Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to offer some remarks on President Obama's fiscal year 2015 budget proposal, some of which was released yesterday. As we all know, the release of the President's budget is an annual event here in Washington. It sets in motion a chain of processes and events that drive much of what we do right here in Congress.

Unfortunately, with President Obama's budgets in particular, this annual chain of events, for the most part, becomes an empty, almost meaningless exercise. The first problem with this year's budget is that we received it just yesterday, a full month past the statutory deadline.

What budget information we did receive yesterday is certainly incomplete. For example, when you look at the appendix of the budget, there is often reference to a section called ``analytical perspectives.'' But those perspectives are nowhere to be found. I assume the rest of the budget information is forthcoming. Still, we can only wonder why it is being released a few pieces at a time.

Of course, the problems with this budget go well beyond the delays and the sporadic release of information. Put simply, no one in their right mind would say the substance of this budget was worth the wait. Despite the fact that they took an extra month to put this budget together, the most striking thing about it is how little there is in the way of new ideas and proposals.

Indeed, when you look for the substance of the budget, you will see the administration appears to be short on new ideas. President Obama's new budget consists largely of proposals from his past budgets, which is surprising, given that none of them have received a single affirmative vote in Congress. Let me repeat that. None of his past budgets have received a single affirmative vote in Congress.

These proposals center on three familiar themes, all of which we have seen in past budgets, and in virtually every policy proposal from this President. First, we see the administration's continued insistence that we can tax and spend our way into prosperity, and that growing the Federal Government is the same as growing our economy.

Second, there is the effort to further redistribute income and the notion that this will, on its own, somehow lead to economic growth and job creation.

Finally, we see another attempt to define ``tax reform'' as a process of closing whatever the administration deems to be a ``loophole'' in the Tax Code, and using the resulting revenue not to reduce the deficit or lower tax rates but to fuel even more Federal spending.

Using overly optimistic economic assumptions, the administration claims this budget will reduce our high debt-to-GDP ratio. However, to get there, and to help fulfill its tax-and-spend objectives, the budget envisions well over $1 trillion of additional taxes in the face of a persistently sluggish economy.

That bears repeating. President Obama's latest budget contains more than $1 trillion in proposed tax hikes.

No one should mistake the President's intentions. Indeed, this budget is the outline of his domestic policy priorities for the future. Once again, chief among those priorities is another massive tax increase which, if the President had his way, would come on top of all of the tax increases we have seen already under this administration. This is hardly what our struggling economy needs.

Let's talk about the economy for a moment. Someone certainly should, so I will. If this economy is any indication, President Obama certainly is not interested in that conversation. Currently we have an economy in which labor force participation has fallen from around 66 percent, prior to the financial crisis, to 63 percent with no recovery in sight. This is the lowest labor force participation rate we have seen since the Carter administration, and it is holding back our country's economic growth.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has noted that a decline in the growth of the labor force is a principal reason that potential growth in the economy will decline in the coming decade. No one seriously disputes that there is a problem except, of course, when such declines can be attributed to ObamaCare.

We all remember last month when the CBO found that, as a result of the generous subsidies and the not-so-generous taxes in ObamaCare, millions of workers would either reduce their hours or leave the workforce entirely.

Virtually every objective observer saw this as a bad thing. Yet in response to these numbers, the administration and its supporters took to the airwaves to applaud the fact that ObamaCare would ``free'' people from their jobs and allow them to, in the words of the White House Press Secretary, ``pursue their dreams,'' courtesy of their fellow taxpayers.

While the economists in the administration and liberal pundits might applaud the reduced labor supply resulting from ObamaCare, it is, to say the least, difficult for me to find merit in the resulting reduction in economic growth. Of course, there is nothing in the President's budget that would address this issue. If anything, the policies contained in this new round of proposals would make all of this worse.

Returning to the latest call for well over $1 trillion of new revenue, the administration claims--as it has for years now--that these tax hikes are needed to restore fiscal responsibility and reduce the deficit as part of a ``balanced approach.''

However, we need to look at the facts. If we look at the deficit reduction that has taken place over the past 5 years, we will see just how unbalanced this approach is.

In fiscal year 2009, we achieved a high deficit watermark of $1.4 trillion. That number fell to a still high $680 billion in fiscal year 2013. Of the $736 billion of deficit reduction over that 5-year span, $670 billion came from increased revenue or taxes and only $66 billion came from reduced outlays.

In terms of budget realizations, rather than promises for the future, less than 9 percent of the deficit reduction between 2009 and 2013 came from reductions in spending. The vast majority came from increased revenue.

Yet the mantra from the administration continues--more revenues and higher taxes, along with ever more spending. One can only wonder where job creation falls into the mix, if it does at all.

Since President Obama came into office, we have heard a lot of talk about his laser-like focus on job creation. However, the record of this administration suggests that his focus is more on growing government than on growing our economy.

We have seen the failed stimulus, ObamaCare, and initiatives such as Dodd-Frank, all of which have expanded the size and scope of the Federal Government without laying any foundation for economic growth.

Sadly, the budget offered this week does not present a vision for such growth in the future. This budget is, instead, a political document. Its purpose is to galvanize support from the President's left-leaning base in an election year. Nothing more; nothing less.

This is disappointing, to say the least, particularly when we look at the challenges our Nation is currently undergoing and facing. One such challenge is our Nation's broken Tax Code. While this budget comes close to acknowledging that the Tax Code is a problem, it misses an opportunity to actually do something about it. Tax reform, if it is done correctly, would promote growth and competitiveness in jobs, the economy, and provide greater economic efficiency, simplicity, and fairness.

However--as I said earlier--in the administration's review, tax reform is guided primarily by a desire to obtain more tax revenue to fund yet more expansion of the Federal Government, along with an insistence on unilaterally picking winners and losers. The ``tax reform'' outlined in the President's budget uses a corporate-only approach.

In other words, it would amend the business tax system and leave the individual Tax Code largely as it is. That approach is different from the ideas outlined by the two chairmen of the tax-writing committees, both of whom have proposed detailed comprehensive tax reform plans.

While I haven't endorsed either Chairman Camp's or Chairman Wyden's plan, they both recognize that the noncorporate business sector, which makes up over half of all U.S. businesses, is also in need of tax reform.

This sets them apart from President Obama and the proposals in his latest budget. Of course, let's not forget hardworking individual Americans, far too many of whom need assistance in filling out their tax returns. These people would be left behind under the President's proposal.

The President's proposal looks to raise tax revenue largely to increase more spending in what it calls ``investments'' in infrastructure. That sounds wonderful.

However, what is taken to be infrastructure in the minds of the Federal bureaucrats--who the President would empower to spend hard- earned taxpayer money--is sure to be guided more by politics than by economic efficiency. The so-called infrastructure bank or infrastructure finance authority--or whatever is the label of the day-- that the President has continually called for would surely become the next Fannie and Freddie, putting innocent taxpayers on the hook for any losses resulting from the large Federal contractors rolling the dice on building projects.

As I said, our Nation and our economy face a number of challenges. Ongoing sluggishness threatens to become a permanent fixture on our long-term economic path. Indeed, as I referred to earlier, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has already ratcheted down its estimate of the long-run growth path of the economy--partly because of the negative effects of the ever-evolving health care law that Democrats unilaterally enacted and that the President seems intent on unilaterally implementing.

I don't think that any Member of this body would argue that the status quo in our economy is acceptable. We have a lot of work to do when it comes to creating jobs, economic growth, prosperity, and opportunity in this country.

Unfortunately, the President's recent budget does not, in my view, add to the intelligent discussion. Rather, it returns to already- rejected ideas and appears to be aimed at the politics more than the need for proven private-sector jobs.

At this critical time in our Nation's history, the American people are demanding leadership. Sadly, they aren't getting it with President Obama's latest budget, and I think that is a catastrophe.

We need to change it in Congress. Of course, the Senate seems to be slow in

wanting to make any changes for the better. In fact, we hardly ever really debate legislation anymore--and, by the way, we will probably be voting on eight different votes this evening on various judges, all of whom would have been passed by unanimous consent in December had it not been for the majority breaking the rules to change the rules.

It is pathetic, really. It is pathetic what this body hasn't done, and it is time for us to bring it into account.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I understand Senator Schumer wants to speak in a little while, so I will try to hurry my remarks as quickly as I can.

I rise today to speak once again on the proposed IRS regulations targeting grassroots 501(c)(4) organizations. I have already come to the floor to discuss this issue, and I expect I will be here several more times in the coming months as these proposed rules continue to move through the regulatory pipeline at the IRS.

The public comment period for these proposed regulations ends today. As of this morning, the IRS had received over 100,000 comments on this proposal, the vast majority of them negative. This is an all-time record. In fact, the number is more than five times greater than the previous record for comments on a proposed IRS regulation. By contrast, the Keystone XL Pipeline--another item of enormous public interest-- received just over 7,000 comments.

