Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to finish this speech.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about our Nation's first freedom--religious liberty.

Last week a court in Sudan sentenced a woman to death for converting from Islam to Christianity and gave her just days to recant. Sadly, this sort of tragic oppression is common across the globe.

The Pew Research Center says that three-quarters of the world's people live where restrictions on religion are high or very high and that religious hostilities have been increasing for years.

In the last 10 years the number of countries on the Commission on International Religious Freedom's watch list has grown by 150 percent. Simply put, religious freedom is increasingly in peril around the globe.

When compared to the rest of the world, some might think that religious liberty in America is alive and well. But, in truth, basic religious freedom is under attack here at home. Professor Thomas Berg writes that ``establishing freedom of religion as both constitutional principle and social reality is among America's greatest contributions to the world.'' But we have to ask ourselves whether meaningful religious liberty is still such a reality in American society and whether our Nation is still making that essential contribution to a world that needs it now more than ever.

Hundreds of books, studies, papers, articles, and court decisions have explored various aspects, nuances, and implications of religious freedom. In the coming days and weeks, I will explore some of these issues in greater detail. Today I wish to speak about the definition and importance of religious freedom in America as seen both in history and in four important documents.

For 170 years before Thomas Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence, one religious society after another came to America so that they could live their faith. Puritans, Congregationalists, Roman Catholics, Jews, Quakers, Baptists, Presbyterians, and Methodists had all found refuge in the British Colonies by the time the United States was born. Roger Williams founded Rhode Island as a haven for religious dissenters. William Penn established religious liberty in the colony that bears his name.

From its earliest days, religious freedom in America has been freedom not only of belief but also of behavior. In addition to our Nation's early heritage, four key documents establish the same understanding of religious freedom as encompassing both belief and behavior in both private and public spheres.

The first document is the U.S. Constitution. The First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion, a phrase that on its face plainly includes conduct as well as belief. It is a phrase that had been in use for more than a century when America's Founders placed it in the First Amendment. The plain meaning of this phrase, as well as its history, is simply incompatible with the view that our constitutional freedom of religion is limited to the profession of belief and somehow excludes religious conduct.

As Professor Michael McConnell, director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford and perhaps America's leading scholar of religious liberty has shown, such an artificial and cramped view is unsupportable. By its own terms our First Amendment protects both religious faith and action.

The second document is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the United States signed in 1984. Article 18 states that every person has the fundamental ``right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion,'' and that ``this right includes . . . freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.''

Plainly stated, religious liberty by its very nature encompasses both belief and behavior. In articulating broad principles of basic human rights, the authors of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights acknowledge that it is meaningless to have one without the other.

The third document is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. In 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court held that government needs only a rational basis for laws that burden but do not target the free exercise of religion. That decision changed decades of Supreme Court precedent that had required a compelling reason for laws that burden the exercise of religion.

This shift was not just some legalistic or semantic exercise. If government needs only a rational justification for burdening the exercise of religion, it could do so essentially at will, but if government must have a compelling reason, it must respect the fundamental liberty and may burden it only when absolutely necessary.

By shifting from one standard to the other, the Supreme Court made it dramatically easier for government to burden the free exercise of religion. Congress responded to the Supreme Court's decision with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA, which established the compelling standard. It passed the House unanimously by voice vote and the Senate by a vote of 97 to 3.

I was the primary Republican cosponsor of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in the Senate. In all of our discussions about RFRA, both Democrats and Republicans were united on one fundamental principle, the right of all Americans to the free exercise of religion should be equally protected.

I remember when I went to Ted Kennedy, I said: You are going to be on this bill with me.

He said: No, I am not.

I said: Yes, you are.

To his credit, he came on the bill. By the time we articulated on the floor and afterward when it was signed by President Clinton at the White House, on the White House south lawn, one of the biggest boosters was my friend Ted Kennedy.

The fact is I will make that point again. As the primary sponsor of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in the Senate, in all of our discussions about RFRA, both Democrats and Republicans were united on one fundamental principle: the right of all Americans to the free exercise of religion should be equally protected.

Each religious claim should be judged by the same standard as every other, a standard that reflects the true importance of religious freedom. We rejected amendments that would have excluded some religious claims or favored others.

In October 1993 I spoke in favor of RFRA on the Senate floor, explaining that the bill would restore to all Americans protections of the free exercise of their religious conviction. In fact, I stated directly that exempting anyone from the basic principle of free exercise would set a dangerous precedent.

The fourth and final document is the International Religious Freedom Act enacted in 1998. The House passed it by an overwhelming bipartisan majority. The Senate followed suit by a vote of 98 to 0. This law established the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, and declared that ``the right to freedom of religion undergirds the very origin and existence of the United States.''

It cited the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and reaffirmed yet again that religious freedom necessarily includes both belief and practice, individually or collectively, in public or in private. As the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom has explained, by its very nature religious liberty is ``a broad, inclusive right, sweeping in scope, embracing the full range of thought, belief, and behavior.''

It is central to human identity and dignity. It is essential to individual and social well-being. It is beneficial to political, economic, and civic life. Religious freedom is a fundamental constitutional liberty as well as a universal human right.

In America religious liberty has always included both the freedom to believe and the freedom to act on that belief, the protection to do so collectively as well as individually, and the right to do so publicly as well as privately. Those basic tenets form the only proper standard by which to assess the state of religious freedom in America today.

Unfortunately, there is much cause for concern. Let me share a few disturbing examples. The equal and universal application of religious liberty is now in doubt. Congress was united when enacting the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that the right to exercise religion freely belongs to everyone and should be protected by the same rigorous standard in each case.

When balanced against important government interests, some religious claims would win and others would lose, but a rigorous legal standard that

creates a high hurdle for government action that burdens religion must be applied universally, since the free exercise of religion is a fundamental right of all Americans.

That conviction, however, is unraveling. This year marks the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII of that landmark law prohibits workplace discrimination based on religion and requires that employers reasonably accommodate the religious practices of employees. The Supreme Court, however, interpreted the ``reasonably'' so broadly that the exception swallowed the rule and workers have been without this legal protection ever since.

Legislation called the Workplace Religious Freedom Act was introduced to reestablish legal protection and accommodation for religious workers. Originally, it applied this protection to all religious claims, just as RFRA required. It would balance the right to religious exercise with the legitimate needs of employers, but the most recent version of this legislation introduced in the 112th Congress abandoned universal applicability and instead would protect some religious claims but not others.

Rather than allowing religious claims of all varieties to stand or fall under the same standard, some claims were covered and others were excluded from that standard altogether. This is not the only example of religious liberty under attack. Among its many other maladies, ObamaCare likewise struck a blow to the free religious exercise of religion.

Although President Obama has called religious freedom a universal human right, his administration apparently paid that fundamental liberty no regard when drafting ObamaCare. Likewise, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act plainly states that its basic religious protections apply to every future Federal statute. Yet the Obama administration gave no consideration whatsoever to such religious freedom in formulating the President's signature law, ObamaCare.

As a result, dozens of lawsuits have challenged ObamaCare's requirement that employers provided no-cost health insurance coverage for abortifacient drugs and devices as a violation of RFRA's plain protections. Two of those cases are before the Supreme Court, one from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit and one from the Third Circuit.

In the face of its clearly universal requirement, the Obama administration nevertheless argued that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act does not apply to these plaintiffs. Despite the statute's plain text, Obama officials insist that the law does not apply to all cases after all. One step at a time, they seek to exclude classes of citizens from the basic protections of religious liberty.

My final two examples involve recent Supreme Court decisions. In Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC, the Supreme Court unanimously held that the First Amendment's protection for the free exercise of religion allows a church to choose its own ministers. The Obama administration argued instead that civil rights statutes trump the Constitution and allow judges to dictate to churches who may serve as ministers.

In fact, as the Supreme Court described it, Obama administration lawyers were so dismissive of religious freedom that they argued churches were no different in this regard than labor unions or social clubs. Can you imagine that? To the Obama administration, the First Amendment and its protection for the free exercise of religion apparently offers no real protection at all. Thankfully, the Supreme Court responded this way: ``We cannot accept the remarkable view that the Religion Clauses have nothing to say about a religious organization's freedom to select its own ministers.''

Finally, just 2 weeks ago, the Supreme Court held that allowing citizens to offer a prayer of their choice to open a town meeting is not an establishment of religion, but four Justices joined a dissenting opinion arguing that only certain prayers, using certain language, in a certain pattern, would achieve a certain level of diversity and therefore be permissible. Four Justices actually believe Federal judges may dictate the content and presentation of prayers offered by private citizens.

I can offer many more examples of how our Nation's cherished religious freedom is under attack, with forces seeking to limit, regulate, manipulate, and undermine the most basic natural and constitutional rights we possess.

I mentioned at the outset that three-quarters of the world's population lives under substantial religious restriction. Here at home, the same percentage of Americans believes that religion is losing its influence in American life. Liberal politicians, secular activists, and even some judges are seeking to reduce religion to what Justice Antonin Scalia described as ``a purely personal avocation that can be indulged entirely in secret, like pornography, in the privacy of one's room.''

It is no wonder that nearly one-quarter of Americans say religious freedom is more threatened than any other First Amendment freedom. These recent efforts mark a radical departure from the religious freedom that took root in our colonial experience, was nourished by the Declaration of Independence, earned a primary place among our constitutional liberties, and has been generously applied by generations of Americans.

The notion that religious freedom belongs only to some, even then only in private, stands in direct opposition to our traditions, our laws, and our beloved Constitution. Some peoples throughout the world may be bound by oppressive governments that strictly regulate who may express their religious faith, when they may practice the tenets of their faith, and where they may act according to their religious convictions.

But that is not America's heritage, and it must not be our future. Instead, America must once again be a beacon of religious freedom for all--protecting rights of conscience at home and promoting religious liberty throughout the world--and I expect it to be that.

I am hopeful our courts will come to their senses--the ones that aren't there--and realize this was listed as the first freedom in the Bill of Rights for a very good reason; that is, because our Founding Fathers knew how important religion is to a nation that wants to be free.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Paul, I will have to object.

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

Mr. President, I note for the record that I support Mr. Fischer for this position, but there is a legitimate objection by a Senator on our side that I had to advance. I hope we can resolve these problems, but I appreciate the distinguished majority leader's attempt to do this today.

With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to give this speech in full.

Mr. President, I want to take a few moments this afternoon to correct the record on something very important.

In his opening remarks this morning, the distinguished Senate majority leader made a number of claims and accusations relating to the tax extenders legislation.

As you will recall, last week the Senate voted not to invoke cloture on the substitute amendment to the tax extenders bill. Since that time, the Senate majority leader has been accusing Republicans of voting against tax relief. He said we are obstructionists and that we ``work so hard to do nothing.'' This is, as we know, par for the course.

When the majority leader is not calling out American citizens by name and attacking them for getting involved in the political process, he is usually accusing Senate Republicans of one thing or another, and doing it so unjustifiably.

Today, he attacked me personally for my vote against cloture on the tax extenders substitute, saying: ``The primary Republican who negotiated this, the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, voted against his own bill.''

It is true that I negotiated. It is true that I helped to get it through the committee. It is true that I got our side to agree to a voice vote.

Needless to say, I cannot let this go unanswered. I am here now to set the record straight.

First and foremost, I want to make clear that I support the tax extenders legislation, and everybody in this body knows it, and if they do not, then they better go take an IQ test. I want to see that bill passed, and I believe we should pass it sooner rather than later.

I do not want speak for anyone else, but I suspect that the majority of Senate Republicans feel the same way. But there are serious and legitimate process issues at stake here.

At the time of last week's cloture vote, the substitute amendment had been available to the full Senate for little more than a day. Although there were 167 amendments filed--including about 70 Democratic Party amendments--the distinguished majority leader blocked the consideration of any and all amendments.

This, unfortunately, has become the norm here in the Senate, where we have voted for a grand total of 9 Republican amendments in the past 10 months--9. By contrast, in the House of Representatives, where the Republicans are in complete control, where the Rules Committee is 9 to 4 in favor of Republicans--the committee that decides what comes to the floor--the Democrats, who are in the minority, have had votes on 242 of their amendments in that same timeframe.

Sheila Jackson Lee, for instance, a single Democratic House Member, has received votes on 22 separate amendments in the same timeframe that all Republican Senators have, combined, received votes on only 9.

So, yes, I, along with almost all of my Republican colleagues, voted against cloture--in fact, all but one voted against cloture--on the tax extenders substitute. But I made it clear before and after the vote that my vote against cloture was a vote to allow Senators--both Republicans and Democrats, especially those who do not serve on the Senate Finance Committee--an opportunity to amend the tax extenders legislation, something you would think every Senator in this body would want to justify and would want to support.

