Floor Statements

Mr. President, in a State where cattle outnumber people, the Kansas livestock industry is one of the leading economic and cultural drivers of our State. Across the Midwest, ranchers and their families work hard every day to provide protein for a growing and hungry world, often without the appreciation or recognition they deserve.

I rise today to offer my sincere congratulations and thanks to a trusted leader and friend. Thomas ``Dee'' Likes has served for the last 31 years as the chief executive officer and executive vice president of the Kansas Livestock Association. Under his leadership, the 5,500- member trade association has grown into one of the most influential and respected agricultural organizations in Kansas and across the nation.

Dee Likes has made a distinguished impact on the livestock industry. As the longest tenured State affiliate organization CEO in the history of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, he helped lead the industry through the 1996 merger between the National Cattlemen's Association and the Beef Industry Council of the National Live Stock and Meat Board.

In addition to his service as CEO of the Kansas Livestock Association, Dee Likes has been a true partner in government. He has successfully represented the livestock industry in front of Congress and has served two terms as president of the Kansas Agricultural Alliance, a coalition that represents over 20 Kansas agricultural associations before the Kansas Legislature.

I am grateful to Dee for his friendship, his advice, and his counsel over the years. Kansas agriculture has been fortunate to have Dee's commitment and dedication. I hope he and his wife Terry will enjoy their next chapter in life.

Mr. President, agriculture is one of the leading economic and cultural drivers in Kansas. Across our State, farmers and ranchers work hard every day to feed a growing world, often without the appreciation or recognition they deserve.

I rise today to offer my sincere congratulations and thanks to a special Kansas farmer and friend. Steve Baccus is a native Kansan, a veteran, a husband, a father of five, and a grandfather whose fourth- generation family farm in Ottawa County continues to produce wheat, corn, soybeans, and occasionally sunflowers and sorghum.

For the past 17 years, Steve has served on the board of directors for Kansas Farm Bureau, including the last 12 as its president. Kansas Farm Bureau is our State's largest general farm organization, with nearly 105,000 members. Under his leadership the organization has successfully influenced State and national agriculture policy, promoted rural values, and worked to show an increasingly urban populace how food is truly produced.

In addition to his service as president of the Kansas Farm Bureau, Steve Baccus has been a true partner in government. He has led trade missions, presented testimony before Congress and State legislative committees, and told the complex story of agriculture for much of his adult life.

Steve Baccus embodies many traits we can all admire: a deep love for the great State of Kansas, gratitude for the many hard-working families who provide the food, fuel, and fiber Americans rely on, and the respect of his peers across the Nation.

I personally am grateful for Steve's many years of wise counsel to me and for his service to Kansas and agriculture. I wish him and his wife Patricia all the best in their next chapter.

Madam President, I wish to return to the discussion of the constitutional amendment to restrict speech. I made considerable comments yesterday, and there are some other comments I feel should be said about this--probably a dozen or more things. However, I wish to return to that discussion.

We have heard a lot in this debate about commercials. Everybody is concerned about commercials--those 30-second ads that are driving everybody crazy, that everyone wants taken off the air, and that we want to regulate and restrict and punish. We don't like them. No one likes them. We want to make them go away.

Well, let's forget about the commercials for just a second. Let's talk about the show. Does anybody watch the show? It sometimes seems as though the only thing on TV that my colleagues care about are the commercials about themselves. But there actually are other things on TV. There are actual programs that fill up the time between the commercials. Let's talk about those.

There is, of course, all sorts of programming on television: sports, movies, sitcoms, reality shows. Pretty much everything--and I mean everything--is on TV now.

There are a lot of politics on TV. The politics come in a range of formats. It comes unvarnished on C-SPAN. It is delivered through news and commentary on cable channels. It is satirized and made fun of on the late night shows. It appears in documentaries and feature films.