With all this public attention, the obvious question is, Why? Why has this proposal generated so much criticism from the American people? I think the answer is quite simple: The American people see this proposal for what it is--an attempt to silence this administration's critics and keep them on the sidelines of the democratic process.

I would like to take a few minutes to describe in detail just what this regulation does.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, a 501(c)(4) organization is a nonprofit organization, the exempt purpose of which is the ``promotion of social welfare.'' The phrase ``promotion of social welfare'' has long been defined as ``promoting in some way the common good and general welfare of the people of the community'' or ``bringing about civic betterments and social improvements.''

Such organizations may engage in political activity for or against candidates for public office so long as their primary activity falls under the category of promoting social welfare.

Under current regulations, activities such as voter registration or ``get out

the vote'' drives are correctly treated as promoting social welfare, just like the distribution of voter guidelines outlining candidates' positions on issues that are, in the view of the organization, important to the public.

The proposed regulations would re-categorize these types of candidate-neutral activities as not consistent with the exempt purpose of promoting social welfare. This is important because over the past few days, in an effort to justify these regulations, the administration has communicated to Members of Congress that they are not banning these types of activities; they are just putting them in different categories. But lost in their justifications are some important distinctions. It is easy to get lost in the weeds, which is probably what the administration is hoping for. So let's break this down.

Traditionally speaking, in order to keep their tax exemption, 501(c)(4) organizations have had to limit their involvement in ``political activities'' to around 49 percent or less of their overall activities. In other words, they can be directly involved in the political process so long as the majority of their activities are devoted to social welfare.

What this proposed regulation would do is redefine the parameters of what is considered political activity, moving a number of activities from the social welfare category to the political category. As I said, under this regulation, simply stating where candidates for public office stand on issues important to a specific 501(c)(4) organization would be considered political activity. In fact, even mentioning a candidate's name in a communication within a specified period before an election--even if the communication does not say whether the organization supports or opposes the candidate--would be considered political activity. As I mentioned, the same could be said for voter registration drives or ``get out the vote'' initiatives even if the efforts are obviously and legitimately nonpartisan.

Basically, this proposed regulation would instantly categorize so much run-of-the-mill behavior as partisan political activity that many existing 501(c)(4) grassroots organizations would have to stop promoting their causes altogether. And that is precisely what the administration wants. They do not want 501(c)(4)s educating the public on the issues of the day or telling voters where candidates stand on political issues. Sure, they are fine with these groups promoting social welfare so long as that promotion does not include criticism of this administration or its policies that are harmful to the general welfare of their communities.

It would be one thing if the IRS was an agency with clean hands when it came to dealing with critics of this administration. But, as we have seen, that is simply not the case. Indeed, over the last few years we have seen a record of harassment and intimidation of conservative groups applying to the IRS for tax-exempt status. The agency is under investigation in three separate congressional committees for its actions in the run up to the 2010 and 2012 elections.

Put simply, the credibility and the political independence of the IRS are very much in question. A reasonable person would think that, rather than further damaging the IRS's reputation, the administration would instead focus on rebuilding it in the aftermath of the targeting scandal. Sadly, there don't appear to be too many reasonable people working in the Obama administration, at least not when it comes to this set of issues.

We need to call this what it is: an affront to free speech and the right of all American citizens to participate in the democratic process. This is an attempt by the administration to marginalize its critics and silence them altogether.

Republicans have been very vocal in our opposition to this proposed regulation. We have spoken out in a variety of venues. But make no mistake, it is not just Republicans and conservatives who oppose this new rule. A number of left-leaning organizations have spoken out against it as well. The ACLU, for example, submitted a scathing comment letter to the IRS arguing that the proposed regulation would ``produce the same structural issues at the IRS that led to the use of inappropriate criteria in the selection of various charitable and social welfare groups for unfair scrutiny.'' The ACLU argued further that social welfare groups should be free to participate in the political process because that kind of participation ``is at the heart of our representative democracy. To the extent it influences voters, it does so by promoting an informed citizenry.'' We have seen similar comments from groups such as the Sierra Club. Leaders of labor unions have also publicly weighed in about the overly broad nature of the proposed regulation.

Put simply, when you have a proposal that is drawing unanimous opposition from Republicans in Congress and is being criticized by the ACLU and Big Labor, there is a pretty decent chance it is not good policy. Quite frankly, that characterization is probably too charitable for this particular proposal.

This proposed regulation needs to be stopped in its tracks. Yesterday the House of Representatives passed legislation that would do just that. If enacted, the House bill would delay the implementation of the proposal for one year. I am an original cosponsor of the Senate companion bill to this legislation, which was introduced by Senators Flake and Roberts.

Sadly, I think I know where my colleagues on the other side of the aisle stand on this issue, and I expect those of us here in the Senate who support the right of all Americans to participate in the political process are likely to be disappointed with regard to this particular legislative effort. Still, even if this legislation dies here in the Senate, that will not be the end of the line.

Earlier this month, when I came to the floor to talk about this issue, I called on IRS Commissioner Koskinen to use his authority to block these regulations. I expect him to do so. When questioned about this proposal, he has consistently deferred, usually saying he was not the Commissioner when it was drafted and published. Fine. But he is the Commissioner now, and now that he is the Commissioner, he is in a position to stop the proposed regulation from going final and acquiring the force of law. This proposal cannot take effect unless Commissioner Koskinen personally approves and signs the final regulation clearance package. That being the case, I call on him today to do the right thing--to not sign it when it reaches his desk. In fact, he ought to decry it for what it is.

In an ideal world, the administration would simply withdraw this proposal and leave this issue alone. However, we are not living in such a world. That being the case, if the administration continues its effort to push through this proposed rule, the IRS Commissioner can and should use his authority to stop it from taking effect. After all, that is one reason Congress gives the IRS Commissioner a 5-year term. The Commissioner is supposed to be free from political pressure when making decisions and implementing our Nation's tax laws.

In light of that fact, I want to implore Commissioner Koskinen to use the power he has been granted to restore the IRS's credibility and make it clear to the American people that his agency, the IRS, will no longer be used as simply another political arm of this or any future administration. I hope he will do so because it is the right thing to do, and I am calling on him to do it.

I have faith in Commissioner Koskinen. I believe he is an honest man. I don't think he has any other choice but to stop these obnoxious regulations which people from the left to the right consider to be breaches of free speech and are wrong.

I yield the floor.

Affordable Care Act

Mr. President, I compliment my colleagues who have been talking about Medicare Advantage today. It is amazing to me that this administration will take money from Medicare Advantage--a program people love and that works well, where they can have their own doctors and their own health care providers--and put it into ObamaCare--a program that is not working and people are not happy with--and we wind up with a lot of dissatisfied people in this country and with good reason for their dissatisfaction.

So I rise to join my colleagues in speaking out against the harm ObamaCare is already causing to seniors throughout the country who rely on Medicare Advantage. I have heard from many seniors in my home State of Utah who are worried about the impact further cuts to the Medicare Advantage Program could have on their personal health care.

For example, James and Maureen of Spanish Fork, UT, sent a letter describing how they have been personally affected by the hundreds of billions of dollars taken from Medicare Advantage to pay for ObamaCare--to take money from a program that works, that people are happy with, that they pay for, and put it into ObamaCare where it doesn't work, they are not happy with it, and it even costs the government more money.

James and Maureen were informed some time ago that their current doctors and most providers in their area will no longer be covered as a part of their plan's network. In Maureen's words:

If further funding is taken from the Advantage programs,

more and more providers will stop accepting these plans.

Where will we go to seek medical treatment?

Maureen also said that similar to many other seniors, she and her husband ``worry about what will be next.''

These are common stories. Seniors throughout Utah and the Nation are seeing their health care options dwindle because President Obama and the Democrats in Congress raided Medicare Advantage to pay for their misguided ObamaCare and what they call their health care law.

We all remember when the President promised under ObamaCare if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Yet because of the law's cuts to Medicare Advantage, people such as James and Maureen are being forced to find new doctors and health care providers. As each day passes, fewer and fewer options are available to them. This is just another example of broken promises that came part and parcel with ObamaCare.

On top of the problems with Medicare Advantage, a new report issued late last week from the Chief Actuary from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services had even more troubling news. Buried in the report-- which was 2 years late, by the way--is the confirmation that ObamaCare will raise insurance premiums for 11 million employees of small businesses.

You heard that right. The Obama administration's own actuary found that under the President's health care law 11 million workers will see their premiums rise. As I said, this report was 2 years late, and it is no wonder why the administration sat on it for as long as they did.

This is just the latest in a long line of bad data we have seen about this misguided law. Yet the administration refuses to step away from its talking points and acknowledge the truth--that the health care law is fundamentally flawed and is not working as promised.

All of the problems we are seeing are confirming over and over that the best path forward would be to repeal ObamaCare and replace it with patient-focused, commonsense reforms that will actually lower costs and expand options for the American people. I hope eventually that is the path we take.