As I said, at the time of the cloture vote, there were a total of 167 amendments filed. Yet the Senate majority attempted to close off debate on the bill without considering or voting on a single amendment--on a bill costing $85 billion so far. That is no way to operate the Senate, particularly on a bill as broad and as consequential as the tax extenders bill.

There are a lot of interests at stake with the expired or expiring tax provisions, a number of voices that deserve to be heard. Why, then, would we want to rush through the debate without considering a single solitary amendment? It does not make sense.

My vote against cloture was never intended to kill this legislation, as the majority leader claimed this morning. As I made clear last week, my vote was for a fair, open, and cooperative process--a bipartisan process, if you will, something we have not had much of around here lately. I would have thought the majority leader would have been listening last week when Republicans, including myself, made it very clear why we were voting against cloture. But either he was not listening or he forgot everything we said because this morning he came to the floor to attack us, once again, claiming that somehow our votes against cloture on the tax extenders legislation were related to President Obama.

So let me make it clear for our distinguished majority leader and anyone else who may be misunderstanding what is going on with the tax extenders bill. This has nothing to do with President Obama. There is only one person who is stopping the tax extenders bill from moving forward. It is not me. It is not the minority leader. It is not anyone on the Republican side or caucus.

The distinguished majority leader could solve this impasse today if he would simply allow the Senate to operate in a way it always has. He knows--and he knew then when he made these comments because we chatted the day before--he knew that my job is to try and winnow down the total number of amendments on this bill, approaching almost 100 for each side, and get it to where we basically could pass this bill.

He can come to the floor as often as he wants to attack Republican Senators or anyone else, but that does not change the fact that he is the one in control here. He is the one who will decide if the Senate will live up to its legacy of being the greatest deliberative body in the world or if it will continue to be what it has become--a graveyard of ideas.

Once again, I stand willing and able to work with the Democrats to get this bill across the finish line. I do want this legislation to pass. It is important legislation. But I do think we ought to have the Senate operate as it always has in the past, where each side has at least a reasonable opportunity to bring up amendments that they consider to be important. It is important that the Senate operate in that way, and not in the way it is currently being operated. As I said, it is not up to me.

California Drought Relief

I would like to take a moment to address the California drought relief bill Senator Feinstein has been working so hard on for the past several months. There is no question that we are facing some very serious conditions across the West. We need to be doing all we can to provide relief to the farmers in California and elsewhere. But it does not make any sense that this drought has gotten to the point that it has when it could have been avoided. This is a manmade crisis. The water that should have been and could have been stored behind the dams in California's Central Valley during the past several years has instead been flushed downstream to create fish habitat for the endangered delta smelt. Now, do not get me wrong, protecting our natural resources is important. But there is a problem with our system when we put the needs of fish--and especially this fish--ahead of the needs of people.

This is happening in other States too. We are seeing the needs of people made secondary to the regulatory requirements that may or may not even be benefiting the species they are designed to help.

I think we have some of the stupidest people in the environmental movement that you can possibly imagine. They consistently place these trumped-up situations against human beings and humankind. It is getting real old to me.

Senator Barrasso has an amendment to Senator Feinstein's bill that would bring some common sense into this situation by allowing for some flexibility for communities that are facing dire situations as the result of Federal regulatory requirements.

I support the Barrasso amendment and would have liked to have seen it included in the California drought relief bill. I also recognize that the farmers and farm workers in California cannot afford to have Congress playing games with their livelihood. For that reason, I am not going to object to this bill.

To have California, where some of the greatest, most productive farmlands in the world are, basically shut down for really what are stupid approaches when there could be an accommodation to help both sides on those issues is hard for me to understand.

When the members of the California delegation sit down with the committees of jurisdiction to work out the differences between the Feinstein bill and the bill that has already passed the House, I would urge them to implement Senator Barrasso's proposal into the final bill. This will help rural communities across America avoid getting into potentially disastrous situations that are caused by out-of-date, out- of-touch regulations.

The economy and job creation do not have to be at odds with conservation. This is the perfect opportunity to create some badly needed flexibility to make sure they are not. I, for one, would like to see that for a change in the Senate.

I sure would like to see us depoliticize this place so we can work together again. I have been here only 38 years, but I have to tell you, there were many times in that 38 years where we worked together, we solved the problems of America together, and we had the country running well. Frankly, we all walked out of here feeling pretty good.

Most people in the Senate right now do not feel all that good--first of all, because of the way it is being run; secondly, because there is a partisan divide that exists--on both sides, by the way; thirdly, because we have a rough time getting people together in a bipartisan way; and last but not least, because we do not spend much time together anymore. It used to be that Senators got together and cared more for each other and cared less about attacking each other and cared less about some of the ridiculous, stupid things that have been going on over the last few years.

I would suggest to my Democratic friends that they start thinking this over because the Senate has really gone downhill. We have to stop it and start working together for the best interests of our country.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I rise to discuss a critical issue facing this body and this country. The occasion for my remarks happens to be the nomination of Sylvia Mathews Burwell to head the Department of Health and Human Services. As a senior member of the HELP Committee and the ranking member on the Finance Committee, I have taken a great deal of interest in her nomination and have participated in her confirmation hearings.

I am afraid the cordial nature of our exchanges and my recognition of Ms. Burwell's impressive qualifications has allowed some ObamaCare partisans to misconstrue my approaches as an acknowledgment that somehow the Affordable Care Act is working. Let me be absolutely clear on this point. I oppose ObamaCare, and I am going to fight as long as it takes to repeal that misguided law and replace it with a system that actually works for American families.

That is why I have collaborated with several of my colleagues to unveil the framework of the Patient CARE Act, a plan that would repeal ObamaCare and replace it with commonsense, patient-centered reforms that would reduce health care costs and increase access to affordable, high-quality care. It would save the taxpayers about $1 trillion and yet have a better health care system than we have today with Obama.

Let me also be clear on another point. No matter what the administration says, the reality is that ObamaCare is not working. The President and his allies are claiming the law is a success because the administration has mostly corrected the botched rollout of healthcare.gov and has had a certain number of individuals sign up--as if forcing people into ObamaCare, under the coercive threat of government penalty, is somehow cause for celebration. In reality, the mass cancellation of insurance coverage last fall was just the first prick of pain ObamaCare will inflict on the American people.

I could talk for hours about rising premiums, growing deficits, backdoor bailouts and of course numerous other maladies, all of which threaten the quality and the enforceability of health insurance for so many Americans already struggling through the Obama economy, but the concern that motivates me to speak today goes beyond the many failures of ObamaCare as a matter of policy. Perhaps the most troubling of all has been the unlawful manner in which this administration has gone about implementing it.

When faced with the prospect of enforcing disruptive features of his signature law, the President has chosen to ignore his fundamental obligation to enforce the law and has instead sought to rewrite various provisions of ObamaCare unilaterally.

These actions form a troubling pattern of lawlessness and executive overreach by the Obama administration, one that all citizens and all Members of this esteemed body, whether Republican or Democrat, ought to condemn and resist.

The harms I will discuss today are not just a theoretical abstraction. This administration's abuse is a very real threat to our constitutional system of government and to the liberties each of us enjoys. In recent weeks, I have come to the floor on a number of occasions to speak out about the Obama administration's lawlessness in a wide variety of contexts. I will continue to do so to defend the separation of powers, the rule of law, and the legitimate prerogatives of the legislative branch and this body in particular under the Constitution.

Even in light of these serial abuses which have only accelerated under the President's new ``pen and phone'' strategy, the implementation of ObamaCare stands out as the crown jewel of executive overreach. By my count, this administration has acted unilaterally on at least 22 separate occasions to alter the law, something it does not have the right or power to do.

Through its actions, the Obama administration, in particular the current Health and Human Services Secretary, has demonstrated cavalier disregard for the constitutional obligations of the executive branch. The President and his team have shown outright contempt for the legitimate role of Congress.

Today, I wish to highlight a few of the Obama administration's most egregious acts and explain why these actions are unlawful and pose such a serious threat to our constitutional system of government. Let me begin with something most Americans unfortunately remember all too well, President Obama's now infamous promise that if you like your plan, you can keep it.

Make no mistake, this promise was the key selling point for ObamaCare, which was approved by the Senate by a razor-thin party-line vote. Without the President's assurance that Americans could keep their current health plans if they wished, the bill simply would not have passed this Chamber.

Yet it has long been clear that the White House never intended for Americans to be able to keep their plan. I do not say that lightly. It is not some unsubstantiated partisan attack. It is a well-documented fact. From the very beginning one of the key premises underlying ObamaCare's government takeover of health care was the notion that Americans could not and should not be trusted to choose their own health insurance and that instead Washington's so-called experts could be tasked with determining the sort of coverage Americans could buy.

Indeed, that is the entire point of having the minimum coverage provision the Obama administration fought so hard to include in the bill. If Americans' existing plans do not comply with some government official's specifications, then ObamaCare forces individuals off of their insurance. To put the President's promise more honestly, if he likes your plan, you can keep it.

Several respected news outlets have responded how policy aides within the Obama White House objected to the President's obviously inaccurate claim that if you like your plan you can keep it, only to be overruled by the President's appointed political advisers. Despite knowing it was false, the administration purposely perpetrated this dishonest claim.

Tragically, millions of Americans relied on the President's promise, only to face the prospect of having their health insurance plans cancelled after his reelection. To make matters worse, the administration did not settle for the natural attrition that would eventually force Americans with the plans they like to buy an additional level of coverage, one they did not want, but one that ObamaCare forced them to purchase. No. Instead the administration rushed to publish regulations that defined exactly which existing plans could be grandfathered into the new scheme. The regulatory definition was so narrow in scope that even a minor or routine change to an existing plan could disqualify it.

As the Solicitor General recently conceded to the Supreme Court, Obama administration officials knew the number of qualifying individuals would be ``very, very low, because it is to be expected that employers and insurance companies are going to make decisions that trigger the loss of the so-called grandfather status under the governing regulations.''

Given the President's broken promise and the many cancelled plans, I joined with a number of colleagues to move quickly to use our power under the Congressional Review Act to try to overturn these regulations. Unfortunately, every single one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted against providing this relief.

What followed was tragic but entirely predictable. Insurers were forced to cancel policies and millions of Americans were unable to keep the plans they liked. When ObamaCare's failed social engineering became a reality in the wake of millions of cancellation notices that went out last fall, even staunch supporters felt the intensity of the inevitable public outrage. Many in this body were eager to support legislation that offered relief to constituents suffering from this latest dose of the ObamaCare plan.

The House of Representatives passed legislation with the bipartisan support of more than three dozen Democrats that would have allowed insurers to continue to offer the plans that millions of Americans had chosen to purchase. Yet once the chorus of public outrage got so loud that even President Obama could no longer ignore

ObamaCare's destructive effects, what did he do? Did he try to work with a bipartisan majority in Congress to provide relief to the hard- working Americans injured by ObamaCare's forced cancellations, did he move to rescind the administration's aggressive regulations, or did he bite the bullet and enforce the law as written, demonstrating that he was willing to endure the unpopularity in order to live up to his obligations under the Constitution?

Unfortunately, President Obama chose none of these legitimate approaches. Instead, his Department of Health and Human Services simply acted unilaterally to cancel and then rewrite the minimum coverage requirements in the statute. After doing so, HHS simply cited the vague notion of transitional relief as the only possible suggestion of where the administration could find executive authority to refuse to enforce clear statutory law.

In reality, this action represents a shocking and radical abuse of power by this administration. Let me offer some background to contextualize how extreme the Obama administration's claimed authority is in this instance. In the enforcement of this Nation's tax laws, the IRS has for some time claimed the authority to adjust how a new tax is phased into operation, providing a slight delay in enforcement to ease the administrative burden imposed by the new tax.

The IRS has engaged in this practice to adjusting enforcement timing with some regularity through the use of this asserted authority, which tends to be narrow, for example, by delaying the retroactive enforcement of an aviation fuel excise tax by just 16 days. The Obama administration's attempts to fix the failed bailout from the ``if you like your plan you can keep it'' lie does not even involve tax law, nor does it involve the IRS's past practice or its claimed legal authority.

The Department of Health and Human Services simply invoked the claimed powers of the IRS in a wholly distinct context, a context in which it could not point to statutory authority or a similar history of past practice. In the absence of clear authority to alter or cancel enforcement, the President remains constitutionally obligated to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

In this case, the Obama administration does not have a leg to stand on. The sort of transitional relief here is nothing like a minor 16-day delay. The failure to enforce the minimum coverage provisions will now drag on for 3 full years past the required statutory deadline. The administration's fix is different in kind from prior examples of transitional relief, because in this case the government did not actually face enforcement difficulties. Insurance companies had already complied with the statute by canceling millions of plans, as the law required them to do.

In fact, precisely the opposite was true. What finally motivated the administration to act was, instead, the public backlash generated from proper compliance with the law.

