, you can speak out, but only if you agree with me. If you are on the other side, you don't have a right to speak out; not only that, but I am going to put you out of business. I am going to use the IRS--for goodness sake, the IRS--to identify anybody who disagrees with me and shut them up. I am doing it through regulation because I cannot pass it through legislation.

This is just one way the President plans to go around the people's elected representatives this year and every American needs to know about this abuse of power. Let me be clear. What the administration is proposing poses a grave threat to the ability of ordinary Americans to freely participate in the democratic process. Rather than reform the IRS and root out any hint of corruption or targeting of political opponents, they are now proposing to codify it. Fearful of losing the Senate, they have decided to double down. Instead of getting the IRS out of the business of policing speech, they want to make it the final arbiter of political speech.

Some may ask, why is the IRS, an agency whose purpose is to collect taxes, even involved in muzzling speech? How did that happen?

That is a very good question. It should not be. The administration needs to start explaining to the American people why it is engaging in this abuse of power, especially after last year. The administration may believe the smoke has cleared, but I do not believe the American people see it that way at all. I think that if the American people knew what the administration was really up to, they would react with the same kind of outrage they did last year about the targeting of conservatives by the IRS, and that is why the new IRS commissioner has a simple choice.

We have a new IRS commissioner over there. He has a simple choice. He can either restore the public's trust in an agency whose reputation was already in doubt or he can allow himself to be used as a political pawn by an administration that now seems willing to do anything to keep those it disagrees with from fully exercising their constitutionally protected right to free speech.

After recent scandals the IRS should not be getting more involved in what people can and cannot say but less involved. Commissioner Koskinen must take a stand against this kind of thuggery and make it clear to a nervous public that his agency will not engage in any more government- sanctioned crackdowns on speech.

You know, the President made what I think was a pretty revealing comment in a recent interview when he talked about his inability to break through with certain Republicans. Rather than concede that they may have a different world view or that they disagree with his approach to the issues of the day, the President blamed FOX News and Rush Limbaugh of somehow convincing folks that he is something he is not.

I think a far more likely explanation is that the President does stuff like this. I think a more likely explanation is that in the sixth year of his Presidency he would rather blow kisses to his liberal base than work with Republicans to create jobs and increase opportunity and prosperity for the millions of Americans who are really struggling out there. Rather than let people from one end of the political spectrum to the other duke it out through robust public debate, he wants to use the IRS to drive conservatives right off the playing field. That is a better explanation for why ordinary conservatives across the country are not buying the idea that you are some kind of pragmatic problem solver, instead of a liberal ideologue who seems more interested in shutting down your critics than working with us in facing the Nation's most urgent problems.

Just 3 months ago the President sought to unite the country around the argument that as Americans we never give up. What I am saying this morning is that even as he is saying that, he is also busy kicking the ladder out from under anybody who disagrees with him. That is just what this new IRS proposal does, and Republicans plan to fight it every step of the way.

Mr. President, I say to my friend the majority leader, who deferred to me this morning, that I have two more statements. I am sorry to detain him.