I yield the floor.

I yield back the time.

Mr. President, I wish to recognize the centennial of ASCAP, the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers.

When ASCAP's founders gathered in a New York hotel 100 years ago, they could not have imagined what the future held in store for the music industry, and the central role their organization would play in the music community. ASCAP's membership has grown to include more than \1/2\ million songwriters, composers, and publishers. Among these are some of America's most beloved musical talents, but ASCAP is also home to thousands of lesser known musicians who inspire and delight us.

ASCAP licenses nearly 9 million musical works. The royalties ASCAP collects on behalf of its members, and the additional resources it provides, empower thousands of musicians to follow their lifelong passion for music while providing for themselves and their families. ASCAP is truly an invaluable resource both for songwriters and composers as well as the music loving community they serve.

Over the years, ASCAP has been a tireless advocate for strong intellectual property protections. It continues to be at the forefront of the movement for sensible intellectual property laws that can keep pace with changes in technology, all the while serving the interests of both music creators and consumers in the digital age.

It is critically important that both music creators and consumers have certainty about the relevant legal rules and protections. Yet, the current regulatory regime that governs ASCAP's operations may need to be updated to keep pace with innovations in how music is created, shared, and enjoyed. An updated legal regime is important not only for the musicians that make up ASCAP's membership, but also for the continued enjoyment of all their listeners among the American people. As Congress contemplates reforming our country's copyright law, it is my hope that this and other related issues will be given careful consideration.

I invite my colleagues to join me in recognizing ASCAP's 100 years of tireless advocacy on behalf or songwriters, composers, and publishers, and wish them 100 more years of great music and success.

I thank my colleague from Arizona and my colleague from Kansas as well.

I rise today in support of the Stop Targeting of Political Beliefs by the IRS Act, the bill introduced today by our Senator from Arizona and the senior Senator from Kansas. This is a Senate companion to the bill being marked up today in the House Ways and Means Committee. This is an important piece of legislation that will protect free speech and ensure--at least for the time being--that the Internal Revenue Service is not used as yet another political arm of this administration.

As we all know, last November the IRS unveiled proposed regulations that would fundamentally alter the nature of the activities tax-exempt 501(c)(4) organizations can engage in. Under current regulations, 501(c)(4) organizations--or social welfare groups--can engage in political activities on a limited basis so long as their primary activity is the promotion of social welfare. However, they remain free to educate the public on important issues--even those that may be politically charged--because that falls within the exempt purpose of promoting social welfare. They can also conduct voter registration drives and distribute voter guides outlining candidates' priorities on issues important to the organization.

Under the proposed regulation, virtually all of these activities would be considered political activity and would be considered inconsistent with various groups' exemptions under 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. As a practical matter, this would mean that grassroots organizations all over the country would be forced to shut down--or, to put it more bluntly, conservative grassroots organizations all over this country would be forced to shut down.

That is precisely the point. The Obama administration does not want grassroots organizations--even those that are legitimately nonpartisan--educating the public on the issues of the day. They don't want tax-exempt organizations to be able to tell voters where candidates and politicians stand on the issues. And they certainly don't want these types of groups participating in the political process in any

meaningful way. That is why we are seeing these regulations, that is why they were drafted in the first place, and that is why the administration seems set to finalize them right before the 2014 midterm elections or, at the very latest, before the 2016 Presidential election.

We need to call this what it is.

This is an affront to free speech and the right of all American citizens to participate in the democratic process. This is an attempt by the Obama administration to further marginalize its critics and keep them on the sidelines. It is a blatant attempt to continue the harassment and intimidation that has already been taking place at the IRS over the past few years.

This regulation is just one of many problems we see at the IRS. Indeed, the American people have ample reason to doubt the credibility of the IRS, particularly when it comes to dealing with organizations that might be critical of the President and his policies. The IRS is currently under investigation on three separate congressional committees for its targeting of conservative organizations during the run-up to the 2010 and 2012 elections.

On top of that, the agency recently came under widespread condemnation when, in the midst of these ongoing investigations, they announced they were reinstating bonuses that had been canceled in response to the targeting scandal. It is almost as if they believe there was no scandal at all. Of course, if you have been listening to other people in the Obama administration, that type of thinking appears to be the predominant view. Several weeks ago, for example, leaks from the Justice Department indicated that no criminal charges were likely to be filed in the targeting scandal, even though this scandal is still under investigation. Talk about politics. Talk about political control. Talk about ignoring what is going on.

On Super Bowl Sunday, President Obama said in an interview that there was not a ``smidgen'' of corruption at the IRS. Well, when it comes to suppressing free speech, there is far more than a smidgen of corruption at the IRS. If anything, these proposed regulations on 501(c)(4)s are additional proof. It is one side trying to one-up the other in all cases because they happen to control the Presidency and one House of Congress.

When the proposed rule was first made public, the IRS said it was drafted in response to the 2013 TIGTA report that revealed all the issues the agency was having with regard to 501(c)(4) applications. However, as we learned in a Ways and Means Committee hearing last week, those regulations were under consideration for 2 years before the report was issued--2 years.

On top of that, the regulations were pursued outside of the normal channels for IRS and Treasury Department regulatory efforts in a manner that some IRS officials labeled ``off-plan.'' ``Off-plan'' in this case means hidden--h-i-d-d-e-n--from the public. Why does the IRS need to hide a draft regulation from the public when a regulation project is normally listed on a public Treasury guidance plan? I suppose we can only speculate, but I think it is fair to assume they didn't want the public to know these regulations were in the works. And they expect the American people to believe there is no political motivation for these regulations? Give me a break.

The fact is that these proposed regulations demonstrate that the IRS is willing and able to carry the President's political water even when the agency is, by law, supposed to be an independent and nonpartisan agency. That is why this legislation that has been introduced today by the two distinguished Senators who preceded me in their remarks is so important. We need to send a message to the administration that it cannot tamper with the rules of free speech just because it doesn't like what is being said.

If enacted, this legislation would delay the implementation of these rules for a year. This is the least we can do to protect free speech. People from all across the political spectrum--from the ACLU, to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, to the unions--have recognized just how egregious this proposed rule is. It needs to be stopped, and our bill would stop it.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Indeed, everyone who supports the right of American citizens to participate in the political process, whether they are Republican or Democrat, should support this bill.

I say to our new IRS Commissioner--whom I fought to get confirmed, who I believe is sincere, who I believe is a person who can clean up this mess over there, this nest of partisan people who are in the IRS, where there should not be any partisanship--Mr. Koskinen, you have the power to stop this regulation from becoming final.

The Commissioner should stop this. All he has to do is just not sign it.

I have to say that I will be watching very carefully because I am sick and tired of the IRS being used for political purposes. I don't want to be used for Republican purposes, Democratic purposes, liberal purposes, or conservative purposes. I want freedom in this country, and I want people to be able to express themselves freely.

What they are trying to do is outrageous, and it shows an administration that can't win fair and square with all of the advantages that it has.

We know that many of the 501(c)(4)s are basically organizations that have a conservative tilt. The 501(c)(5)s are the unions that we know almost 100 percent support Democrats, even though 40 percent of union members are Republicans. I know; I used to be a skilled tradesman. I learned a skilled trade, went through a formal apprenticeship, worked for 10 years in a building construction trade union, and I am proud of that, and I was proud to be a union member. Forty percent of union members are Republicans. Yet almost 100 percent of their effort goes to elect Democrats. The uptick in 501(c)(5) applications was just as high as the uptick for conservative organizations in 501(c)(4)s. We didn't see any of this--neither the targeting nor the regulations--being used against 501(c)(5)s. The only conclusion is that there is a group of people who basically want to support only one side of the equation.

We have to get politics out of the IRS. I don't know what that means. It may mean--like other agencies where we don't want any politics involved--getting rid of any partisan controls. That might include the union. Because we have people who were partisan and did wrong things-- our investigation is not complete, but it is a matter of great concern to us--and then to come up with this type of stuff, it is enough to just make you want to cry or, should I say, throw up.

I am a Republican. The Presiding Officer is a Democrat. We are friends. We don't agree on a lot of things. That is what makes this country great. But when one side tries to stifle the free speech of the other side, we both have to stand together. I hope Mr. Koskinen, the new Commissioner, will do what is right and get rid of these regulations. My gosh, let's not have regulations that give a tilt to one side or the other. Let's have the IRS be down the middle, straightforward, decent, and honest, which it has not been in the last number of years. We are going to show that.

All I can say is I commend my two colleagues for their leadership in introducing this bill. It is long overdue, and I hope every Senator in this Senate will support it.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I am pleased that my colleague and very dear friend Max Baucus was confirmed by this body the way he was. He will make a fine ambassador to China. We all know what an honorable, decent man he is. We all know of his abilities. We all know he has run a very tough committee, a very important committee, and has done a terrific job in doing so.