No matter how much the Obama administration may want to mitigate the disastrous effects of its own signature law, neither HHS nor any other part of the executive branch has legitimate authority, in the form of prosecutorial discretion or otherwise, to ignore or rewrite a Federal statute.

In the words of the Justice Department's longstanding position: The President may not ``refuse to enforce a statute he opposes for policy reasons.'' But that is precisely what the Obama administration has done in this case. The whole idea of administrative transitional relief is premised on the notion that such action is properly derived from, or at the very at least is consistent with, relevant statutory authorities. Here, the administration's action directly contradicts the plain language of the statute, which obligates insurance companies to offer only plans compliant with the statute's requirements and which obligates State and Federal governments to enforce those requirements.

A generic brand of regulatory authority cannot provide the executive branch with unilateral power to rewrite effective dates made explicit in the statute. This is especially true of ObamaCare, since, as we were told repeatedly during the debate over the law, the precise effective dates for various intertwined provisions were deemed central to the effectiveness of the entire statutory scheme.

All this is to say that the Obama administration's actions in this area far exceed any transitional relief authority the President might rightfully claim and instead amount to a vast illegitimate use and abuse of power by the executive branch. The Constitution obligates the President to follow the law. It also commands him to ``take care that the laws be faithfully executed,'' meaning he must ensure that others subject to his authority comply with the law.

In this case, President Obama has not only rejected his own obligation to follow and enforce the law, but he is also permitting, even urging, States to disobey their obligations to enforce ObamaCare. He is likewise actively encouraging insurance companies to offer plans that violate the company's explicit obligation under the minimum coverage requirements. He is encouraging consumers to participate in and rely on this lawlessness by purchasing what are, in fact, unlawful policies.

Such executive lawlessness should be troubling to all Americans regardless of political stripe or partisan affiliation. It is the Constitution, the political institutions it established, the legal framework it enshrines, the checks and balances it requires, that ensures we remain a government of law and not of men. Absent these essential restraints, we will all become subject to increasing arbitrary rule, a government that knows no bounds and seeks to regulate and control virtually every aspect of our lives.

Sadly, this is just one example of the administration's lawlessness in implementing ObamaCare. It gets worse, though. Consider the individual mandate. I firmly believe the individual mandate constitutes an unprecedented and unconstitutional overreach that, in the words of Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, ``changes the relationship of the Federal Government to the individual in a very fundamental way.''

But even as we seek to repeal and replace ObamaCare, for now the individual mandate is the law of the land. The President who fought so hard to impose this terrible burden on the American people through the legislative process and in the courts, is bound to enforce it.

Yet when it came time to implement the individual mandate, which the administration long argued was the linchpin of the entire ObamaCare scheme and ``essential to creating effective health insurance markets,'' the administration simply decided that enforcing that provision as written in law no longer suited their interests.

Again, I ask, did the Obama administration work with Congress to relieve this burdensome mandate? Of course not.

As has become his habit, the President once again chose to act unilaterally, stretching his statutory and constitutional authority to the breaking point in an effort to avoid engaging in the legislative process, the only legitimate means of revising the individual mandate.

Let me reiterate that I abhor ObamaCare's individual mandate. I want to repeal it, along with the rest of the Affordable Care Act, so that it no longer infringes on the liberties of any American. But either implementing or repealing the individual mandate must be done lawfully, not by executive fiat.

The administration sought to justify its unilateral actions to delay application of the individual mandate on the basis of ObamaCare's hardship exemption. But in announcing the delay, the administration determined it would exempt anyone who simply completes a hardship form, indicates that their current insurance policy is being cancelled, and considers other available policies unaffordable. Such a standard is the very definition of lawlessness, and it contradicts the letter of the law. Indeed, the White House and its supporters in Congress drafted exceptions to the individual mandate very narrowly to make it as universal as possible.

Although the statute gives the HHS Secretary some flexibility in granting hardship exemptions, the plain text of the law specifies precisely when a health plan is unaffordable, when it costs 8 percent or more of household

income. By granting an exemption to anyone who subjectively thinks that available coverage is unaffordable, HHS has made a mockery of the mandate, not to mention completely ignoring the affordability exemption's objective standard.

In doing so, the Obama administration has stretched beyond recognition the limited regulatory authority it does possess, simply in order to frustrate enforcement of its prized individual mandate.

The administration's unwillingness to enforce the individual mandate, which lies at the very core of ObamaCare, demonstrates not only how the bill has failed to live up to its lofty promises, more fundamentally it shows how irresponsible the President has been in failing to live up to his constitutional obligation to take care that the laws--his signature law, no less--be faithfully executed.

But the administration's lawlessness does not end with the individual mandate. Once again, it only gets worse. In a massive law chock-full of burdensome requirements, the administration has found it necessary to ignore mandates of all shapes and sizes.

Take also the employer mandate. Perhaps less public attention is focused on the administration's effort to dictate coverage requirements backed by stiff penalties to every American business with more than 50 employees. But this employer mandate would have devastating effects, first, by discouraging small businesses from hiring and thereby leaving millions unemployed; second, by forcing employers to cut their employees' work hours, limiting take-home pay for millions of current workers struggling to get by; and, third, by discouraging many employers from even providing health insurance to their workers, leaving millions of Americans to fend for themselves.

As the statutory deadline for implementing the employer mandate approached, even ObamaCare supporters feared these consequences, and the administration once again unilaterally suspended its enforcement of the law.

The first clue that the Obama administration was up to something illegitimate came when HHS announced its total suspension of the employer mandate in a blog post euphemistically and ironically entitled ``Continuing to Implement the ACA in a Careful, Thoughtful Manner.''

That such a significant announcement was made using insidiously innocuous language, that it was made via such an informal medium, came as little surprise given this administration's propensity toward flippant and frequently unaccountable governance by blog post, hashtag, and selfie.

In this case, the announcement did not bother to identify any legal basis for suspending the employer mandate and merely made passing reference to the limited concept of so-called transition relief.

Upon subsequent scrutiny, it became clear that the logic of transition relief simply doesn't apply here because Congress and the President, in passing the bill into law, enacted an explicit statutory requirement detailing when the employer mandate must be implemented. By acting in direct contravention of this explicit statutory deadline, the power of the Obama administration's authority was, as the Supreme Court explained, ``at its lowest ebb,'' with the President authorized to act only if Congress has no constitutional power to act. But in this case Congress's power to lay and collect tax is clearly enumerated in article 1, section 8 of the Constitution.

In other words, the Obama administration's unilateral action to suspend the employer mandate was lawless by any definition, including of the Supreme Court.

It did not have to be that way, and it should not have been that way. A broad bipartisan majority in the House of Representatives acted to provide lawful statutory relief from the employer mandate. The House bill was strictly limited to changing the statutory deadlines for the employer mandate and its reporting requirements, and the bill changed those dates to match the timeline on which the administration announced it intended to begin enforcement. In other words, the House bill gave the administration the precise employer mandate delay it wanted and the bill contained none of the other policy changes that most Republicans favor.

When offered the opportunity to delay the employer mandate in a lawful manner, what did President Obama do? He threatened to veto it. By doing so, the President conveyed in unmistakable fashion that his priority lies in political gamesmanship and that he has no respect for his constitutional obligations.

I wish I could say the Obama administration's reckless and unlawful unilateralism in refusing to enforce the employer mandate ended there. Sadly, it does not.

A few months later, the administration essentially rewrote the employer mandate, announcing it would delay enforcement for years--and, in some cases, permanently--well beyond the precedence of past enforcement delays.

But it still gets worse. Rather than simply offer another blanket delay of the employer mandate, the Obama administration went much farther. Officials announced that the mandate would only be enforced for businesses with 50 to 99 employees if those businesses failed to comply with a new onerous maintenance-of-workforce regulations. That regulation prevents businesses from reducing the size of their workforce or the overall hours of service of their employees unless they have a bona fide business reason acceptable to government bureaucrats.

For businesses with more than 100 employees, the Obama administration likewise suspended enforcement of the employer mandate until 2015, at which time executive officials will replace the statutory requirement requiring coverage for all employees with a new administrative formula for determining how many employees must be offered coverage.

I could stand here all day criticizing the backward logic and terrible consequences of having Federal bureaucrats police the employment practices of our Nation's small businesses. There are so many reasons why the employer mandate is bad policy, but I have come to the floor today to highlight the sheer lawlessness of these unilateral executive actions.

In the case of the employer mandate, the law itself dictates when that mandate should be enforced. HHS has not suggested that it lacks sufficient resources to enforce the mandate, nor can it have considered the equity of enforcement in individual cases when it sweeps up every single business subject to this mandate and categorically refuses to enforce this law.

Instead, the Obama administration has simply abdicated its duty to enforce the law. Even worse, it has usurped legislative authority by devising a wholly different scheme--a wholly different enforcement scheme--with its own conditions, goals, and timeline inconsistent with those prescribed in the statute.

Sadly, the executive abuses of this administration in implementing ObamaCare extend beyond the minimum coverage requirements and the individual and employer mandates.

Consider the unilateral use of a so-called demonstration project to divert attention from ObamaCare's cuts to Medicare Advantage. By providing seniors an alternative to traditional Medicare that takes advantage of market-based competition to enhance patient choice, quality of care, and cost-effectiveness, Medicare Advantage has proven an extraordinary success. I am pleased to have played a role in its creation.

In advancing President Obama's now-broken promise that his health care plan wouldn't add one dime to our deficits, the final ObamaCare bill mandated more than $300 billion--with a B--in cuts to Medicare Advantage over 10 years.

But the Obama administration has had to grapple with yet another inconvenient fact. Medicare Advantage has become increasingly popular with each passing year. As of last year, nearly 3 in 10 Medicare beneficiaries chose it over traditional Medicare. In my home State of Utah, one in three beneficiaries receives coverage from Medicare Advantage.

Rather than acknowledge his blunder and ask Congress to reverse ObamaCare's unwise and unpopular Medicare Advantage cuts, the President has once again taken unilateral action that makes a mockery of his signature law.

His administration used a minor provision, one that allows the administration to demonstrate different bonus

payment models in pilot programs as a thinly veiled guise for delaying Medicare Advantage cuts ahead of an election. Never mind the clear conflict between awarding the bonuses across the board and the statutory purpose of such demonstration projects to determine if the payment changes produced efficiency and economy. Never mind the obvious absurdity of pretending to use pseudodemonstration authority to delay the Medicare Advantage cuts unilaterally, when such a demonstration is at least seven times larger than any other Medicare demonstration conducted since 1995 and is greater than the budgetary impact of all those previous demonstrations combined. And never mind that the statutory authority for the demonstrations calls for budget neutrality.

When I first learned of the Obama administration's clear abuse of this narrow statutory authority, I asked GAO to investigate. GAO's report confirmed that the administration had indeed exceeded its legal authority and recommended canceling the program because it wasted taxpayer money. Still, the administration pressed forward, simply ignoring its obligations and usurping Congress's constitutional power of the purse.

I wish I could say this move was surprising, but through a repeated pattern of such actions, President Obama and his administration have earned a reputation for executive arrogance and constitutional abuse.

The list of fundamentally illegal actions by this administration in implementing ObamaCare goes on and on. For now, let me mention one more example where President Obama has completely disregarded his obligation to enforce the law and yet again sought to usurp Congress's power to make taxing and spending decisions through the constitutionally ordained legislative process.

The ObamaCare provision at issue in this instance is remarkably simple. It provides tax subsidies for individuals to purchase health coverage through an exchange ``established by the State under section 1311.''

Section 1311 is the provision of ObamaCare that allows States the option to create their own exchanges, but section 1311 is not the provision that authorizes the creation of the Federal exchange to operate where the States choose not to act. That is section 1321.

I can't imagine how this provision could be any clearer. The law only authorizes subsidies in connection with State exchanges, not the Federal exchange, and this is no accident. ObamaCare incorporated the principle of so-called cooperative federalism--a polite term for thinly veiled Federal coercion and commandeering of the sovereign States. Indeed, this figleaf hiding Federal dominance was critically important to rounding up 60 votes to pass ObamaCare in the Senate.

As my friend, the former Senate from Montana--now Ambassador to China and a principal author of the ObamaCare text--noted during the Finance Committee markup of the bill, conditioning tax credits in this way was the only means by which our committee could establish jurisdiction to demand rewriting State insurance laws, as ObamaCare requires, but in the end, the Federal Government's own exchange ended up covering the majority of States.

As written, the law does not permit subsidies in connection with the Federal exchange. Given these circumstances, did the administration choose to enforce the legislative compromises to which President Obama agreed by signing the bill into law? Did the White House seek to work with Congress to address this disparity? Of course not.

Yet again, HHS chose to ignore the clear statutory restrictions and instead authorized billions of dollars in illegal subsidies through the Federal exchange in direct conflict with the plain text of the law.