The Citizens United case itself was the result of a political film--a film about Hillary Clinton. During the litigation there were arguments over whether the film and its advertisements could be treated as ``electioneering communications'' and, therefore, regulated and restricted by campaign finance laws. In rendering its decision, the Court properly saw, in my view, the film for what it was: An encouragement for people to vote against Hillary Clinton. This is what the Court said in its holding: The movie, in essence, is a feature- length negative advertisement that urges viewers to vote against then- Senator Clinton for President. In light of this historical footage, interviews with persons critical of her, and voiceover narration, the film would be understood by most viewers as an extended criticism of the Senator's character and her fitness for the Office of the Presidency. The narrative may contain more suggestions and arguments than facts, but there is little doubt that the thesis of the film is that she is unfit for the Presidency.

Then the Court went on to say:

The narrator reminds viewers that Americans have never been

keen on dynasties and that a vote for Hillary is a vote to

continue 20 years of a Bush or a Clinton in the White

House.

Then the Court found this:

There is no reasonable interpretation of Hillary other than

as an appeal to vote against Senator Clinton. The film

qualifies as the functional equivalent of express advocacy.

Having made that determination, the question then becomes, Should the government be able to prevent it from being seen? The court held the answer to that question was no and struck down as unconstitutional the laws that would prevent or constrain the distribution of the film.

My colleagues on the other side want those laws to be put back in place. They believe the government should be able to control the content, the financing, the distribution of films that reference candidates for office, and they are pushing this constitutional amendment to make that possible.

Now, we can expect there will be a lot more about Hillary Clinton on TV over the next couple of years. Some of it will be favorable and some of it will be unfavorable. Thanks to the Citizens United decision, the government won't be able to control what is said about her or any other potential candidate for the presidency--either party.

My colleagues do not have much to worry about when it comes to programming about Hillary Clinton. I don't think they need to worry about the show. They know there are a small number of conservative film makers who will attack her and whatever they produce is unlikely to reach a wide audience.

On the other hand, there is a huge multitude of liberal film producers, directors, and writers who like--if not love--Hillary Clinton and want to see her get elected to the Presidency, and they will do whatever they can to help her achieve that goal.

Secretary Clinton's recent book tour provided a good preview of the kind of programming we can expect to see more of should she decide to run for President. And luckily for her, there are plenty of television personalities who will help her sell herself to Americans, not just her book.

For example, one recent appearance on the Stephen Colbert show was clearly designed to soften her image. In an extended segment that could be seen as either amusing or nauseating, depending on your perspective, Colbert conducted a phony interview designed to show his viewers how smart and funny Hillary Clinton is.

Of course, Colbert can do whatever he wants with his show. No one questions that. But it should be obvious that the show amounts to a corporate-financed and political expenditure. Everything on the show-- the studio, the host, the equipment, the writers, the director, the cameraman--everything is paid for by a corporation. Is there anyone in the Chamber who thinks that a corporation doesn't have the right to do that? Of course not. They like the show. And those on the other side know they can expect all sorts of similar programming in the months and years ahead. That doesn't bother them.

But the commercials are a different story. What if someone wanted to buy a 30-second ad during the show to present an alternative perspective. Well, we can't have that, can we? That would be intolerable. It would present a threat to our democracy. We have to amend the Constitution to prevent that. The absurdity is evident.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle think our First Amendment allows one sort of programming to have unrestricted and unhindered access to the media, while other sorts must be limited and constrained. I submit that is preposterous.

In our system of government, all voices have the right to be heard. The First Amendment gives them that right. There is so much nonsense in this debate about buying elections and drowning out voices. We have a system that allows all voices to be heard, even those that oppose the majority. That is not the antithetical to democracy; it is the essence of democracy.

So it is time, it seems to me, to stop pretending that allowing more voices to be heard somehow poses a danger just because we don't like what they are saying.

Elections can't be bought. Voters will decide who wins them. They will make that decision based on what they think of the candidates, and what they think will be based on what they see and hear of the candidates. Then they will vote. When they do so, their vote will be equal to that of every other citizen. It doesn't matter how rich they are or what they do for a living or whether they even have their own TV show or never even watch TV. Every citizen gets one vote.