All I can say is I rise to wish my good friend Senator Max Baucus good luck as he departs to serve as the next U.S. Ambassador to China.

We are going to miss Max. I do not think it is fair to this body, but, nevertheless, I think it is fair to our country because Max will make a great ambassador. Senator Baucus first came to the Senate in 1978 and has the distinction of being Montana's longest serving Senator. So, as you can see, I have served with Senator Baucus for a long time--longer than the two of us would like to admit sometimes. Over the years I have come to respect his commitment both to his constituents and to his principles. Having worked side by side with him on the Senate Finance Committee, I know a lot about his constituents and his principles. He raises his constituents constantly and his principles I do not think he ever wavered.

If you want to understand my friend Max Baucus's priorities, take a look at the sign on his Senate office desk. Like Max, it is to the point and unequivocal. The sign says: ``Montana comes first.'' Plain and simple, not much nuance, the language is pretty declarative.

That is Max Baucus. In his long and distinguished Senate career, he always put the people of Montana first.

Both Senator Baucus and I are westerners, and westerners expect a certain amount of independence in their Senators. They expect us to work across the aisle and attempt to solve problems and work together.

Of course, we Republicans tend to view that problem-solving as less government and Democrats tend to view that problem-solving as more government. That is not universal, but that is where the two sides usually come down. That being the case, Max and I have often found ourselves on different sides of some of these issues. However, we share the desire to solve problems and, as Max's sign says it, to put our constituents' interests first. Senator Baucus has always understood that notion very well, and I am here to declare that to everybody who listens.

As a result, his disposition--particularly as chairman of the Finance Committee--has been to try to find a way to a bipartisan yes rather than a partisan no. I have always respected him for that.

Over the last few years, as I have served along side Max as the ranking member of the Finance Committee, I have greatly appreciated his willingness to put partisan differences aside for the greater good of all.

One adjective you could use to describe Senator Baucus is one that was used by his predecessor as chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. The term I am thinking of is ``indefatigable.''

Whether it was preparing for and running a marathon, walking across the wide expanse of his home State, or working at one of the many jobs he regularly undertook back home on recess visits, Max has been indefatigable.

He has been a tireless legislator. Just ask his staff. They will affirm that fact. As a Senator, he was always working. I have no doubt he will do the same as our Nation's Ambassador to China, arguably the most important diplomatic post in the world today.

As we saw today, the vote on his confirmation was not even close. That is because all of his colleagues know that Max Baucus is a committed public servant who will serve the American people with competence, dignity, and a tireless commitment to our Nation and its interests.

I have to say I feel personally about this nominee and about this nomination. I like Max very much. Having served with him on the Senate Finance Committee, he has always tried to be fair. He has always tried to consider the other's point of view. He has always tried to consider different ways of solving problems, and he has worked to do so. That is about all we can ask from our colleagues on the other side--either Democrats or Republicans.

I just want to at this time wish Senator Baucus and his lovely wife Melodee and, of course, his family the best of luck in this and all future endeavors.

As Max departs the Senate, Senator Baucus leaves behind a great legacy

and very big shoes to fill. So at this particular point, I hesitate to say farewell to my friend Max Baucus, but I only say farewell knowing that he is going to go on to a very important job for our country, where I think he will do a very good job.

He will have my support as he serves over there, and let's just hope that we on the Finance Committee can do a better job or at least an equivalent job to what Max has done to keep these very important issues on the most important committee of the Congress moving along.

I have nothing but respect for Max. I appreciate him very much. I am his friend, and I intend to continue this friendship as long as we both live.

With that, I congratulate Senator Baucus. I am proud of the Senator, and I intend to support him while he is there as well.

I yield the floor.

I wish to take a few minutes to talk about our Nation's international trade policies. Specifically, I wish to discuss efforts to renew trade promotion authority, or what we call TPA. The most recent authorization of TPA expired nearly 7 years ago. Since that time, Republicans have, by and large, expressed support for renewing it.

In August 2010, U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk testified that the Obama administration needed TPA to conclude ongoing trade negotiations. However, after that time, little was done to move the ball forward on renewing TPA. In September 2011, Minority Leader McConnell and I offered an amendment on the Senate floor to renew trade promotion authority for President Obama.

Unfortunately, despite strong support from the Republican caucus, a number of Democratic Senators actively opposed our efforts, and it received virtually no Democratic support. As a result, our efforts failed.

In March 2013, then-Acting USTR Marantis again expressed the administration's support for renewing TPA and pledged to work with Congress to get it done.

In June 2013, United States Trade Representative Michael Froman, during testimony before the Senate Finance Committee, formally requested on behalf of President Obama that Congress renew TPA.

Throughout most of 2013, I worked with Chairman Baucus and Chairman Camp of House Ways and Means to craft a bipartisan bill to renew TPA, one that could pass through both Houses and the Senate. We introduced our bill in January.

Last week, in his State of the Union Address, President Obama asked Congress to pass TPA legislation so his administration could complete negotiations on two very ambitious and important trade agreements. While I thought President Obama could have spoken more forcefully on this matter, his call for TPA renewal was clear and unambiguous. Yet so far the call appears to be going unheeded--or should I say among Democrats in the Senate.

Why is TPA so important, trade promotion authority? I think some additional context is necessary.

The administration is currently in the midst of negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, an Asia-Pacific trade agreement that is currently being negotiated between the United States and 12 other countries, including some of the world's largest economies, such as Japan, Canada, and Mexico.

The Asia-Pacific region represents more than 40 percent of the world's trade and, as a group, TPP countries represent the largest goods and services export market for our country, the United States of America.

On the other side of the world, the United States is negotiating a bilateral trade agreement with the 28 countries of the European Union. This is called TTIP. The United States and the EU generate over half of the world's economic output. Total goods trade alone, however, between the United States and the EU amounts to over $1 trillion a year. Investment flows represent another $300 billion a year on top of that.

Together, these two trade agreements have the potential to greatly expand access for U.S. products in the foreign markets around the world. Most importantly, they would help to grow our economy and create jobs at home.

These two separate trade agreements and negotiations represent what is the most ambitious trade agenda in our Nation's history. While everyone knows that I am a pretty outspoken critic of the Obama administration, I believe the administration deserves credit on this front. But if these negotiations are going to succeed, Congress must approve TPA.

Because of the unique structure of our government, our country needs TPA. Our trading partners will not put their best deal on the table unless they know the United States can deliver on what it promised.

TPA empowers our trade negotiators to conclude agreements and provides a path for passage in Congress. That is why every President since FDR has sought trade promotion authority. No economically significant trade agreement has ever been negotiated by any administration and approved by Congress without it.

Put simply, if Congress does not renew TPA, the TPP negotiations and the TTIP negotiations with the European Union will almost certainly fail. That is why it is so disconcerting to me to see how some of my colleagues across the aisle have responded to the

President's call for TPA renewal. TPA is one of the few issues where both parties can and should be able to work together to achieve a common goal.

I know that I, along with my Republican colleagues, stand ready and willing to work with the administration to approve TPA as soon as possible. I think I have a reputation of working across the aisle and bringing people together. This is one I want to bring people together on--and I shouldn't even have to argue about it, but I do.

I believe the bipartisan bill Chairman Baucus and I recently introduced to renew TPA would receive strong bipartisan support in the Senate if it were allowed to come up for a vote. Indeed, I am confident that the vast majority of my colleagues would join me in supporting the bill, both Democrats and Republicans.

The problem is Republicans are not in the majority in the Senate. It is the Democrats who control the agenda. Unfortunately, the President's call to renew TPA does not appear to be a priority for some of the Democrats, certainly the leadership of the Democrats.

The question is, Will Senate Democrats work with the President on this issue? I don't know the answer to that question, but I have to say that things don't look very good to me. Instead of robust support for the President and his trade agenda, the response we have seen from some Democrats has ranged from awkward silence on TPA to outright hostility. Needless to say, I am extremely disappointed by this.

The issue is fairly simple. If we want to grow our economy through trade, Congress must approve TPA and do so soon. The President can play a unique and key role. By forcefully advocating for TPA renewal, he can help turn some of the skeptics in his party around.

Recently, the Financial Times published a powerful editorial which outlined the need for TPA and the role the President must play for TPA to succeed.

According to the editorial:

Twenty years ago, President Bill Clinton pulled out all the

stops to push through approval of the controversial North

American Free Trade Agreement with Mexico and Canada. He was

able to squeak through a narrow victory by deft lobbying of

lawmakers and a willingness to make a strong case for

globalization to the American public. Mr. Obama is lagging

behind his predecessor on both counts. The case for TTIP and

TPP are both strong. The time for Mr. Obama to make these

arguments has arrived. He has every incentive to succeed.

Failure to secure [TPA] would be a grievous blow to his

presidency.