This obvious abuse has been challenged in court, and after hearing the judges' deep skepticism of the administration's case, I am confident the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit will roundly reject the Obama administration's radical arguments seeking to justify this lawlessness. I hope the court will hold the administration accountable for its deliberate and unmistakable violation of the law and that it will do so despite the effort by President Obama and his allies to fill the DC Circuit with compliant judges who might overlook the administration's executive abuses, but whatever that or any other court determines as a matter of specific legal principle, the fact remains that Obama administration officials--and in particular the HHS Secretary--have repeatedly and purposefully sought to undermine Congress, usurp legislative power, and become a law unto themselves.

President Obama came into office promising the most transparent and accountable Presidential administration in history. The Obama administration has ended up being transparently lawless.

Today I have discussed only five examples of the administration's lawlessness in implementing ObamaCare. I will save for another day the significant legal concerns surrounding the administration's abusive handling of high-risk pools, its actions involving the small business exchange, its sweetheart deals granting unauthorized exemptions for labor unions, and many other similarly problematic actions.

But even in the five examples I have mentioned today, the overriding point is clear: the tenure of President Obama has amounted to an unmistakable pattern of executive abuse. Time and again his administration has flouted its constitutional responsibilities, exceeded its legitimate authority, ignored duly enacted law, and sought to escape any accountability for its executive overreach.

Such executive abuse cannot stand. Whether Republican or Democratic, each of us has a sworn obligation to defend the Constitution, and each of us has the responsibility to defend the rightful prerogatives of the legislative branch. I have long argued that ObamaCare unconstitutionally intrudes on our most basic liberties, but those liberties cannot be secured when the executive branch defies legal bounds and ignores its constitutional obligations.

The continued well-being of our Nation, the legitimacy of our republican self-government, and the basic liberties of our fellow citizens depend on ensuring the exercise of executive prerogative is properly kept within lawful bounds. Doing so requires continual vigilance--by the courts, by Congress, and by the American people-- especially in the face of such reckless lawlessness by the current administration.

Our Nation needs new leadership. Ultimately, we need to elect a new President in 2016, one who will respect the Constitution and seek to protect the rights of its citizens, but until then we need an HHS Secretary who will uphold the law and respect the rightful prerogatives of the legislative branch.

That is why I pressed Ms. Burwell during her confirmation hearing last week about the administration's illegitimate and lawless actions and about the need for a different approach. No matter how cordial our debate may be, no matter her impressive qualifications, my overriding concern is that she be accountable to Congress, to the law, and to the Constitution.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I compliment the distinguished Senator from Oregon for the work, the wide-open work he did for the committee because we did have an open process, but we only comprise a little less than 25 percent of the Senate. To have a bill this important and be foreclosed from amendments I think makes the case for the minority leader and for this side.

I know there are many people on the other side who would like to have an open process, who would like to see amendments, who would like to have this be a real debating society from time to time rather than just have a slam-dunk type of approach to everything. I have to say I think there are a lot of people who aren't on the Finance Committee who had no say at all on this bill and who might possibly want to participate in the process.

We have just had, time after time----

I ask unanimous consent for an additional 30 seconds.

Time after time we have been foreclosed. It is time to end that and start acting as the U.S. Senate should act and allow both sides at least an opportunity to express their views and allow every Senator that opportunity, not just the ones on the Finance Committee.

Mr. President, I thank my dear friend from New York. I consider him one of the better Senators in the Senate and a dear friend and a person I have always been able to work with. He is tough--there is no question about that--but so am I, although nobody knows that.

I just want to speak for a few minutes on this extender package. It is a bipartisan bill. It took a lot of work to put it together. We had to bring everybody on the Finance Committee together, and that is about 25 percent of the Senate. We all had a chance to bring up amendments whether they were germane or not, which is the right of Senators. Sometimes we get some embarrassing amendments, but that is part of the charm of this body.

The fact is, if you just want to have germane amendments, that is not what the U.S. Senate stands for and that is not what the rules say. I don't blame anybody who wants to do that who is trying to push their bill, but let's not take away the rights of Members of the Senate. Let's not take away the right of debate we have always had on this floor that gives the Senate such charm and also allows everybody to participate and bring up whatever they feel is right.

Sometimes we have to call a halt to it. After days or weeks of debate on major bills, such as this one, the majority leader may want to end the debate because he feels as though it is enough. At that point--but not before--you can fill the parliamentary tree in order to get the agreement between the two sides to where there are just a few amendments left, but you don't do it by calling up a bill, filing cloture, accusing the other side of filibustering when there is no intention to filibuster, and then fill the parliamentary tree so you, as the majority leader, can determine the type of amendment and who does and who doesn't get an amendment. That is not the way this great Senate is supposed to operate. It is offensive, and it is starting to get to our side.

If we were in the majority and we did that to the Democrats, you folks would be so upset it wouldn't even be funny. I think it is time for us to start letting the Senate operate as it always has. We will get more done, and it will probably be better legislation than not, and frankly, every one of us will feel better about being Members of the Senate.

Let's be honest. The Republicans have been given nine amendments voted upon since last July in the greatest deliberative body in the world. That is just plain ridiculous and it is not right.

Let's take the House. The House is supposed to be more partisan. In the House you have a rules committee that is nine to four. Republicans have nine members and the Democrats have four members. They double the number in the majority party, plus one. They could stop anything from happening. In the House they have had well over 130 Democratic amendments since last July--if my recollection is correct on that, and I think it is--compared to nine in the greatest deliberative body in the world. Give me a break.

The fact is that is less than one amendment a month. You can imagine why our side is so upset about it, and then we get a bill as important as the extenders package. It is not $100 billion, but it is about $88 billion, as I recall. There are very important provisions in this bill. There are some I love and some I don't love too much, but we worked it out between the two parties and we each had our own ideas of what was right and what was wrong and we worked it out in a bipartisan way.

I want to personally pay tribute to the distinguished chairman of the committee, Senator Wyden of Oregon. His leadership was very much acceptable, and it was easier to work out in the end because he was so open and realized we had some ideas too.

Our constituents put faith in us to make these decisions and the tough choices around here, and that means making them. A democracy functions because the rules allow it to function. The rules, in my opinion, have been bogged down with partisanship and protection effort rather than allowing the Senate to work its will. This is not how a real representative Republic functions.

I think we have to find a reasonable way forward. I intend to work hard to find that reasonable way. I think we have to find a way that both Democrats and Republicans can have their voices heard.

When we marked up this bill, it was a fair and open process. Both sides had their opportunity to bring up the amendments they wanted, and that is why we came up with a bill that is as acceptable as this one is. We had an open amendment process in committee, and it should be that way here too. This bill passed on a voice vote out of the committee. It took a lot of effort on the part of Senator Wyden, the chairman, myself, and everybody else on the committee, but we were able to do that.

It is important that the American people know why this disagreement occurred today. The only procedural possibility that the Republicans had was to vote against cloture and to make it very clear that we don't like the way the Senate is being run today. We don't think it is fair, and we don't think it is right. It has nothing do with policy. It has to do with how we proceed, and frankly I think a message was sent today.

It is unconscionable to me that Members on both sides, Republicans and Democrats, do not have an opportunity to offer their amendments. I might add, it is nice for the majority to say, well, we only want the germane amendments, but I never heard that when they were in the minority. They wanted every nongermane amendment they could get that might embarrass Republicans. I personally don't like to see that very much, but it is a right that has always existed in the Senate, and it should not be taken away and it should not be dismissed by rote.

I am going to do my very best, in a bipartisan way with Senator Wyden, to work out this impasse, but it is going to have to be fair and Republicans are going to have to have a fair shot at having some amendments.

I hope we get rid of this process of calling up a bill and immediately filing cloture because they think Republicans are going to filibuster when there was no intention to filibuster and then filling the parliamentary tree to foreclose any amendments unless the majority leader approves. Come on. That is not the way the Senate should run.

Frankly, yes, it is a little unwieldy sometimes. Sometimes it doesn't run smoothly, but that is one of the charming things about the Senate, and it is one of the things that will bring us together if we can occasionally recognize that we have different points of view. The Republicans are more conservative, there is no question about that, and the Democrats are more liberal, there is no question about that. Actually, I find that to be probably a good thing in many ways because both sides have to try to work it out. But we can't work it out if we can't call up amendments and if it is a stilted process that is determined only by the majority leader.

I am going to do everything in my power to get this resolved. I have already chatted with Senator Wyden, the chairman of the committee. He says he is going to do the same, and I know that is true. He is an honorable man. We are going to see if we can come up with a way to bring both sides together so we can pass this bill, and hopefully it will be an example of what we can do if we are willing to work together.

We have to get rid of these procedural approaches on every bill. Sometimes it is appropriate to use any procedure we want to on some bills that should not see the light of day. This is not one of those. This is a bill that has to see the light of day. This is a bill that will make a difference in this country. This is a bill that virtually everybody in this body wants, to a more or less degree, and some want it very much. This is a bill that really needs to pass. This is a bill that, hopefully, when the House passes their bill, we can get together in a conference and work it out, as big boys and girls should.

What we have been going through here now for 4 years, really, has been a disgrace. I think it is time to end the disgrace and get all of us working together, not necessarily in agreement--sometimes we have to fight things out--but working together in a way that is fair to both sides.

So far, our side feels it hasn't been fair to the Republican side. There has been too much assertion of power in the wrong way, in derivation of the rules. It started long ago, but it really came to a full culmination when the majority broke the rules to change the rules. One reason they were able to do that is because many on the other side have never been in the minority in the Senate. I will do my part to see that my friends on the other side have that wonderful experience because then they will understand why these rules are made to begin with.

The filibuster rule in particular was formulated because they couldn't get anything done in the Senate, and it was a way of invoking cloture and ending debate so they could get the matter over with. It has worked amazingly well in spite of the fact that from time to time we couldn't get bills through that we wanted to get through. There was a reason for that rule, and to break the rules to change the rules was the wrong thing to do to begin with. It has caused a lot of bitterness on the floor.

I have heard some Republicans saying: Let's stick it to them. I am not going to allow that to happen. I hope the same is true on the other side because I have heard some of the Democrats are saying: Let's stick it to them with some special amendments.

Let's try to get this done in a way that is meaningful. Let's try to get it done in the best interests of the American people. Let's try to get it done so that all of us can hold our heads high and say we did our best. If we do that, I think we will have a new day in the Senate that literally will work in the best interests of everyone. I don't want my side treating the Democrats the way we have been treated. I just don't think it is right. I don't think it is fair. I think it is a big mistake.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I am grateful for this opportunity today to pay tribute to a truly extraordinary woman--Sherry Adkins. Sadly, Sherry passed away on May 13, 2014.

I had the wonderful opportunity of working with Sherry for 37 years. She

first came to work with me as my legal secretary when I was in private practice as an attorney. When I took office, she began working in my Utah Senate office and brought the same dedication and hard work ethic she had displayed in a demanding legal office. Throughout our years of working together I was always so impressed with Sherry's utmost attention to detail and accuracy, and her keen mind and abilities. In fact, I still miss her taking dictation today. Her fingers could really fly, and she always got it right. It was a true talent that has sadly been lost in today's computer world.

Sherry spent many years as a constituent service representative in my State office, helping hundreds if not thousands of Utahns with problems they faced while working with several Federal Government agencies. She specialized in helping people with cases involving such agencies as the Social Security Administration, the IRS, the Office of Personnel Management, OPM, and many others. She always displayed deep concern for the challenges people faced, and worked long and hard to help individuals in my behalf. In fact, she developed lasting friendships with some of the people she had assisted and they continued to visit her for many years.

Sherry always went above and beyond the call of duty. While I was serving as the chairman of the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee, which dealt in part with issues of alcohol prevention and treatment, Sherry and her husband Bruce obtained their drug counseling certificate. She spent many hours working with individuals struggling with the powers of addiction, and even became the choir director for the Utah Odyssey House, a residential substance abuse treatment facility. She touched many lives through her advocacy, support, and talents.

As a former member of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, she absolutely loved music. She always generously shared her talents not only as a beautiful singer--but she also played the organ weekly for her local ward or church congregation.

Sherry's work and service was very important to her--but her family always came first. She absolutely loved her family. She was married to Bruce for 54 years, and they are the proud parents of Michael, Gary, and Marianne; and grandparents to four grand-children and four great- grand-children. When it came time for Sherry to retire from the U.S. Senate, Sherry and Bruce moved to Alaska to be with their daughter and in the end were living in Colorado to be closer to their son and grand- daughter. Sherry and Bruce had a great partnership and they were very supportive of each other and their endeavors.

I am sincerely grateful for the opportunity I had to work with and know Sherry Adkins. Her loyalty, dedication, and sincere belief in public service were so appreciated. I wholeheartedly agree with the simple narrative another former staff member used when describing Sherry: ``She was a gem.''