As they make their decision about how we are going to cast it, we need to make sure they are able to hear all voices. That is what the First Amendment does. It ensures that all voices have the right to be heard, and we don't need to change it to make that happen.

Those who are pushing this constitutional amendment don't want more voices to be heard, they want less.

There should never be any confusion about the intent of this constitutional amendment. It is to allow this majority to pass laws that will silence their opponents and ignores all the pious claims about the grand intent to recognize it for what it is--a cynical attempt to protect themselves from criticism.

Don't be fooled.

This evening the Senate will vote on whether it should proceed to the consideration of a constitutional amendment that would, of all things, alter the Bill of Rights. Specifically, it seeks to amend the First Amendment to permit this Congress to regulate the speech and political activity of American citizens.

As written, the First Amendment does not permit regulation of the sort the majority wishes to impose, so they have decided to rewrite it. This is incredible and a sad demonstration of the lengths to which this majority is willing to go in its quest to retain power.

It is particularly sad when you realize that in just over 2 weeks we will be celebrating the anniversary of the Senate action that made ratification of the First Amendment possible. It was on September 25, 1789, that this body passed the first 10 amendments to the Constitution of the United States. That was 225 years ago. The ratification process was completed when Virginia became the 11th State to approve the amendments on December 15, 1791.

Since then, for over two centuries, the First Amendment has guaranteed all Americans will have the right to express themselves and participate in the political process without fear of government reprisal. While other nations have struggled to build and sustain democracy, the liberties guaranteed by our Constitution have given us a stability that allowed the United States of America to grow, to prosper, and to become a beacon of freedom around the globe.

Our Founders knew that the free expression of ideas was essential to the life and health of our democracy. Many other nations have yet to learn this lesson and still punish and imprison their citizens for daring to speak out and challenge those in power.

That does not happen here because of the system our Founders gave us. It does not happen because of the First Amendment. These things should be obvious. We might even call them self-evident. One would think that even in these polarized times we would have a consensus or could have a consensus on the wisdom of the Founders on this point.

You would think that Senators on both sides of the aisle would recognize and agree that the First Amendment, which has preserved our liberty, must itself be preserved.

I am very sorry to say that if you thought that, you would be wrong. I am very sorry to say that as we stand here today in September 2014 those on the other side of the aisle now want to reverse the decision this body made that September 225 years ago. Forty-nine Members of the majority have chosen to cosponsor S.J. Res. 19, an amendment to the Bill of Rights.

I am pleased to say that not a single one of my Republican colleagues has joined them, but I am saddened that so many of those across the aisle have taken the extraordinary step of supporting it.

I think the reason is clear. They want to silence their opponents. The First Amendment does not allow them to do so, so they are going to try and change it.

The First Amendment begins with ``Congress shall make no law''--for a reason. Our Founders knew a great deal about human nature. They knew that those in power would be inclined to retain it and unless constrained would use their power to punish those who would seek to challenge them or remove them from office.

The First Amendment denies us that power. It explicitly prohibits this Congress from passing laws that restrict the speech of the American people.

Now the majority wants to remove that prohibition. They want to grant themselves the power to control speech, to silence their opposition.

We will hear from the other side that there is nothing to worry about, that all they wish to do is impose reasonable regulations.

Of course, the point of the First Amendment is to prevent this Congress from making determinations about what speech is reasonable-- and, therefore, permitted--and what is unreasonable and, therefore, prohibited. We don't need to speculate about what the majority will deem reasonable and what it will deem unreasonable.

As I described at a recent Rules Committee hearing on the DISCLOSE Act, prior consideration of that legislation has shown us what the majority regards as reasonable. The DISCLOSE Act is the majority's most recent version of their now biannual attempt to create a new regulatory structure to deter speech. It is precisely the kind of legislation we can expect to see more of if the majority grants itself the power to regulate speech through the amendment we are debating today.

So with past as prologue, let us recall what happened when the DISCLOSE Act was considered by the House in 2010. Not surprisingly, the restrictions and obligations it imposed were applied to groups disfavored by the majority at that time. A number of corporations were simply prohibited from speaking. Government contractors and TARP recipients were prohibited from making independent expenditures.