I understand there are some powerful critical forces that leave some of my friends on the other side of the aisle to oppose international trade. However, let's be clear: If we fail to approve TPA, we will be doing our Nation and our economy a great disservice. International trade is good for our country. It is one of the few tools Congress has to grow our economy that does not add to the Federal deficit. As I mentioned, Senator Baucus and I, along with Chairman Camp, have negotiated and introduced a bipartisan, bicameral TPA bill. It is, in my opinion, the only TPA bill that stands a chance of getting passed in both the Senate and the House of Representatives.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have a choice. They can either work with the Republicans to pass our bill and empower our country to complete these important trade agreements, or they can throw up more roadblocks and cast more uncertainty on the President's trade agenda.

As I stated, Republicans stand ready to work with President Obama on these issues and to help these trade negotiations to succeed. For the sake of our country and our economy, I sincerely hope my Democratic colleagues and friends in the Senate are willing to do the same.

I yield the floor.

I thank my dear colleague. The Senator is a very close personal friend of mine too.

I have to say we have had our floods out there too, and thank goodness we have had some of these things to help us, no question about it. The last one was in St. George. It was very devastating to people. I appreciate the Senator's work.

Alternative Affordable Care Act

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on a legislative proposal I unveiled yesterday with two of my colleagues, Senator Richard Burr and Dr. Tom Coburn, that represents our vision for an alternative to ObamaCare.

Let me start by saying something that most Americans--from Utah to North Carolina to Oklahoma--know to be true: ObamaCare just is not working. Try as he might during the State of the Union Address tomorrow, President Obama will not be able to convince the American people that his health care law is anything other than an unmitigated disaster. This horribly misguided law puts government between people and their doctors. It includes over $1 trillion in new taxes and a new unsustainable entitlement.

It includes mandates and regulations that have forced too many Americans off their health plans and businesses to cut back on hiring. It has done next to nothing to put a brake on skyrocketing health care costs that are hitting every family in this country.

The three of us knew there was another way, a better way--a way that doesn't need 2,700 pages of government programs and mandates to enact commonsense reforms that the American people want and need.

Let me say that these two Senators with whom I have joined on this proposal have been looking at this for some time, as have I. I commend them for their leadership.

Our plan rests on four simple principles. First, repeal ObamaCare with all its costly mandates, taxes, and regulations in its entirety.

Second, reduce costs by taking government out of the equation, and, instead, empowering consumers to make choices about their own health care.

Third, provide commonsense consumer protections to protect individuals with preexisting conditions.

Fourth, reform our broken Medicaid system by giving States more flexibility to provide the best coverage for their citizens.

We are confident our plan will accomplish all of this, and it would do so without adding one red cent to our $17 trillion debt.

These four principles are the core of what we unveiled today. They are smart, they make sense, and they are what the people of my State have been looking for, and I think the people of every State. We start with the biggest barrier to health care in this country, and that happens to be skyrocketing health costs. Too many families cannot afford to buy insurance or to see a doctor. Why? Because of costs.

We recognized this. Our plan would give people affordable options that meet their needs by harnessing the power of the marketplace, not through Washington-directed mandates. With more options in the private insurance marketplace--particularly in the small group and individual markets--on top of greater consumer protections and more transparency, the American people would be better able to purchase coverage that is right for them.

We can see the importance of choice in the failings of ObamaCare, which is struggling to sign up young people who might need a health plan that is affordable instead of one that includes coverage they will never use or need. Maybe a 25-year-old male auto mechanic, for example, only wants catastrophic coverage and not a plan that includes maternity care. We give people those options to allow them to find coverage that best meets their needs. Our plan does that.

We also include significant commonsense consumer protections, such as making sure a person cannot have their coverage cancelled if they get sick. We help make sure patients with preexisting conditions can gain access to affordable coverage and let children stay on their parents' insurance through age 26--something we were always willing to do.

We also get rid of lifetime limits. Under our plan, insurers won't be able to put a cap on total benefits to be paid out over a person's lifetime, eliminating a patient's fear of maxing out their health care coverage. We give States more options to provide people with more coverage while once again reducing costs.

Under our plan, families earning up to $71,000--or 300 percent of the Federal poverty level--will get a tax credit to purchase the insurance of their choosing. We help small businesses enjoy the same advantages as large businesses by allowing them to band together to leverage their purchasing power to buy insurance. This just plain makes sense.

I have to say one of the most absurd aspects of ObamaCare is that a good portion of the people it covers is through Medicaid. Yet as we all know, Medicaid is a financially unsound program that is threatening State budgets. Its expansion under ObamaCare only threatens the program further.

Our plan includes a key reform that is similar to the Medicaid modernization plan that House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman Fred Upton and myself put out last year. Currently, Federal taxpayers have an open-ended liability to match State Medicaid spending, which is a significant driver in Medicaid's budgetary challenges.

Our proposal would create per capita spending caps--similar to what President Clinton and many Democrats who remain in this Chamber supported in the past--to ensure that the dollars follow the patient. This structural reform of Medicaid is coupled with new flexibility for States to best manage their Medicaid populations.

On top of that, we give those on Medicaid the option of purchasing private health insurance, which is more frequently accepted by quality doctors.

I want to emphasize that our proposal trusts the American people to make the best choices for themselves. That is why we include an expansion of health savings accounts so people can plan and save for their future medical needs. That also means injecting transparency into health care costs so people know which provider charges what and how successful those providers are.

We include other cost-containing measures such as medical malpractice liability reform to help reduce the costly practice of defensive medicine.

In my early life, I actually tried medical liability cases, defending doctors, hospitals, nurses, and health care practitioners, et cetera. Most of those cases were frivolous. They were brought to get the defense costs. Doctors were scared, so doctors were told: Fill up your records to show that you went way beyond the standard of care and the standard of practice. Thus, we have had hundreds of millions of dollars in unnecessary defensive medicine ever since.

We also reduce the distortions in the Tax Code that actually increase the cost of health care in our country by capping the employee exclusion. This is a key way of restraining costs that has been cited across the economic spectrum.

The bottom line is that this proposal is sustainable and achievable, and without the tax hikes, mandates, and budget-busting spending that have made ObamaCare care so unpopular with the American people. Most importantly, unlike ObamaCare, our plan will reduce health care costs for American individuals, families, and businesses.

I look forward to working with my colleagues and experts throughout the health care community to better refine and improve our blueprint, and that is what it is right now, it is a blueprint.

I am confident we will be able to build strong consensus around our ideas and be in a position to formally introduce legislation that will repeal the President's health law and replace it with strong reforms that will actually lower costs, reduce spending, and

put high-quality care within the reach of every American. Frankly, this approach should appeal to everyone, Democrats and Republicans.

I know my colleagues on the other side are very nervous about the failures--already--of ObamaCare, and it is just starting. Anybody who thinks that once we heal the rollout disaster everything is going to be OK, let me say that is only the beginning. ObamaCare is a disaster, and every day it continues is going to be more of a disaster. I think my colleagues on the other side ought to take a look at what we are proposing because it may be one way of helping their colleagues and their constituents understand that they really are serious about trying to get health care we can live with and can help our country.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Heinrich.) The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. President, we are currently debating yet another extension to the emergency unemployment compensation program. While there are differences of opinion in this Chamber about this particular program, I think we would all agree that the fact we are even having this debate is unfortunate.

Make no mistake, our Nation continues to face difficulties when it comes to job growth, labor force participation, and long-term unemployment, as has been the case throughout the Obama administration. Under this administration, it has been harder to find a job than at any other point in our Nation's recent history.

But let's be clear about something. The plight of the long-term unemployed is not the major problem facing America today. It is, instead, just a symptom of a much larger problem.

That larger problem is the fact that despite the efforts of many of us here in Congress, our government has not done enough to promote economic growth in this country. Far too often, our government has interfered in ways that have stunted growth and prevented a robust recovery from taking place.

Five years into his Presidency, it is clear that President Obama does not have a plan to address these problems. Surely, he has a list of ways that he would like to expand the government and redistribute income but nothing resembling a plan to promote private-sector job growth. Instead, he has a political plan of attack, and this debate over unemployment insurance is part of that attack plan.

Over the last 5 years we have seen a series of big-government ``solutions'' that have all failed to produce real economic results.

The administration pushed through the supposed temporary stimulus, which ended up being little more than a laundry list of longtime Democratic Party policy priorities that had little or nothing to do with actually stimulating the economy. The administration also decided to devote its attention to expanding the alphabet soup of financial regulators, while failing to address factors that were at the heart of the recent financial crisis.

Lacking ideas of its own, the Obama administration created and turned to a Jobs Council to try to understand private job creation, only to later dissolve the council while not having instituted any meaningful policies to create jobs.

The largest and most intrusive big-government edict we received from the administration and its allies in Congress is, of course, ObamaCare. On a daily basis, the American people continue to suffer from the impact of this very misguided law.