Elaine and I extend our deepest sympathies to Bruce and their family members. May they find peace and comfort in the cherished memories they have shared with this great lady.

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

Mr. President, today the Senate will begin consideration of the Expiring Provisions Improvement, Reform, and Efficiency Act, otherwise known as the EXPIRE Act. This legislation has, so far, moved forward in a cooperative, bipartisan fashion, and I am hoping that spirit will continue here on the floor.

It seems that the new norm for tax policy around here is conducting this ritual where tax provisions expire, we wait until the following year to decide which ones to extend, and then we finally enact them into law for 1 retroactive year and 1 prospective year.

When that happens, half of the benefit is more of a windfall rather than an incentive. And, needless to say, this process causes great uncertainty when businesses and individuals try to manage their taxes and budgets.

I am not casting blame on anyone for this flawed methodology. Indeed, both parties share responsibility for how the tax extenders process has devolved over the years. I think the American people deserve better.

I share the view of many on both sides of the aisle--including both chairmen of the tax-writing committees--that comprehensive tax reform will be necessary to ensure long-term growth and prosperity in our economy. When it comes to tax policy, that type of reform should be our ultimate goal. Hopefully, if we can reform our Nation's Tax Code, this process of extending certain provisions over and over will come to an end. However, I am not naive.

Fundamental tax reform is unlikely to take place in the immediate future. That being the case, Congress needs to work to address the tax relief provisions that expired last year or will expire by the end of this year, and we need to do so in a timely fashion.

The EXPIRE Act should serve as a starting point for temporarily resolving the expired and expiring tax provisions. The Senate Finance Committee voted to report the EXPIRE Act on April 3, 2014. It passed through the committee by a voice vote. Not every member supported the final bill, but

the committee process was, from the outset, constructive and inclusive and allowed for the full participation of both Democrats and Republicans. I give the distinguished chairman a lot of credit for that.

I have to commend Chairman Wyden, who conducted a fair and open debate on tax extenders during the Finance Committee markup. His approach was a prime example of how the Finance Committee is supposed to operate and, in my view, it should serve as a model for all of the Senate committees in how they should consider legislation in their various jurisdictions.

The process reminds me of a historical analogy with respect to the chairman's home State of Oregon. Everyone knows about the Oregon Trail. Thousands of pioneers started in Independence, MO, and traveled to Independence, OR. They used covered wagons. In fact, the covered wagon is part of Oregon's State seal. The pioneers followed the ruts that previous wagons had cut.

Like those pioneers, the chairman has taken this tax extenders wagon, following the bipartisan, inclusive ruts of the legislative trails charted by previous chairmen of the Finance Committee. I hope we can stay on this trail now that the bill is on the floor.

In the end, of the 55 or so tax extenders considered by the Finance Committee, only two were not extended. Personally, I would have preferred seeing a smaller number of extended provisions, continuing the process we started in 2012 of reducing the number of tax extenders.

But, in the end, the final product represented the consensus views of the committee, and I have been very pleased to work with Chairman Wyden in the process.

As I said during the markup on the EXPIRE Act, as the committee has considered these extenders package, Chairman Wyden and I have worn two hats. We have represented the interests of our respective States and we have also been brokers of the diverse interests of all of the members of the committee. That has meant compromise. Compromise has meant some outcomes that were likely not optimal from at least one of our perspectives.

With the bill coming to the floor, we are wearing a third hat, respecting the interests of our respective caucuses. Needless to say, this can be difficult, but it is what we have to do. When we dive into the list of these expiring tax provisions, we can easily see that this package touches upon many facets of our economy from housing to energy and from startups to larger corporations that are important to so many industries and important in each and every State.

I am glad to see the research and development tax credit, which is so important to businesses in my home State of Utah, included in the bill reported out of the Finance Committee. I know there are other provisions included in this package that are important to other States. My hope is that the floor debate on this extenders package will resemble the debate we had in the Finance Committee. That means a fair and transparent process and an opportunity for Senators to offer amendments.

The Senate is supposed to be the greatest deliberative body in the world. Sadly, it is difficult to call it that these days unless one is being sarcastic. I have been pretty sarcastic about it. A number of my colleagues, led of course by our distinguished minority leader, have come to the floor in recent months to talk about the degradation of Senate rules and procedure that has taken place under the current majority. They have done so with good reason.

On bill after bill the process is the same. The majority leader brings a bill to the floor, immediately files cloture, even though there is no desire to filibuster on our side, accuses the Republicans of filibustering, fills the amendment tree, and blocks consideration of any and all amendments.

There is a time to fill the procedural tree, but that is only after full and fair debate and when it has carried on too long and the leader finally decides we have to bring this to a close. But all too often, every time we turn around, the leader has brought the bill to the floor, filed cloture, as though we are filibustering when we are not, and then fills the parliamentary tree so we cannot have amendments.

Of course, those steps are usually preceded by a short-circuited committee process, wherein committee consideration of the bill is either significantly abbreviated or passed entirely. This is not how the Senate is supposed to operate. With this bill we have a chance to do things differently.

As I have mentioned, the EXPIRE Act has already had full and fair consideration in the Finance Committee. The bill was drafted in consultation with all of the members of the committee. I was one who helped make sure that happened. When we held a markup, all Senators were allowed to offer amendments and receive votes on those amendments. Why not continue that process, as we have in the past, on the almighty floor of the Senate.

It is ridiculous the way the minority is being treated, and I think even the majority Senators are being mistreated with the way this outfit is being run right now. While I am satisfied with the way the Finance Committee handled the tax extenders package, the vast majority of Senators do not serve on the Finance Committee. That being the case, most Senators have not had a chance to fully debate these tax provisions or even offer amendments of their own, which they ought to have the right to do.

They deserve that opportunity. I expect a number of my colleagues, particularly on the Republican side, have amendments that would improve this bill by helping to grow our economy and to create jobs. I have a number of amendments I would like to offer myself. Over the next few days I will be on the floor to talk about some of them. Let's have a floor debate that is worthy of the Senate. This is not some itty-bitty bill. This is a very important bill. It can set the trend for tax reform that should come in the future.

Let's allow Members of both parties to offer amendments and have votes on those amendments. Let's show the American people that Senators know how to work together to solve problems for American businesses and for our citizens. Too often the Senate devolves into yet another partisan sideshow where politics are placed above progress.

As I said, it does not have to be this way. Once again, I am pleased I have had this opportunity to work with my colleague Chairman Wyden to move the EXPIRE Act forward. He has done a very good job. He deserves a lot of credit for it. He does not deserve having that work stymied because people do not have a chance to offer amendments on the floor of the Senate.

My only hope is, now that the bill is on the floor, the Senate Democratic leadership will follow his example and allow for a full and fair debate of this legislation. To be honest with you, I do not know what they are afraid of. Yes, there may be some amendments that are tough to vote on, but that is part of the process. It is part of what makes the Senate, when it functions right, the great body it can be.

I understand the majority leader wanting to preserve his side in the upcoming election. I think our minority leader wants to preserve his side and maybe add to it in the upcoming election. I understand these are important considerations, but the rights of Senators on both sides are to be considered here and ought to be given not just consideration but given the respect the Senate should give to each and every Member of the Senate.

I have to say I am very disappointed in what is going on around here. I am not the only one. Virtually everybody is. I know some are disappointed on the Democratic side as well.

One of the problems is that a high percentage of the Democratic side, they have never been in the minority. They do not know what it is like to have to fight for everything you can possibly get, but they are going to be there someday, whether it is this election or some election in the future. They are going to realize, for the first time, that you do not break the rules to amend the rules. Those rules are important.

Frankly, they are going to realize this should continue to be the greatest deliberative body in the world. Unfortunately, right now it is not. It is not because of the leadership we have in this body. We have to make those

changes. This is a bill to start on because this is a bill that I think everybody is interested in. It is a very important bill. It is a bill that has been labored on in the Finance Committee for quite a long time.

It has taken years to get to this point. Certainly at markup it made a lot of sense. Do I support everything in this bill? No. There are some things I do not think should be in there. On the other hand, there were some sincere colleagues who felt they should be in there. They were able to prevail. I respect that. We ought to respect both sides. Unfortunately, I think our side is being disrespected the way the Senate is being handled today. It is time to stop it. This is a bill to stop it on. This is the type of bill that both sides have to take great interest in. This is a bill where we can set the tone for tax reform in the future.

I think it is time to wake up around here and start letting the Senate operate as the Senate should operate, as the greatest deliberative body in the world.

I yield the floor.

I wish to take a moment to say a few words in honor of National Police Week. I would like to take this opportunity to honor the brave men and women of law enforcement who made the ultimate sacrifice and gave their lives in the line of duty while safeguarding our communities.

Since the first recorded police death in 1791, there have been 21,742 law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty. This year 112 names will be added to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial in Washington. We should remember that there are 112 families who grieve the loss of a loved one who gave his or her life to protect their community and to keep their fellow citizens safe.

Today I recognize two Utah law enforcement officers who recently gave their lives in the line of duty.

Sergeant Derek Johnson

Sergeant Derek Johnson had served with the Draper Police Department for 9 years when he was shot and killed while on uniformed patrol in the early morning hours of September 1, 2013.

During his service, Sergeant Johnson was the recipient of many awards, including a Life Saving Award and a Distinguished Service Award. He was also honored as the 2012 Community Policing Officer of the Year.

We take this time to think about the friends and family who mourn the loss of Sergeant Johnson and keep his wife Shante and his 7-year-old son Bensen Ray Johnson in our thoughts and prayers.

Sergeant Cory Wride

Another recent tragic loss to the Utah law enforcement community was Utah County Sheriff's Office Sergeant Cory Wride.

Sergeant Wride was shot and killed while on duty on January 30, 2014, as he was assisting a stranded motorist.

Sergeant Wride served with the Utah County Sheriff's Office for nearly 20 years and served his community in various roles, including patrol and as a member of the department's special operations teams, K- 9 and SWAT.

Sergeant Wride was married to Nanette, his wife of 18 years. He was the father of four boys and one daughter: Nathan, Chance, Shea, Tyesun, and KylieAnne. He also had eight grandchildren.

I wish to extend my sympathy to his family and recognize Sergeant Wride for his service, selflessness, and his courage.

I urge my colleagues to take some time this week to think about these men and pay respect to the numerous other fallen heroes who have served our communities with professionalism, integrity, and compassion, as well as all members of the law enforcement community who watch over and guard our streets, protect us, our families, and our communities.

Tax Inversions

Last week I came to the floor to talk briefly about the news reports we have all been seeing about the proposed merger between Pfizer and AstraZeneca and the legislative proposals we are seeing from Members of Congress in response to the merger.

As you know, one of the key details in this merger is that when Pfizer--a large American company--acquires AstraZeneca--another large, but somewhat smaller UK company--they plan to incorporate the new merged company in the United Kingdom, not here in the United States.

As I said last week, I was as concerned to learn of these plans as were many of us here in Congress. After all, Pfizer is an iconic American company, with over 100,000 employees. It ranks in the top 200 of global companies by revenue, according to the Fortune Global 500 list. It would be a great loss to our country to see it incorporated offshore.

Still, it is difficult to blame them for this decision. According to sources, a desire to escape the high U.S. corporate tax is part of the motivation for this merger. This type of transaction, where a U.S. corporation merges with a foreign entity and incorporates elsewhere to escape the U.S. tax net, is sometimes referred to as an inversion.

Inversions are a growing problem here in the United States. Indeed, large companies are leaving our country at an alarming rate. If you count the number of American corporations in the worldwide list of Fortune 500 companies, you will see the number has declined dramatically over the past decade, which is very unfortunate. This decline means less capital and less investment in the United States. It means a smaller U.S. tax base. Most importantly, it means more jobs that could be created--that should be created--here in America are being created elsewhere. So make no mistake. Inversions are a big problem, and the problem seems to be growing every day.

As I mentioned on the floor last week, there are, broadly speaking, two

different ways Congress could act to address this problem. The first way would be to make it more difficult for a U.S. corporation to invert. That is the approach my friend the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee endorsed a few days ago in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal.

As the chairman noted in his opinion piece, current law requires companies moving overseas to have at least 20 percent new ownership to avoid some very bad tax consequences. His proposal--the one he outlined in this article--would be to increase that benchmark to 50 percent for all inversions taking place after May 8 of this year. That means his proposed restriction would be retroactive for all inversions that happened between last Thursday and the date his proposal may be signed into law.

Of course, this is hardly a new idea. President Obama included a similar proposal in his budget. Given the amount of hand-wringing we have seen over just the Pfizer-AstraZeneca merger and the subsequent erosion of the U.S. tax base from my friends on the other side, you would think a proposal like the one the chairman floated in his op-ed would raise a significant amount of revenue. However, if you think that, you would be wrong.