During floor consideration an amendment was added also to prohibit speech by companies that explore and produce oil and gas on the Outer Continental Shelf. The bill was on the floor soon after the Deepwater Horizon spill, so this was an easy target.

Not surprisingly, the majority thought it was perfectly reasonable to prevent any of these companies from speaking but did not think it was necessary to extend those restrictions to the unions that might represent the workforce in these companies. Republican amendments to extend the restrictions to those unions were rejected. The majority did not find them reasonable, apparently.

In some cases groups were excluded from the disclosure obligation solely because the votes were not there to include them. That is what happens once the Congress starts imposing speech restrictions-- restrictions get applied to whoever doesn't have enough votes in the Congress to prevent them. Imposing speech regulations based on the whims of whatever party happens to be in the majority in the Congress at a given time is not reasonable, but it is exactly what happens once we start down this path and the majority has not deviated from it.

The Rules Committee hearing revealed the DISCLOSE Act continues to exempt groups sympathetic to the majority from the obligations it would impose on others.

It may be a natural impulse to wish those who are criticizing us would stop--everybody understands that--but the First Amendment does not allow us to make it stop. We should not have the power to silence our critics and we should never have it.

I know many Members on the other side of the aisle are upset about the ads that are attacking them and their agenda. I know they want those ads to stop. Well, we don't get to choose who gets to speak.

The proponents of this amendment and the critics of the Citizens United decision are clearly exercised by the prospects of corporate speech. It is obvious they fear how such speech might influence public policy debate in this country and their own electoral prospects. They have decided these voices should not be heard and must be suppressed.

They claim to be motivated only by a desire to promote the health of this democracy. They claim they just want all voices to be heard and want to make sure powerful corporations do not drown out the voices of others.

This claim is belied by one simple fact that there are and always have been powerful and wealthy corporations that have exerted enormous influence over our politics in this country and in our culture even. But the majority has not had a problem with them. I am speaking, of course, of media corporations. They were never limited by the electioneering restrictions imposed on other corporations. The Citizens United decision simply leveled the playing field and ended that nonsensical distinction.

That logical and constitutional result alarms the majority, though, because they fear that other corporations may not be as sympathetic to them as media corporations have been. They therefore regard it as perfectly reasonable to allow media corporations to say whatever they want, while at the same time regarding it as intolerable that other corporations be permitted to do the same.

While the amendment they propose would allow them to prohibit speech by any corporation--including the media--we can expect their allies will continue to enjoy the right to free expression. Their opponents, however, will be targeted. Those whose views align with the majority should draw no comfort from this fact though. Majorities do change. The whole point of the First Amendment is to ensure that the people's right to speak is not dependent on the whims of whatever majority happens to be in power at a given time in the Senate.

People have a right to express themselves and that right is not limited to whatever this body might deem to be reasonable.

We have a free marketplace of ideas. We do not entrust this Congress with the power to decide what ideas will get expressed or how much they will be expressed. Again, we don't entrust this Congress with the power to decide what ideas will get expressed or how much they will be expressed.

The majority proposes this amendment because they want that power, but they should never have it, and neither should any future majority. We have already seen from the rule change they imposed unilaterally only a few months ago that this majority is willing to jettison longstanding traditions and practices for short-term political gain. This mentality has already done serious and possibly irreparable damage to this body, but apparently destruction of the Senate rules will not suffice. Now the Constitution itself must yield. The interests of the majority are paramount and everything--even our most basic principles-- must be sacrificed on the altar of the majority.

Well, thankfully, the rules for ratification cannot be discarded as easily as the rules of this body. To ensure against precisely what the majority wishes to do--to alter the Constitution for their own benefit--the Founders made it very hard to amend. Two-thirds of each House of Congress must agree to an amendment. Then three-quarters of the States must ratify it. That is just not going to happen.