People have lost their jobs or have been moved into part-time work. People have been forced off their health care plans. People have been forced, under fear of penalty, to purchase insurance coverage they do not want or need. People have had their private and financial information put at risk thanks to the lack of security in the ObamaCare exchanges, and perhaps worst of all, people have seen the cost of their health care go up across the board.

ObamaCare is the worst in a series of bad economic policies we have seen since this President came into office.

The results speak for themselves. At the beginning of a new year, we see very clearly what the President and his Democratic allies in Congress plan to do about all of this. The answer is nothing. Instead of working with us to enact projob and progrowth policies, they are picking fights with Republicans on issues such as unemployment insurance. Instead of trying to root out the causes of our economic problems, they are giving speeches vilifying anyone who might have a different view on these issues.

As I said, President Obama and the Senate Democrats have no economic plan, only a political plan of attack. Let's consider this debate on unemployment compensation insurance for a moment. I think there are many who would question why we did not have this debate about extending long-term unemployment benefits sooner. Democrats knew that temporary Federal unemployment benefits for the long-term

unemployed were scheduled to expire at the end of 2013. Yet they did nothing to try to extend them before now.

Contrary to what some of my colleagues on the other side seem to believe, Republicans do not run the Senate. We do not control the committees. We do not run things on the floor. As we are seeing in the current debate over unemployment benefits, we do not even get a chance to offer amendments to many major pieces of legislation. Why is that? Why is it that the greatest deliberative body in the world can no longer offer amendments? It comes down to one thing--the Democratic leadership. They are afraid we might bring up amendments that are difficult for Democrats to vote on. Join the crowd. That has always been the case around here before this current leadership took over.

Every leader has tried to protect their side, but this has gone to the point of ridiculousness and the denigration of the Senate itself. The Democrats could have offered an extension of Federal unemployment benefits at any time before they expired in 2013. We could have debated the merits of the emergency unemployment compensation program, discussed alternatives, and perhaps even come up with a bipartisan compromise to help the long-term unemployed.

We could have even done that through regular order and using the committee process. But instead, Democrats ignored the program for an entire year, and in the very last days of the last congressional session and after we had adjourned for the year, we finally started hearing about the desperate need to protect the long-term unemployed, about how it was the highest priority for the President and Democrats in Congress to extend these benefits, and about those villainous Republicans standing in the way.

There are only two conclusions to draw from this: Either the Democrats forgot about unemployment benefits until the end of the year or they calculated it was better suited for their political attack plan to let them expire and then debate an extension afterward. I think it is pretty clear which conclusion is the correct one, especially since they control the Senate and they control the committees. They could have done just about anything they wanted.

So here we are debating another extension of the EUC Program, the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Program. We may as well be debating the merits of using a bandaid on a broken arm because, as I said, long- term unemployment is merely a symptom of the failures of the Obama economy. However, since the Democrats opted to put off this matter until we were actually beyond the last minute, we have not enacted or even debated any serious alternatives to Federal unemployment benefits and we are left with just another take-it-or-leave-it proposition from the majority leader.

That is what the majority leader seems to be saying to us. In fact, that is what he is saying to us in this debate--take it or leave it. Why would he do that? Apparently, no Republicans, not even the ones who supported cloture on the motion to proceed, will get an opportunity to offer amendments. The only amendment we will be voting on is the so- called compromise amendment the majority leader offered last Thursday. Of course, the amendment is not a compromise at all. It is nothing of the sort. Similar to the underlying bill it would add significantly to the deficit. The supposed pay-fors in the amendment would not even kick in under the normal 10-year budget window. Indeed, the Democratic whip in the House was voicing concern about using so-called savings from extending the sequester outside of the 10-year window asking, ``Frankly, if you adopt that logic, why don't we extend it until 2054 and fund everything we want to do?''

That is a dream some Democrats have. But fortunately there may be some people on the other side who realize this is a charade. In short, the amendment we will be voting on this afternoon, if we do, is a gimmick. It is designed solely to allow the majority to claim they are willing to pay for extending unemployment benefits, nothing more, nothing less.

Once again, this is apparently the only amendment we will get a chance to vote on when it comes to extending the Emergency Unemployment Insurance Compensation Program, which is par for the course under the current Senate majority. It is pretty clear what my colleagues in the majority want to do. Contrary to their claims, passing this legislation and extending unemployment benefits is not their highest priority. Their highest priority is to use the long-term unemployed as pawns in their political attacks on Republicans who support a different approach; one that is paid for, fairly paid for, honestly paid for, and understandably paid for.

If I am wrong and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are serious about wanting to extend this program, why would they not allow votes on Republican amendments or even Democratic amendments? There are some complaints on the Democratic side--even we the Democrats, they are saying, do not have the privilege of bringing up amendments.

As we continue, the committees are a waste of time under the way the Senate is currently being run, because everything is run right out of the leader's office. Republicans have offered a number of amendments to the underlying legislation. Why not allow them to come up for a vote? Are they afraid we might pass some Republican amendments when they have 55 Democrats in the Senate? If, as the majority leader has claimed, none of our ideas is serious enough to warrant consideration, why not bring them up and let Democrats who have a majority in the Senate vote them down? That could have been done.

The problem is they know some of these amendments are worthwhile, worthy amendments that might pass. It might cause some heartburn to some on both sides maybe. I am certainly used to heartburn over the years, I will tell you that.

Republicans have offered a number of amendments to the underlying legislation. Why not allow them to come up for a vote? If, as the majority leader has claimed, our ideas are not serious enough to warrant consideration, why not allow them to be brought up, limit the time for the debate, and let the Democrats, who once again have a majority in the Senate, vote them down?

The only conclusion we can draw is that they are afraid, if we held a vote, some of our amendments might actually pass, which would distract from the political message they want to send with this debate on the floor. The minority leader and I have offered such an amendment, one I believe would actually pass if it were to receive a vote.

It is something that makes a lot more sense than what is going on here over the last number of days, weeks maybe. I would like to just take a few minutes to talk about our amendment, the McConnell-Hatch amendment. The McConnell-Hatch amendment would, if enacted, extend the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Program for a full year, taking unemployment benefits out of the 2014 political equation entirely. I would think my colleagues on the other side would jump at that kind of opportunity. In addition to this fix on the unemployment insurance issue, the McConnell-Hatch amendment would fix the military pension problems created under the recent budget agreement which has caused so much angst and heartburn among our military, among those who are serving our country in that manner.

There is bipartisan support for this endeavor. I believe we can fix it here and now. Best of all, unlike the underlying bill and the ``compromise'' offered at the end of last week, the McConnell-Hatch amendment is fully paid for within the normal 10-year budget window. In fact, it reduces the deficit by more than $1 billion over 10 years and does it in a fair, honest way.

One way it pays for the extension is to close the loophole in the law that allows people to claim both unemployment insurance and Social Security disability insurance. The majority leader claims he wants to do this. But our amendment does it in a much more efficient way, something that makes economic sense. However, the primary pay-for in our amendment, which once again allows us to extend unemployment benefits for a full year and fix the military pensions issue is a 1- year delay in the ObamaCare individual mandate--a 1-year delay. That is it.

I know some of my friends on the other side, including the distinguished

majority leader, have already deemed this proposal controversial. But it should not be. The problems with the implementation of ObamaCare have been fully cataloged at length on the floor and elsewhere. No one in their right mind would argue that the implementation is going well-- nobody. It is not going well.

This would give them a chance to amend this bill over the next year, although I do not think we can amend the bill--but at least give them a chance to. Sooner or later they are going to have to do it anyway. So what do they give up? Members of both parties have come out in support of delaying the individual mandate--of both parties, not just Republicans but Democrats. They know it is a disaster.

Regardless of where you stand on ObamaCare, if you support it or if you, as I do, want to see it repealed, delaying the mandate is a bipartisan idea and it makes sense. What are they afraid of? With a law this unpopular and a rollout going this badly, I would think that many of my friends on the other side of the aisle would get on board with a 1-year delay. Once again, such a delay would allow us to pay for a less-politicized extension of Federal unemployment benefits as well as allow us to fix our military pension problems.

It is a win-win proposition. It is hard for me to understand why they will not do this. As I said, I know the Senate Democratic leadership despises this idea. They have already come to the floor and mischaracterized it on a number of occasions. However, I believe that if this approach, the 1-year extension of unemployment benefits and the military pension fix, paid for primarily by a 1-year delay in the individual mandate, were brought to a vote in the Senate, Members of both parties would support it.

It would be a bipartisan approach to these things that would be worthwhile. The same can be said for any number of amendments my colleagues have offered. I may be wrong about that, but I do not think I am. If I am wrong, what is the harm in having a vote on the McConnell-Hatch amendment? What is the harm in having a vote on any of the amendments Republicans have offered? What are my colleagues on the other side of the aisle afraid of?