All told, his proposal would raise roughly $17 billion over 10 years. That is about $1.7 billion a year. That is not really an insignificant sum, but it does demonstrate the scope of the problem is hardly worth the draconian solution some of my friends want to impose in order to solve it.

Let me be clear. I share my colleagues' concerns about the number of inversions that have taken place over the last few years. However, I do not believe that imposing confusing and arbitrary retroactive restrictions on U.S. companies is the answer. There is an alternative approach which brings us to the second way Congress could act to prevent more inversions.

The second way to address the problem of inversions is to make the United States a more desirable location to headquarter businesses. While it would require a lot of work and compromise, this is by far the better approach.

This approach, of course, means lowering the corporate tax rate. It also means replacing our antiquated worldwide taxation system. Under current law, U.S. corporations are taxed on their worldwide income, but foreign corporations are subject to tax only on income arising from the United States. In other words, we subject our corporations to a worldwide tax system, while subjecting foreign corporations to a territorial tax system. On top of that, most of our major trading partners tax companies domiciled in their own countries on a territorial basis as well, unlike our country.

Long story short: Our system of worldwide taxation places us at a competitive disadvantage and makes the United States a less than optimal place for companies to locate their businesses. That being the case, as important as it is to get the corporate tax rate down, no matter how low we get that rate, we still need to scrap and replace our outdated worldwide tax system.

That is why tax reform is so important. It is just one of the reasons, of course, but it is a really important reason. Tax reform, if it is done right, will get at the root problem rather than simply dealing with symptoms.

I should note that inversions are only one symptom of our dysfunctional international tax rules. Other types of transactions further illustrate why the entire system we have is problematic.

For example, there are strong incentives currently for a U.S. parent company to sell its foreign subsidiaries to foreign corporations in order to escape the U.S. tax net. There are strong incentives to set up a startup business as a foreign corporation. Neither of these transactions are inversions, but they do show the point that it is, for tax purposes, often better not to be a U.S. corporation or to be controlled by one. While these other sorts of transactions don't grab the headlines, as inversions do, they are nonetheless indicative of real problems in our Tax Code.

That being the case, a proposal to restrict or eliminate inversions would really only go after one particular type of problem, leaving the rest of the fundamental flaws in our tax system firmly in place.

Proposals to restrict inversions or to impose some sort of management and control test are like trying to plug the dyke with your finger to keep capital and jobs from flowing overseas. These proposals are not long-term solutions. They are not even good short-term fixes.

Another example of business activity flowing overseas that really comes to mind is the problem we are facing with the medical device industry. We are losing our innovative medical device companies because of our stupid tax system and the 2.3 percent tax on sales or gross income of our medical device companies--many of which haven't made a profit yet. They would be taxed, even though they are not making profits, but will make profits if they can keep going with their innovative and good ideas.

We know, thanks to ObamaCare's medical device tax, that some of America's most innovative companies in an industry that is vital to our health care system are moving jobs overseas. Yet where is the call from the leadership on the other side to do something about this? In fact, there is nothing but stalling of legislation to solve this problem, which I think almost any intelligent person would want to do.

As it stands, it appears not to alarm my friends on the other side when business activity flees the country as a result of punitive taxes under ObamaCare. Yet, if a company with a large revenue base takes taxes into account when considering mergers and acquisitions, the alarm bells sound and legislation is put forward in no time. I would say there is a bit of inconsistency on the part of some of my colleagues who claim they want to keep jobs and business in the United States. If they do, why aren't they doing something about this stupid tax on medical device companies?

We had a vote on this earlier in the year, on a bill that didn't go through both Houses--and the leadership knew it wouldn't go through-- where we had 79 votes in favor of abolishing this tax. There is wide bipartisan support to get rid of it. What is wrong with the other side that we have to continue to fight to get rid of something that 79 people in the Senate voted to get rid of? And by the way, I believe if we brought it up true blue, in and of itself, it would pass here with probably 95 votes, if people give any consideration to American business, American ingenuity, solving the problems of health care, bringing health care costs down, which medical devices can do, and saving lives. It is no small reason why some of these medical device companies are moving overseas where they are treated far better than we treat them here. We had 79 people who voted to get rid of that stupid tax. Yet the leadership of this body won't allow it to be brought up freestanding or on some bill that basically has a chance of passage through both Houses of Congress.

Now, there is, of course, bipartisan legislation that would correct the problems we face with the medical device tax; namely, a bill introduced by Senator Klobuchar and myself. And I commend Senator Klobuchar. She has had a lot of guts plus a lot of ability in working on this bill. Sadly, the Senate Democratic leadership has thus far refused to allow an up-or-down vote on the measure, even though we know it has broad bipartisan support, as I have heretofore mentioned.

My hope is this will change with the upcoming debate over tax extenders, but I am not holding my breath. Given our ongoing experience with the medical device tax, I have to say I am a little skeptical when my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say they are concerned about American companies moving addresses and operations out of the country. Indeed, if they were really so bothered by this, we would have repealed this medical device tax a long time ago.

Finally, I would just like to give a brief aside on the topic of retroactive changes to our tax laws. In my view, stability and predictability are bedrock principles of the law. When it comes to our tax code, we have gotten away from that over the years. Restoring these principles to our tax system should be one of our main goals of tax reform.

Put simply, retroactive changes to the law--the kind envisioned by my colleague's op-ed--are the antithesis of stability and predictability and will

only make tax reform that much harder. No matter how well intentioned, and no matter how large the short-run revenue gains are to be had from retroactive changes, I believe the long-term affects are harmful and, in my opinion, such proposals should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism. I know my colleague is very sincere in making the points that he has, but I have to rebut those points, and I believe I have done so effectively.

Once again, the effort to prevent tax-motivated inversions can be boiled down and separated into two basic camps: One side would have us simply address the problem and impose arbitrary and perhaps costly restrictions on American businesses to prevent them from leaving the country.

The other side would make the United States a better place to do business, preventing companies from wanting to leave in the first place and inviting new ones to form and prosper here.

Only one of these approaches will actually fix the problem. Only one of these approaches will help create jobs and grow the economy, and only one of these approaches will put our Nation on a path to greater prosperity. That approach is, of course, comprehensive tax reform. That is what is needed, and that is where our focus should be.

As I said last week, as the ranking member of the Senate's tax- writing committee, my focus, when it comes to the problem of inversions, is to fix the underlying problems, not to tinker on the edges, focusing on the symptoms. I hope eventually that is the approach we take.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent that my remarks be placed in an appropriate place in the Record and that I be able to complete my remarks.

Before I begin, I would like to take a moment to address some proposals we have been hearing about in the tax space.

Corporate Taxation

Some of us--myself included--were very concerned to hear the other day that a very big American corporation announced plans to merge with a somewhat smaller but still large UK corporation and then have the combined entity domiciled in the United Kingdom. Apparently, a desire to escape the high U.S. corporate tax was part of the motivation for the merger. This type of transaction where a U.S. corporation escapes the U.S. tax net is sometimes referred to as an inversion.

Broadly speaking, there are two different ways to address the problem of

inversions. The first way is to make it more difficult for a U.S. corporation to invert. Just today we have read accounts of Members of Congress who propose doing just that. The second way is to make the United States a more desirable location to headquarter one's business. I believe the latter is by far the better way. That would mean lowering the corporate tax rate and having a more internationally competitive tax code.

Under current law, U.S. corporations are taxed on their worldwide income, but foreign corporations are subject to tax only on income arising from the United States itself. In other words, we subject our own corporations to a worldwide tax system, while subjecting foreign corporations to a territorial tax system. It is strange that the U.S. Government treats foreign corporations more favorably than American corporations, but that is, nonetheless, what we do.

There is a danger, if the relatively unfavorable treatment of American companies is ratcheted up--which seems to be the effect of some of these anti-inversion proposals--that American companies will become even more attractive targets for takeover by foreign corporations.

I don't know when my liberal friends will catch on and realize that some of their approaches are just downright idiotic.

As important as it is to get the corporate tax rate down, no matter how low we get the rate, we still need to replace our antiquated worldwide tax system. Instead of imposing arbitrary inversion restrictions on companies retroactively and thereby further complicating the goal of comprehensive tax reform, we should first keep our focus on where we can agree. By uniting around the goal to create an internationally competitive tax code, we can keep American job creators from looking to leave in the first place.

Successful tax reform can help reverse the trend and cause more businesses to locate in the United States, bringing more jobs to Americans. Make no mistake. The trend is alarming. Just look at the number of U.S.-based firms, ranked by revenue, in the global Fortune 500 over the past decade, and you will see a significant decline in the number. That, of course, means a lower tax base for the United States.

When are these people going to catch on?

As I just said, tax reform can be used to reverse that trend, make the United States an attractive place to locate businesses and global headquarters, and provide a base for more jobs in America.

As the ranking member of the Senate's tax-writing committee, that is where my focus is, and I will work with anyone, Republican or Democrat, to achieve that goal.

It is ridiculous the ways some of our people in this government believe we can solve this problem by making it even more intrusive on businesses, even more onerous and burdensome, and by thinking they can force businesses to live in accordance with antiquated rules.

Executive Overreach

Madam President, I rise to defend, on a separate matter, the separation of government powers enshrined in our Constitution and the lawful prerogatives of the Senate, in which I have had the privilege and honor of serving now for nearly 38 years.

Just last week I spoke from this podium about the Obama administration's blatant disregard of its constitutional obligations and in particular about how ideological devotion and political expediency have again and again trumped the President's sworn duty to uphold the law. In the short time since then, the White House has provided yet another egregious example of its willingness to disregard clear legal obligations in favor of playing partisan politics.

Just days ago we learned the Obama administration withheld particularly significant information from disclosure to Congress, despite a lawfully issued subpoena, during a House committee's investigation of the September 11, 2012, terrorist attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya. One of these documents, an email from a senior White House official, casts serious doubt about a number of the administration's key assertions about the explanations it offered Congress and the American people regarding the cause and nature of those attacks.

There are many important questions about Benghazi to which the American people deserve answers; questions about how and why brave Americans died in this terrorist attack, four brave Americans; questions about the circumstances under which our Nation lost its first Ambassador in the line of duty in more than a generation; questions about how the Obama administration advanced an admittedly false but politically advantageous narrative about the attack during the home stretch of a heated election campaign.

I appreciate the efforts of my colleagues both in this body and in the House of Representatives in seeking a fair and thorough investigation of this matter. What compels me to speak out goes beyond the substance of this particular investigation, as critically important as that is. I am deeply troubled by the Obama administration's utter disregard for essential legal and constitutional obligations. This lawlessness is made manifest in many different forms.

I wish to discuss this administration's long pattern of obstinacy in responding to congressional investigations and how this abuse has become the latest front in a vital struggle against sweeping executive branch overreach that has characterized President Obama's term in office.

Congress's investigation into the Benghazi terrorist attack should have been and could have been a collaborative endeavor aimed at discovering the truth. Indeed, President Obama publicly proclaimed he was ``happy to cooperate in ways that Congress wants'' and promised that his administration would share with congressional investigators all information connected to the administration's own internal review. Secretary Kerry likewise pronounced and promised ``an accountable and open State Department'' that would provide truthful answers about all circumstances relating to the Benghazi attack.

Unfortunately, the Obama administration has been anything but open and accountable, nor has the White House and/or the State Department shown much willingness to cooperate in a constructive fashion with congressional investigations into the matter. Instead, this administration has repeatedly rejected document requests from several congressional committees, broadly asserting its unwillingness to turn over whole swaths of relevant material.

When congressional investigators responded with subpoenas, creating clearly defined and legally binding obligations for the administration to comply, Obama officials have continued to resist and in some cases have refused to disclose entire categories of critical documents.

Throughout the investigation this administration has consistently employed a strategy of minimal compliance. In many instances, executive officials have heavily redacted the limited range of documents the administration has in fact disclosed or forced congressional investigators through the cumbersome and perhaps unnecessary process of examining documents they insist must remain in the administration's possession. Such methods, when reasonably employed, have historically allowed the executive and legislative branches to make mutually acceptable compromises, establishing arrangements that allow Congress access to the information it needs but enable the administration to protect legitimate interests and confidentiality.

Instead, President Obama and his subordinates have taken these tactics to the extreme, creating an unmistakable impression the administration has something to hide. How could anybody look at what they are doing and not realize that is what they are doing. At the very least, it is clear that executive officials have deliberately slow- walked this important congressional inquiry.

Indeed, the administration has managed to drag its feet and frustrate congressional investigators for more than 1\1/2\ years since the Benghazi attack, limiting and delaying compliance for over 1 year since the first subpoena was issued.