But the fact that they will not succeed does not mean that we should not take their threat seriously. To even begin down this path shows a remarkable contempt for our political traditions and founding documents. It reveals the desperation of the majority and at the same time it reveals the wisdom of our Founders. In seeking to amend the First Amendment to protect

themselves, the majority reminds us again how lucky we are to live in a country with a Constitution that prevents such abuses.

I am profoundly grateful for the wisdom of the Founders and proud to stand here today to defend the First Amendment that they gave us.

I will oppose this amendment today, tomorrow, and forever, and I ask my colleagues to do the same.

I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent that the time be charged equally to both parties.

Mr. President, as ranking member of the Committee on Rules and Administration with oversight of the Congressional Research Service, I offer my congratulations on the occasion of its centennial.

While it began in 1914 as a modest reference service, today it is an organization of nearly 600 analysts, attorneys, information professionals, and support staff with the core mission of providing timely and authoritative research and analysis on legislative issues of interest to Congress.

These highly trained and professional experts are dedicated to supporting the work of the Congress in an objective, unbiased, and nonpartisan manner.

Congratulations to the Congressional Research Service for 100 years of excellent service to the Congress.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator for yielding. I thank Senator Hoeven for his leadership on this issue and for bringing this issue to the attention of all Members, more especially those of us in our conference, but this should be a bipartisan effort.

I rise today to join my colleagues in discussing yet another--yet another--job-stifling and unjustified regulation proposed by this administration.

The EPA, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Department of Agriculture--what? the three horsemen of the regulatory apocalypse-- have proposed a rule that after careful review and study we believe would allow the EPA to further expand its control of private property-- control of private property--under the guise of the Clean Water Act.

They claim that the proposed ``Waters of the United States'' rule ``simply clarifies their scope of jurisdiction.'' Well, here is the catch: The ``clarification'' is from categorically classifying so- called ``other waters'' as regulated, even if the water cannot be navigated and was previously outside of their authority.

This proposal is another example of why many Kansans, many farmers and ranchers from Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota, feel their way of life is under attack by the Federal Government's overreach and overregulation.

To date, the Kansas associations of grain and feed, agribusiness retailers, ethanol producers, soybeans, wheat growers, pork producers, livestock, watersheds, golf course superintendents, and the Kansas Cooperative Council all have opposed this rule. Similar organizations in Wyoming and North Dakota and South Dakota and all across farm country have also been in contact with their Senators. These organizations and their members fear the EPA will use this rule to further regulate farmers and ranchers, as well as other normal land uses, such as building homes.

If finalized, this rule could have the EPA requiring a permit for ordinary fieldwork or for the construction of a fence or for even planting crops near certain waters.

Kansans are justifiably worried that the permits would be time- consuming, costly, and that the EPA could ultimately deny the permits, even for longstanding and normal practices--even practices that help the environment.

A friend of mine, Kansas farmer Jim Sipes--he is out there in Manter, KS; that is way out there; that is way out there by the Colorado border; he still has not gotten much rain after 3 years--he explains his view and said: ``The only thing that is clear and certain is that, under this rule, it will be more difficult to farm and ranch, or make changes to the land--even if those changes would benefit the environment.'' He knows what he is talking about.

For the folks back home, the issue of the EPA trying to control more water, whether it is actually ``navigable,'' is not new. We have had this before. We have been down a similar road before with the agency wanting to regulate all of the water in the country, even small farm ponds, I would tell my colleagues, that no self-respecting duck would ever land on.

Now, I think maybe there is a file, I say to Senator Hoeven--I think there is a file down there in the basement of the EPA. It must be a big one: rural fugitive dust; the navigable waters situation; endangered species, so there is the taking of farmers' ground to force

them to plant native prairie grass to save the lesser prairie chicken, which we cannot even find; and on and on and on and on. I think it must be labeled: What Drives Farmers and Ranchers Crazy. And about every second foggy night, why, somebody pulls open that file and we go through the whole thing again. It is not as though we have not done this before on this issue.

After personally calling on the EPA and Army Corps to withdraw the proposed rule, I want to make sure the expansion of regulatory jurisdiction over ``Waters of the United States''--let's shelve it for good. Let's shelve it for good.