We have been putting up with this now for too long a time. I remember the Senate when both sides worked together all the time. They battled even though they differed. They allowed amendments to come up even though sometimes it caused some heartburn to people on one side or the other. But we did it because this is a legislative body of freedom, which it has devolved in a way that there is not freedom. What is the harm in having a vote on any of the amendments? Let's have a limited number of amendments, not two, three or four. This is an important bill. Let's have some amendments that even Republicans can offer.

There are some Democratic amendments too. I suppose they may have some heartburn for Republicans. So what. What are my colleagues on the other side of the aisle afraid of? Once again, I do not think the Senate Democratic leadership is worried that I am wrong about some Democrats supporting the McConnell-Hatch amendment. They are worried I might be right. That is why my amendment will not receive a vote.

That is why as of right now, it appears no Republican amendments will receive votes, unless it happens among the few who were willing to support the first vote. Even then, I doubt they will have any votes. As I said, it seems as though Democrats are far more worried about sending a political message about unemployment insurance than they are with actually passing an extension. That is unfortunate. It is truly shameful.

However this debate unfolds, one issue is clear: The approach the President is taking is not working.

The economic approach the President is taking is not working. The tax approach the President is taking is not working. The so-called ``Affordable Care Act'' approach the President is taking is fraught with problems that could be solved if the Senate is allowed to truly work the way the Senate always has in the past. The approach the President and the Senate Democratic leadership is taking isn't working.

We are not creating jobs at a time when Americans need them. Americans need jobs, and we are not generating the type of growth that will allow for such job creation in the near future.

As far as I can see, we have two choices. We can either have these same fights over and over or we can work together to fix the real underlying problems facing our country instead of focusing on the symptoms and always playing the ridiculous game of politics.

I hope we will choose to work together. But if the tactics we have seen thus far on unemployment legislation are any indication, I think I am likely to end up quite disappointed.

I am concerned about the Senate. I am concerned about some of the very power-striking poses that have been going on around here that do not allow the Senate to work its will, do not allow for real bipartisanship, do not allow for bringing us together, and do not allow for decency on both sides. These are just plain power-seeking approaches that do not deserve praise.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, my friend from Montana is absolutely right. International trade is crucial to America's economy. Last year exports supported 9.8 million American jobs, including 25 percent of all manufacturing jobs.

Jobs created through trade are good jobs. On average, U.S. plants that export overseas pay their workers up to 18 percent more than nonexporting plants. They increase employment 2 to 4 percent faster than nonexporting plants. But we can do even better.

More than 95 percent of the world's population and 80 percent of the world's purchasing power is outside of the United States. To succeed in today's world, our farmers, ranchers, and job creators must be able to fairly access the world market.

Our bill will help guarantee these landmark trade deals get done--and get done right.

First, the bill updates TPA by addressing 21st century issues. What are these issues? Nonscientific barriers to U.S. agricultural products, unfair competition from state-owned enterprises, arbitrary localization barriers which require U.S. companies to turn over their intellectual property or locate facilities in a foreign country in order to access foreign markets, and unnecessary restrictions on digital trade and data which flows across borders.

Madam President, I want to praise the distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee over in the House. He has worked long and hard on these issues and is not only a great partner to the two of us but to every Senator.

What the Senator from Montana just said is absolutely right. Our bill empowers Congress, but it also empowers our negotiators. Its approval will help them conclude high-standard agreements that will open new markets for U.S. exports, ultimately bringing jobs and economic growth to the United States.

Lastly, before I turn back to the chairman, I just want to say again how critical this legislation is for our Nation and to commend my friend from Montana, the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, for working to make Trade Promotion Authority a reality. He has always been a tremendous leader on international trade, and I am glad to stand by his side to ensure that the Finance Committee and the Senate considers this job-creating legislation in a fair, thorough, and expeditious manner.

Mr. President, will my colleague from Ohio yield?

Mr. President, I wish to compliment the distinguished Senator because he served as the US Trade Representative. He traveled all over the world. He understands how important these issues are. He understands that without TPA, we wouldn't be able to get these particular trade agreements done. He understands how hard we have worked to try to come up with language we could all accept in spite of some of the proclivities of this administration.

He worked diligently with both sides of the aisle on these issues as the U.S. Trade Representative and continues to as a member of the Senate Finance Committee. I am so grateful we have him on the Senate Finance Committee, with all of his knowledge and his experience, to be able to help us on these particular issues.

I was a little nonplussed last week when one of the leading trade union presidents in this country got on television and was decrying international trade. I made the point a little bit earlier that it means tremendous numbers of jobs, high-paying jobs, growth in our economy. It is hard for me to understand why anybody in the union movement would be against these free-trade policies. They basically allow us to export our goods while, yes, we import others, but that is what free trade is all about.

I wish to personally express my very high opinion of the distinguished Senator from Ohio because I can tell my colleagues that we are so lucky to have him in the Senate with all of his experience in this particular area but in

many other areas as well. He was at OMB as well. There are very few Senators in this body who can claim they have experience equivalent to that of our distinguished friend from Ohio. I personally express my admiration and my resolve to help him help those on the other side of the aisle understand how important his words are here today, how important it is to have free trade, and how important it is to have trade promotion authority so we can have free trade.

Every President since FDR--including him--has been for trade promotion authority--every President.

There is a fear around here amongst some of the Democrats that the unions are going to turn against them. My gosh, the Unions are going to be main beneficiaries of major trade legislation. It is hard for me to comprehend how they can even make a semi-argument against this matter. Hopefully, they will realize this is in their interests, too, because it puts us in the real world, getting real jobs that have higher pay than we wouldn't otherwise get if we didn't have these free-trade agreements and if we aren't able to get TPA passed. I suspect we will get this passed in large measure. I think, with the distinguished chairman of the committee, my friend who has just spoken, will be one of the main reasons why we do.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, I think we should all be listening to this man, this Senator from Ohio, who has had a wealth of experience not just in budget matters but also especially in these trade matters.

There are 11 countries in the TPP, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and we would like to come to an agreement on it. There are 28 different countries in the European agreement on TTIP that we would like to bring to fruition, and you can go on from there.

Having said that, I cannot compliment my friend from Ohio enough. But I also want to pay tribute to our chairman of the committee. He is willing to do this. He believes in it. He has had plenty of witness that this is the way to do good trade, and he is willing to stand up and see that it is done. I cannot think of a better sendoff to China as the new Ambassador--as soon as we finally finish these confirmation proceedings--than having passed TPA, which enables us to do free trade agreements all over the world and enables our fellow countries to realize that we can get it done.

I want to pay tribute to the chairman, as well as my colleague from Ohio, for their work in this area, and to say that this country will be much the better once we pass TPA and then get these trade agreements done so the United States resumes its role in the world as the world's chief economic competitor, and doing it in a way that would benefit the whole world but, more importantly, benefit this country.

So I want to thank my colleague from Montana, and my colleague from Ohio as well. My colleague from Montana is going to be here at least a little bit longer, and hopefully we can get this passed in his honor. I think he deserves that honor. I know the distinguished Senator from Ohio and myself will do everything in our power to assist in this matter.

Madam President, my friend from Montana is absolutely right. International trade is crucial to America's economy. Last year exports supported 9.8 million American jobs, including 25 percent of all manufacturing jobs.

Jobs created through trade are good jobs. On average, U.S. plants that export overseas pay their workers up to 18 percent more than nonexporting plants. They increase employment 2 to 4 percent faster than nonexporting plants. But we can do even better.

More than 95 percent of the world's population and 80 percent of the world's purchasing power is outside of the United States. To succeed in today's world, our farmers, ranchers, and job creators must be able to fairly access the world market.

Our bill will help guarantee these landmark trade deals get done--and get done right.

First, the bill updates TPA by addressing 21st century issues. What are these issues? Nonscientific barriers to U.S. agricultural products, unfair competition from state-owned enterprises, arbitrary localization barriers which require U.S. companies to turn over their intellectual property or locate facilities in a foreign country in order to access foreign markets, and unnecessary restrictions on digital trade and data which flows across borders.

Madam President, I want to praise the distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee over in the House. He has worked long and hard on these issues and is not only a great partner to the two of us but to every Senator.

What the Senator from Montana just said is absolutely right. Our bill empowers Congress, but it also empowers our negotiators. Its approval will help them conclude high-standard agreements that will open new markets for U.S. exports, ultimately bringing jobs and economic growth to the United States.

Lastly, before I turn back to the chairman, I just want to say again how critical this legislation is for our Nation and to commend my friend from Montana, the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, for working to make Trade Promotion Authority a reality. He has always been a tremendous leader on international trade, and I am glad to stand by his side to ensure that the Finance Committee and the Senate considers this job-creating legislation in a fair, thorough, and expeditious manner.

Mr. President, will my colleague from Ohio yield?

Mr. President, I wish to compliment the distinguished Senator because he served as the US Trade Representative. He traveled all over the world. He understands how important these issues are. He understands that without TPA, we wouldn't be able to get these particular trade agreements done. He understands how hard we have worked to try to come up with language we could all accept in spite of some of the proclivities of this administration.