The Obama administration's most recent abuse--a particularly egregious act--has been its long delay in releasing emails that were clearly responsive

to an earlier congressional subpoena. The administration only provided Congress these emails in mid-April after disclosing them as part of compliance with an outside group's Freedom of Information Act request, even though the emails were undeniably relevant and responsive to a lawful congressional subpoena, a subpoena issued in the summer of 2013, 7 months earlier.

This is the second time the Obama administration has simply passed on to Congress documents it has previously released to media and watchdog groups, a weak attempt at complying with a congressional subpoena. Now, that is an administration out of control, an administration not living up to the laws, an administration that is ignoring legitimate inquiries of the Congress, and an administration that seems to think it can get away with anything. More important, this episode demonstrates the careless and intentionally evasive approach the administration has taken in responding to congressional subpoenas. A simple FOIA request turned up multiple documents the administration admits are covered by a prior congressional subpoena and therefore should have been disclosed months earlier.

While the executive branch is obviously obliged to take all lawful requests seriously, it is outrageous this administration would treat a routine FOIA request from a private party with more care and serious attention than a lawfully issued subpoena from a coordinate branch of the Federal Government. I might add a coequal branch of the Federal Government, the Congress of the United States.

I wish I could say the Obama administration's conduct and the investigations into the Benghazi attack represented an anomaly, a unique instance in an otherwise respectful record of good-faith efforts to cooperate with congressional investigations and to respect Congress's legitimate authorities. Unfortunately, that simply isn't the case. Instead, we have experienced a pattern of obstruction, repeated instances of bad faith in responding to lawful information requests and subpoenas, and a fundamental disrespect of the laws and norms underlying the Constitution's separation of government powers.

We have all witnessed such abuse in this administration's handling of other high-profile investigations, such as the botched gun-walking exercise in Operation Fast and Furious. We routinely observe such hostility in more ordinary matters, as this administration regularly delays and often refuses to provide answers or produce information to Members of Congress.

As the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, I see this all the time, whether it is the refusal of the Treasury Department to explain how it deals with its statutory debt limit or the failure of the Department of Health and Human Services to respond to even the simplest questions about ObamaCare implementation. We see this hostility most transparently when the administration openly challenges the legitimacy of congressional investigations and when administration officials display outright contempt for proper lines of congressional inquiry.

None of this is to say that some assertions of executive privilege are not reasonable or even valid. Past administrations have often asserted privilege claims before Congress, and sometimes--sometimes-- they have done so aggressively. This area of law has relatively few judicial precedents. It is largely defined by past practice in which the distinction between legal requirements and prudential interests is often quite blurry. As such, we can expect some legitimate disagreement as to whether particular claims of executive privilege are within the bounds of reasonableness.

But fundamentally the text and structure of the Constitution enshrines a congressional right--and establishes a congressional duty-- to investigate executive branch activities. That is how through the years we have kept administrations straight. It is a very important part of our job on Capitol Hill.

Judicial precedents--as well as established practice between the legislative and executive branches stretching all the way back to the investigation of the St. Clair expedition under President George Washington in 1792--also affirm the rightful authority of Congress to require Presidential administrations to produce information in response to congressional requests.

Since the great constitutional clashes of the Watergate period, specific and binding precedents have detailed the requirement that administrations must seek to accommodate congressional information requests made in good faith, subject to adjudication by Federal courts. The Obama administration's actions clearly fall short of these basic obligations. Its abysmal record--highlighted most recently in the Benghazi email controversy--has demonstrated that executive officials are not acting in good faith to comply with legitimate congressional inquiries.

The administration's public efforts to delegitimize congressional investigations endangers not only the relationship between the current White House and this Congress but more fundamentally undermines the separation of government powers by attacking one of the most important checks on executive overreach.

The administration's expansive justifications squarely contradict the Supreme Court's command in United States v. Nixon that ``exceptions to the demand for . . . evidence are not lightly created nor expansively construed, for they are in derogation of the search for truth.''

Even more troubling, the Obama White House has even attempted to undermine our congressional investigatory power at its core. This isn't hyperbole. The current administration actually had the audacity to argue in Federal court that a committee of Congress was categorically barred from asking the judiciary to enforce a subpoena that the executive branch had defied, a course of action implicit in the structure of our Constitution, demanded by the Supreme Court's jurisprudence, and recognized by courts for decades.

Thankfully, one of President Obama's own judicial appointees roundly rejected this astonishing claim, but that should give Members of this body very little comfort. By challenging the very authority of Congress to investigate executive abuses, by challenging the obligation of a Presidential administration to accommodate congressional inquiries in good faith, and by challenging the power of Federal courts to resolve such disputes, the Obama administration's actions represent a serious threat to our constitutional structure.

Indeed, this particular effort to undermine essential institutional checks and balances is part of a broader pattern of executive abuse-- one that includes the Obama administration's disregard for its obligations to enforce the law, its actions to exceed legitimate statutory authority, its attempts to defy specific requirements of duly enacted law, and its efforts to usurp legislative power from Congress.

I spoke at length last week about many such abuses of executive power by the Obama administration. I will continue to do so because I believe keeping the exercise of executive authority within lawful bounds is essential to the legitimacy of our government and to the liberties of our citizens. I recognize that doing so will require continual vigilance--by the courts, by the American people, and by those of us who serve in Congress.

This latest episode with the Benghazi emails--as well as the President's new pen-and-phone strategy--demonstrates quite clearly that the Obama administration has not shown any signs of relenting in its executive overreach.

This unprecedented pattern of executive abuse comes from a President who promised unprecedented transparency and who regularly criticized his predecessor's use of executive power, including in the context of executive privilege.

The administration's actions demand a redoubling of Congress' investigative efforts. I urge the majority leader to join the House to form a joint select committee on the Benghazi terrorist attack and its aftermath.

I know many of my friends on the other side of the aisle--not to mention the Obama administration itself--have convinced themselves that this investigation is simply a partisan exercise, apparently prompting them to ignore the institutional struggle between Congress and the Executive.

I just wonder: What would have happened had Robert C. Byrd been our majority leader, as he was for so long? He

would not have put up with this for 1 minute. He would have asserted this institution's authority and this institution's responsibility-- Congress' responsibility, if you will--to get to the bottom of this.

I served on the Iran-Contra special committee. It is not a bad thing for us to investigate an administration that appears to be out of whack, appears to be ignoring the basic tenets of the law, and appears to be hiding information from the public. Forget the public right now. How about the Congress? It is hard to respect an administration that acts like this.

We should be eager to get to the bottom of the circumstances surrounding the Benghazi attack, and my friends on the other side ought to quit trying to protect the administration when they know these are serious charges. These are serious matters. We have an obligation to get to the bottom of it, and let the chips fall where they may. There were four deaths here of heroes.

All the Members of this esteemed body--whether Democrat or Republican--should demand that Congress' institutional prerogatives are preserved and defended.

As members of the legislative branch, we have the fundamental right-- and the accompanying duty--to exercise a lawful oversight function. When any Presidential administration engages in extreme resistance and demonstrates an unwillingness to cooperate with legitimate congressional investigations, we all--not just people on this side-- have an institutional obligation to defend our rightful constitutional prerogatives.

These executive abuses matter. The Obama administration has clearly and consistently overstepped its authorities and ignored its obligations under our Constitution and Federal law. This overreach threatens the rule of law, and it undermines the governmental checks and balances necessary to secure our liberties as Americans.

President Obama promised unprecedented transparency that would restore trust and confidence in government. But his administration's lawless actions have heightened the need for more robust and effective congressional oversight.

As even a liberal Washington Post columnist opined earlier this week, ``The Obama White House can blame its own secrecy and obsessive control over information'' for the heightened scrutiny of its questionable activities.

Oversight investigations are a critical tool that Congress must use effectively to promote government accountability. The Obama administration's escalating strategy of stonewalling, even to the point of ignoring legal obligations and longstanding norms, now threatens our rightful role in calling the executive branch to account.

Indeed, the basic assumption that underlies the Constitution's plan of government, as James Madison explained in Federalist 47 and 51, is that:

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and

judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many,

and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may

justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. . . .

But the great security against a gradual concentration of the

several powers in the same department, consist in giving to

those who administer each department the necessary

constitutional means and personal motives to resist

encroachments of the others.

The provision for defense must in this, as in all other

cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition

must be made to counteract ambition.

As Madison explained, it is incumbent upon each of us to insist on Congress' right and duty to investigate the executive branch, and to ensure that the administration abides by the most basic--the most fundamental--requirements of our constitutional system.

We owe the American people--not to mention the families of those who perished--a meaningful investigation of the Benghazi attack, not just to find answers to remaining questions but to affirm that this is still a Nation of laws and that the people's elected representatives are still capable of pursuing the truth and holding the executive branch accountable for its actions.

This is a matter of great concern to me, and I am sure it is to a lot of people who are starting to realize that there is a stonewalling like we haven't seen since Richard Nixon.

I don't know that the President has done this personally. I hope not. But he has to look into it.

If he doesn't, then I think it is up to the majority in this body to hold the administration to account, with the help of the minority, and to not have them ignore, disregard, and treat with contempt the rightful oversight that we have an honor and an obligation to do up here. This is really a very serious set of problems as far as I am concerned. I hope the President will get after his people down there.

I think one of the problems is we have a lot of young people in the White House right now who haven't had the experience. On the other hand, some of these things are so deliberate that we can't blame it on lack of experience. These folks know and the people in the Justice Department know. To have withheld these emails the way they did, knowing they were crucial to any investigation, is something we should not tolerate here in the Senate.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I thank the Senator. I would be happy to engage my distinguished colleague in a colloquy. Further, many thanks to him for his leadership over the years on this issue.

The Senator is correct. And I thank my good friend from North Carolina for raising this issue. I concur; the intent of the provisions of the bill reforming the Medicare Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule is to ensure that Medicare rates reflect true market rates, and that commercial payment rates to all sectors of the lab market should be represented, including independent laboratories and hospital outreach laboratories.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, this is the first time since 2007 the Senate has taken up and considered an energy bill. I am pleased we are finally discussing this important issue. I hope we will also take time to talk about our country's recent boom in oil and gas production.

In the years since our last energy debate in the Senate, the United States has transitioned from a position of inordinate dependence on foreign energy sources to become one of the largest energy producers in the world today. Much of this is the result of technological innovation, and we must do everything possible to make it easier for domestic companies to access, refine, and transport the oil and gas that has become available with recent advances in technology.

In my view, energy efficiency and industrial competitiveness should not be addressed without also addressing energy production. The two are necessarily interrelated, and it makes no sense to treat each in isolation. But that isn't happening today. As a result, we are missing a critical opportunity to have an important debate on how best to invest our Nation's resources to support domestic energy production.

The bill we have been discussing establishes new programs promoting energy efficiencies for buildings and manufacturing. It authorizes new spending for career skills and workforce training. But instead of simply devoting additional resources to energy efficiency programs, we should first understand the impact of existing energy sector programs administered by the Federal Government and, most critically, have a serious conversation about broader energy policy.

If the Senate actually functioned the way it was designed and I was given the opportunity, I would have called up amendment No. 3015, which would eliminate some of the duplication and overlap which has become so prevalent as the size and scope of the Federal Government continues to expand.

Our Federal bureaucracy has grown to the point that government agencies are simply unaware many of the programs they administer are duplicated by similar--and sometimes nearly identical--programs administered in other Federal agencies.

The Federal Leviathan has become so large and complex that the left hand literally doesn't know what the right hand is doing, especially when it comes to spending taxpayer moneys. This is simply unacceptable.

Our national government has grown so unwieldy that coordination between its individual parts cannot be assumed and often must instead be mandated. This phenomenon is certainly the case with many of the programs that would receive funding if this bill was enacted as currently written.

Currently, the Department of Labor, the Department of Education, and the Department of Energy each administer

programs that fund training and education targeted specifically at the energy sector. I am sure the Federal bureaucrats in each of these three agencies are trying to do as best they can. But it can't possibly be necessary or, for that matter, wise for all three agencies to be doing the same thing.

The obvious solution is for the Department of Energy to ensure there are no federally funded programs with the same stated objectives as the programs they are already administering.

My amendment requires the Secretary of Energy to coordinate with the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Education prior to issuing any career skills and workforce training funding opportunity announcements to ensure that these three departments are not issuing redundant and overlapping grants.

We cannot keep spending more taxpayer dollars in the same inefficient ways. Energy efficiency is important, but far more important is our Nation's overall energy policy. We should be discussing energy efficiency only as part of that critical debate.

I yield the floor.

Over time, many Utahns have been honored for their contributions to our country, and perhaps no one contributed more to our Nation's economic success at such a critical time than Marriner S. Eccles. I am honored to stand with the Eccles family this week as the Federal Reserve unveils a statue of Marriner Eccles in the atrium of the Marriner S. Eccles Building of the Federal Reserve Board in Washington, DC.