He worked diligently with both sides of the aisle on these issues as the U.S. Trade Representative and continues to as a member of the Senate Finance Committee. I am so grateful we have him on the Senate Finance Committee, with all of his knowledge and his experience, to be able to help us on these particular issues.

I was a little nonplussed last week when one of the leading trade union presidents in this country got on television and was decrying international trade. I made the point a little bit earlier that it means tremendous numbers of jobs, high-paying jobs, growth in our economy. It is hard for me to understand why anybody in the union movement would be against these free-trade policies. They basically allow us to export our goods while, yes, we import others, but that is what free trade is all about.

I wish to personally express my very high opinion of the distinguished Senator from Ohio because I can tell my colleagues that we are so lucky to have him in the Senate with all of his experience in this particular area but in

many other areas as well. He was at OMB as well. There are very few Senators in this body who can claim they have experience equivalent to that of our distinguished friend from Ohio. I personally express my admiration and my resolve to help him help those on the other side of the aisle understand how important his words are here today, how important it is to have free trade, and how important it is to have trade promotion authority so we can have free trade.

Every President since FDR--including him--has been for trade promotion authority--every President.

There is a fear around here amongst some of the Democrats that the unions are going to turn against them. My gosh, the Unions are going to be main beneficiaries of major trade legislation. It is hard for me to comprehend how they can even make a semi-argument against this matter. Hopefully, they will realize this is in their interests, too, because it puts us in the real world, getting real jobs that have higher pay than we wouldn't otherwise get if we didn't have these free-trade agreements and if we aren't able to get TPA passed. I suspect we will get this passed in large measure. I think, with the distinguished chairman of the committee, my friend who has just spoken, will be one of the main reasons why we do.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, I think we should all be listening to this man, this Senator from Ohio, who has had a wealth of experience not just in budget matters but also especially in these trade matters.

There are 11 countries in the TPP, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and we would like to come to an agreement on it. There are 28 different countries in the European agreement on TTIP that we would like to bring to fruition, and you can go on from there.

Having said that, I cannot compliment my friend from Ohio enough. But I also want to pay tribute to our chairman of the committee. He is willing to do this. He believes in it. He has had plenty of witness that this is the way to do good trade, and he is willing to stand up and see that it is done. I cannot think of a better sendoff to China as the new Ambassador--as soon as we finally finish these confirmation proceedings--than having passed TPA, which enables us to do free trade agreements all over the world and enables our fellow countries to realize that we can get it done.

I want to pay tribute to the chairman, as well as my colleague from Ohio, for their work in this area, and to say that this country will be much the better once we pass TPA and then get these trade agreements done so the United States resumes its role in the world as the world's chief economic competitor, and doing it in a way that would benefit the whole world but, more importantly, benefit this country.

So I want to thank my colleague from Montana, and my colleague from Ohio as well. My colleague from Montana is going to be here at least a little bit longer, and hopefully we can get this passed in his honor. I think he deserves that honor. I know the distinguished Senator from Ohio and myself will do everything in our power to assist in this matter.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Kevin Rosenbaum, detailee to the Senate Committee on Finance, and Stephanie Dearie, clerk to the Senate Committee on Finance, be granted floor privileges for the duration of the Congress.

Madam President, I wish to speak on the nomination of John Koskinen to be the next Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service.

I want to say upfront that I support Mr. Koskinen's nomination as I believe he is a qualified candidate for this position and he deserves to be confirmed.

However, I do have to say that I am disappointed in the process by which his nomination has been moved through the Senate, both in the Finance Committee and here on the floor. There is simply no reason for the Senate to rush to confirm Mr. Koskinen, and there is ample reason for us to take our time.

It goes without saying that the IRS is one of the most powerful agencies in our government. It is both feared and loathed by people throughout the country. That being the case, it is absolutely essential that all the actions of the IRS and its leadership are above board.

That is the only way for the agency to maintain its credibility.

That is the only way an agency this powerful can maintain the trust of the American people.

The American people should be able to trust that the IRS will enforce our Nation's tax laws without bias or prejudice. If that trust is broken, it damages the credibility of our entire government.

Needless to say, over the last few years, the IRS hasn't done a good job of maintaining that trust and, as a result, it has eroded its own credibility.

I am talking, of course, about the IRS political targeting scandal currently under investigation in the Finance Committee.

If there is one thing that everyone should agree on, it is that the IRS should enforce the tax laws as they are written by Congress without consideration of political views. Sadly, it appears that, for a time, not everyone at the IRS shared that view.

When this scandal first came to light, there was condemnation on all sides and everyone--regardless of party affiliation--wanted to get to the bottom of it.

President Obama, for example, said ``I have got no patience with it, I will not tolerate it, and we will make sure that we find out exactly what happened on this.''

Majority Leader Reid expressed similar views here on the floor, stating: ``I have full confidence in the ability of Senator Baucus and the Finance Committee to get to the bottom of this matter and recommend appropriate action.''

I hope that hasn't changed.

I hope that the effort to rush Mr. Koskinen's nomination through the Senate is not part of an effort to sweep the Finance Committee's investigation under a rug and hope it disappears.

As I said, there is no reason for us to move so quickly on this nomination.

By waiting until our investigation has concluded, we can ensure that the next commissioner--presumably Mr. Koskinen--will begin their time with the benefit of the findings of the investigation. This would put him in a better position to fix the problems we have uncovered and to move the agency forward. In addition, it would ensure that he has the confidence of Members of both parties, which is vital with an agency of this size and stature.

I am encouraged by Mr. Koskinen's commitment to continue the cooperation the Finance Committee has enjoyed so far in its investigation, as well as his commitment to working with Congress to fix the IRS's many problems.

I plan on holding him to his promise.

The confirmation of a new IRS Commissioner should not be a partisan issue.

My fear is that, by including Mr. Koskinen in the current partisan fight over executive branch nominees, the Senate Democratic leadership is injecting partisanship where none should exist. This further undermines the IRS as an agency, not to mention Mr. Koskinen's future leadership of the agency.

This is not a time that we should be undermining the IRS. In addition to restoring the agency's damaged credibility--which I believe should be the next commissioner's top priority--there are a number of other challenges facing this agency.

For example, there is the IRS's significant role in the implementation of ObamaCare. As we have seen thus far, this presents a number of difficulties, both in terms of operation and enforcement.

Both the IRS's inspector general and insurers throughout the country have questioned whether the agency is capable of administering the Affordable Care Act's premium subsidy program without massive amounts of fraud or improper payments.

On top of that, there are the proposed IRS and Treasury regulations addressing the political activities of tax-exempt organizations. Given the IRS's recent problems in dealing with these types of organizations, many of us have reason to be skeptical that the agency can promulgate such rules without further bias or prejudice.

On all these issues, Mr. Koskinen has committed to working with Congress, and with Members of both parties.

I hope that he lives up to this commitment.

It is essential that he does so, because, as I said, the IRS is an agency rife with problems, most of which are self-inflicted. These problems are not simply going to go away when a new Commissioner is confirmed, and they aren't going to be solved if the agency ignores the input and inquiries from Members of Congress.

Once again, I support Mr. Koskinen's confirmation. I just wish we had gone a different route with regard to his nomination in the Senate.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague's commitment to this particular issue. However, this is just one of many tax provisions which will expire at the end of the year.

In the past, the senior the Senator from New York supported the extension of numerous provisions, as have I, particularly the State and local sales tax deduction in his case. I can only wonder if he is signaling that the State and local sales tax provision, along with all the others which are expiring, are no longer a priority for him.

In any event, the Senate Finance Committee has jurisdiction over all the tax extenders, including the one being offered here today. As of yet, the committee has not been able to fully consider and report a tax extenders bill. As a senior member of the Senate Finance Committee himself, I would hope my colleague would want to work with other members of the committee to preserve its jurisdiction.

Since the House of Representatives has been out for 1 week, my colleague's request--even if agreed to in the Senate--would not result in extending the mass transit provision. Finance Committee Republicans stand ready to work with our Democratic colleagues when we return in a couple of weeks, and the House will be back then too. If we want to enact this extension into law, rather than just sending out talking points, we ought to engage in regular order when we get back.

On that basis, I ask unanimous consent to modify my colleague's unanimous consent request.

I ask unanimous consent that the request be modified to refer this bill to the Finance Committee so it can be properly considered through regular order.

I object.

Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague from New York. He is a great Senator. I understand his concern here, but we ought to do this in accordance with regular order, especially on the Finance Committee, to get to where we work on these matters and get them done in an exigent and good way, and I will certainly try to work with my colleague throughout this process.

Mr. President, I also would like to wish everybody who serves in this body a merry Christmas and a happy new year. This is a wonderful time of the year. We all feel pretty good today, having finally gotten through most of the work that we needed to get through.