Marriner Stoddard Eccles was born in Logan, UT, on September 9, 1890, the oldest of nine children. Following the death of his father, who had become a leading industrialist with numerous enterprises, Marriner, at the young age of 22, took over the leadership of his father's businesses that were left to his mother, Ellen Eccles, and Marriner and his siblings. Previously, Marriner had worked in several of his father's businesses, had served a mission for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, LDS, in Scotland and had attended Brigham Young College in Logan.

A superb business analyst and bold administrator, he reorganized and consolidated his father's industrial conglomerate and banking network. Eccles, along with his brother George, joined with the Browning family in Ogden, UT, to form the Eccles-Browning Affiliated Banks, believed to be the first multibank holding company in the United States.

With the onset of the Great Depression of the 1930s, banks around the country faced customers rushing to withdraw their deposits. The Eccles- Browning Affiliated Banks withstood several bank runs, and in the process, Eccles began to understand the need for a compensatory fiscal and monetary policy. In July of 1933, Eccles was one of the experts summoned by the Senate Finance Committee to travel to Washington to counsel Congress on the profound economic turmoil that was occurring across the country.

Eccles delivered 38 pages of testimony, including a distinct 5-point plan for fixing the economy. ``We must correct the causes of the depression rather than deal with the effects of it!'' became one of the most quoted lines from Eccles' dramatic testimony. His five-point plan included unemployment relief through direct aid to the States, a bank deposit guarantee program, canceling the World War I Allies' war debt, implementing a national minimum wage, and establishing a national economic planning board.

Eccles made his points clearly enough that the Roosevelt administration invited Eccles to join as an Assistant Treasury Secretary. Even when asked by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to become a Governor of the Federal Reserve Board, Eccles stood strong and replied he would ``not unless fundamental changes [were] made in the (Federal Reserve).''

Eccles' involvement with policymaking did not stop there. He became involved with the Emergency Banking Act of 1933, the Federal Housing Act of 1934, and the 1933 law creating the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. With FDR's blessing, Eccles rewrote the 1935 Federal Reserve Act and became the first Chairman of the reorganized Federal Reserve Board, serving from 1936 to 1948. In February 1944, Roosevelt appointed Eccles to another 14-year term and Eccles stayed on the Board until 1951, when he resigned, marking a total of 17 years of service.

Eccles' talents combined with the policies he supported helped counter the recession crisis of 1937-1938, which in turn helped build America's economic strength prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor and World War II.

Many at the time considered Marriner Eccles' policies to be radical, but there is little doubt that his influence at the Federal Reserve continues to benefit our country today.

It is my honor to stand with the Eccles family this week and unveil yet another tribute to this remarkable Utahn we are so proud of.

Mr. President, today I will introduce legislation that will help victims of one of the most vicious crimes and one of the most evil crimes in our society: child pornography.

When Congress enacted the Violence Against Women Act more than 20 years ago--and I had a lot to do with that, and then-Senator Biden deserves an awful lot of the credit for that--the law required that the defendant in a child sexual exploitation case must pay restitution ``for the full amount of the victim's losses.'' Those losses can include lost income as well as expenses for medical services, therapy, rehabilitation, transportation, and childcare.

The restitution statute works in a straightforward way for crimes that involve individual defendants who cause specific harm to particular victims. But child pornography is different. Victims not only suffer from the initial abuse, but they continue to suffer as images of that abuse are created, distributed, and possessed. As the Supreme Court recently put it, ``Every viewing of child pornography is a repetition of the victim's abuse.''

In the Internet age, a child pornography victim's abuse never ends, but identifying everyone who contributes to that ongoing abuse can be difficult, if not impossible. A predator who commits and records the abuse might be readily identified. Those who distribute those images, however, are harder to find, and many who obtain and possess them might never be identified at all. They may get lost in the crowd. They may seek safety in shadows. But the harm they cause to victims is no less devastating.

Our challenge is to craft a restitution statute suited for this unique kind of crime. We are meeting that challenge today by introducing the Amy and Vicky Child Pornography Victim Restitution Improvement Act. Amy and Vicky are victims in two of the most widely distributed child pornography series in the world. They know how difficult it is to seek restitution for ongoing harm caused by unknown people.

The Supreme Court reviewed Amy's case and issued a decision on April 23, titled ``Paroline v. United States.'' The Court said the existing restitution statute is not suited for her kind of case because it requires proving how one defendant's possession of particular images concretely harmed an individual victim. That is simply impossible to prove and puts the burden on victims forever to chase defendants only to recover next to nothing.

Several of my colleagues, both Republican and Democratic, joined me on a legal brief in that case. We hoped that the Supreme Court would construe the existing statute in a way that was workable to protect child pornography victims. The Court chose not to do that, and it is up to Congress to craft a statute that works. I believe we are up to the task, and the bill I am introducing today is the way to do it.

The Amy and Vicky act creates an effective, balanced restitution process for victims of child pornography that responds to the Supreme Court's decision in Paroline v. United States. It does three things. First, it considers a victim's total losses, including from individuals who may not have yet been identified. This step reflects the unique nature of child pornography and its ongoing impact on its victims. Secondly, the bill requires real and timely restitution and gives judges options for making that happen. Third, it allows defendants who have contributed to the same victim's losses to spread the cost of restitution among themselves. If a victim was harmed by a single defendant, the defendant must pay full restitution for all of the victim's losses, but if a victim was harmed by multiple individuals, a judge has options for imposing restitution on a defendant, depending on the circumstances of the case. The defendant can be required to pay the full amount of the victim's losses or the defendant can pay less than the full amount but at least a statutory minimum for crimes, such as possession, distribution or production of the child pornography.

In its decision in the Paroline case, the Supreme Court discussed whether a defendant should pay full restitution for harms that he did not cause entirely by himself. At the same time, the Court recognized that the harm from child pornography flows from the trade or the continuing traffic in the images. It would be perverse to say that as more individuals contribute to a victim's harm and loss by obtaining images of her abuse, the less responsible each of them is so that the victim ends up with nothing. The Amy and Vicky act addresses these issues.

A defendant may sue others who have harmed the same victim in order to spread the costs of restitution but must do so in a timely fashion and only after the victim has received real and timely payment. As my colleagues may know, Federal law already provides for criminal defendants who must pay restitution to do so on a payment schedule suitable for their individual circumstances.

I wish to thank three groups of people who have been critical in bringing us to this point only 2 weeks after the Supreme Court's decision. First and foremost, I wish to recognize and thank both Amy and Vicky, the brave women for whom this bill is named who represent so many child pornography victims. Amy and Vicky both endorse this legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that a letter from each of them be printed in the Record.

Second, I wish to thank Amy and Vicky's legal team who were instrumental in developing this legislation. They include Professor Paul Cassell at the University of Utah School of Law, one of the leading authorities on criminal law in this country, and attorneys James Marsh of New York and Carol Hepburn in Seattle. Professor Cassell argued the Paroline case before the Supreme Court, and it is the experience of these tireless advocates that informed how to respond to that decision.

Third, I wish to thank the Senators on both sides of the aisle who join me in introducing this bill. In particular, I wish to recognize the senior Senator from New York Mr. Schumer who also signed on to the legal brief I filed in the Paroline case. We serve together on the Judiciary Committee, and he has long been a champion for crime victims.

I ask unanimous consent that an editorial from today's Washington Post be printed in the Record.

It says that the Amy and Vicky Child Pornography Victim Restitution Improvement Act is ``a step in the right direction.''

I urge all of my colleagues to join us in enacting this legislation. It creates a practical process and recognizes the unique kind of harm caused by child pornography and requires restitution in a manner that will actually help victims.

In her letter, Amy writes that the legislation we are introducing today ``can finally make restitution happen for all victims of this horrible crime.''

Let's get it done.

Mr. President, today I will introduce legislation that will help victims of one of the most vicious crimes and one of the most evil crimes in our society: child pornography.

When Congress enacted the Violence Against Women Act more than 20 years ago--and I had a lot to do with that, and then-Senator Biden deserves an awful lot of the credit for that--the law required that the defendant in a child sexual exploitation case must pay restitution ``for the full amount of the victim's losses.'' Those losses can include lost income as well as expenses for medical services, therapy, rehabilitation, transportation, and childcare.

The restitution statute works in a straightforward way for crimes that involve individual defendants who cause specific harm to particular victims. But child pornography is different. Victims not only suffer from the initial abuse, but they continue to suffer as images of that abuse are created, distributed, and possessed. As the Supreme Court recently put it, ``Every viewing of child pornography is a repetition of the victim's abuse.''

In the Internet age, a child pornography victim's abuse never ends, but identifying everyone who contributes to that ongoing abuse can be difficult, if not impossible. A predator who commits and records the abuse might be readily identified. Those who distribute those images, however, are harder to find, and many who obtain and possess them might never be identified at all. They may get lost in the crowd. They may seek safety in shadows. But the harm they cause to victims is no less devastating.

Our challenge is to craft a restitution statute suited for this unique kind of crime. We are meeting that challenge today by introducing the Amy and Vicky Child Pornography Victim Restitution Improvement Act. Amy and Vicky are victims in two of the most widely distributed child pornography series in the world. They know how difficult it is to seek restitution for ongoing harm caused by unknown people.

The Supreme Court reviewed Amy's case and issued a decision on April 23, titled ``Paroline v. United States.'' The Court said the existing restitution statute is not suited for her kind of case because it requires proving how one defendant's possession of particular images concretely harmed an individual victim. That is simply impossible to prove and puts the burden on victims forever to chase defendants only to recover next to nothing.

Several of my colleagues, both Republican and Democratic, joined me on a legal brief in that case. We hoped that the Supreme Court would construe the existing statute in a way that was workable to protect child pornography victims. The Court chose not to do that, and it is up to Congress to craft a statute that works. I believe we are up to the task, and the bill I am introducing today is the way to do it.

The Amy and Vicky act creates an effective, balanced restitution process for victims of child pornography that responds to the Supreme Court's decision in Paroline v. United States. It does three things. First, it considers a victim's total losses, including from individuals who may not have yet been identified. This step reflects the unique nature of child pornography and its ongoing impact on its victims. Secondly, the bill requires real and timely restitution and gives judges options for making that happen. Third, it allows defendants who have contributed to the same victim's losses to spread the cost of restitution among themselves. If a victim was harmed by a single defendant, the defendant must pay full restitution for all of the victim's losses, but if a victim was harmed by multiple individuals, a judge has options for imposing restitution on a defendant, depending on the circumstances of the case. The defendant can be required to pay the full amount of the victim's losses or the defendant can pay less than the full amount but at least a statutory minimum for crimes, such as possession, distribution or production of the child pornography.

In its decision in the Paroline case, the Supreme Court discussed whether a defendant should pay full restitution for harms that he did not cause entirely by himself. At the same time, the Court recognized that the harm from child pornography flows from the trade or the continuing traffic in the images. It would be perverse to say that as more individuals contribute to a victim's harm and loss by obtaining images of her abuse, the less responsible each of them is so that the victim ends up with nothing. The Amy and Vicky act addresses these issues.

A defendant may sue others who have harmed the same victim in order to spread the costs of restitution but must do so in a timely fashion and only after the victim has received real and timely payment. As my colleagues may know, Federal law already provides for criminal defendants who must pay restitution to do so on a payment schedule suitable for their individual circumstances.

I wish to thank three groups of people who have been critical in bringing us to this point only 2 weeks after the Supreme Court's decision. First and foremost, I wish to recognize and thank both Amy and Vicky, the brave women for whom this bill is named who represent so many child pornography victims. Amy and Vicky both endorse this legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that a letter from each of them be printed in the Record.

Second, I wish to thank Amy and Vicky's legal team who were instrumental in developing this legislation. They include Professor Paul Cassell at the University of Utah School of Law, one of the leading authorities on criminal law in this country, and attorneys James Marsh of New York and Carol Hepburn in Seattle. Professor Cassell argued the Paroline case before the Supreme Court, and it is the experience of these tireless advocates that informed how to respond to that decision.

Third, I wish to thank the Senators on both sides of the aisle who join me in introducing this bill. In particular, I wish to recognize the senior Senator from New York Mr. Schumer who also signed on to the legal brief I filed in the Paroline case. We serve together on the Judiciary Committee, and he has long been a champion for crime victims.

I ask unanimous consent that an editorial from today's Washington Post be printed in the Record.

It says that the Amy and Vicky Child Pornography Victim Restitution Improvement Act is ``a step in the right direction.''

I urge all of my colleagues to join us in enacting this legislation. It creates a practical process and recognizes the unique kind of harm caused by child pornography and requires restitution in a manner that will actually help victims.

In her letter, Amy writes that the legislation we are introducing today ``can finally make restitution happen for all victims of this horrible crime.''

Let's get it done.