Last week I joined the distinguished Senator from Wyoming Mr. Barrasso and the majority of our caucus in introducing straightforward legislation that prohibits the Administrator of the EPA and the Secretary of the Army--the Secretary of the Army, for goodness sakes-- from finalizing the rule or trying a similar regulation in the future. Put the file back. Just file it away. Maybe put it somewhere where the hard drive is that Lois Lerner lost.

We will continue working here in the Senate, as well as the House, to either convince the administration to back off of this proposal or, if necessary, to block the agencies from moving forward. We have stopped this type of foolishness before, and I expect we will be successful again.

I thank my colleagues for their arduous efforts.

I say to Senator Hoeven, thank you for leading this effort.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I first congratulate my colleague Senator Isakson for doing a good job of summarizing exactly where we are and the problems we are experiencing with the complexity of the Affordable Care Act and the hope that the new Secretary will be responsive, as the Senator so eloquently pointed out when he questioned her when she came before the committee. I thank the Senator for making an excellent speech and making excellent points, and I will endeavor to do the same, as we are talking about the same subject.

My remarks are once again on the Affordable Care Act. I know we have other issues, many important issues--the Veterans' Administration, the release of terrorists in an exchange--but it is equally important we continue to shed light on the many failings of this law.

During the very first debate on the Affordable Care Act, I distinctly remember comparing this rush to government health care as akin to riding hell-for-leather into a box canyon to find the only alternative would be to turn around, ride back out, and get on a more realistic, market-oriented health reform trail.

Then I put it another way. I said: There are a lot of cactuses out there. We didn't have to sit on every one of them.

We never even saw the bill before we voted on it. I think everybody understands that. I voted no and so did every Republican Senator and Member of Congress. This was not a bipartisan effort.

I regret to say to my colleagues that I told you so, and here we are in a box canyon. Until the administration provides us more details to the contrary, we have to assume that more Americans are losing the care they liked,

through cancellation notices, than they have enrolled in the exchanges. They are in a box canyon.

It is now estimated that ObamaCare will cost the Nation nearly $2 trillion and has created higher premiums, higher taxes, less choice, confusion, delays, and problem after problem. Unfortunately, the President and his allies in the Congress continue to protect this law, despite its toll on our economy, our patients, and our providers.

The President promised, as we all remember: We'll lower premiums for a typical family by $2,500 per year.

Valerie from Wichita, KS, wrote me a letter to share her story on this broken promise. She writes:

I wanted to let you know that I had to drop my company

health insurance due to the Affordable Care Act. My premium

before the Act was $250 a month and my employer paid $100 a

month toward the premium.

My insurance year expired April 1st and the new year is

under the ACA health insurance. The new plan is now much

higher at $565 a month and my employer can only afford to

pitch in $150 a month. I had to drop my plan due to

unaffordability. I could not pay the $415 a month.

The President also promised, highly publicized: ``If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period,'' and, ``If you like your doctor, you'll be able to keep your doctor.''

This law has significantly disrupted the individual health insurance market by imposing mandates and causing at least 5 million Americans to lose the insurance they had or have.

Doug, also from Wichita, wrote to share his personal story on this one. He said:

I am a small business owner who just got my family's health

insurance cancelled. I have talked it through with [the

insurance company] and at a minimum I will be paying 63% more

per month for coverage that has a deductible 3 times greater

than what I had and my doctor may or may not be in the

network.

Doug continues on to say:

The only topic that matters in Washington is stopping the

insanity of [ObamaCare].

Most important, the President promised, ``I will protect Medicare.'' This law cuts over $700 billion from Medicare to pay for ObamaCare. Part of those cuts come from the establishment, the establishment of an Independent Payment Advisory Board--what a wonderful acronym for this board--IPAB. This Board is supposed to be made up of 15 unelected bureaucrats who will decide which treatments in Medicare coverage should be taken away with regard to reimbursement. As I have stated on the Senate floor before, the IPAB has no accountability and their decisions are practically impossible to overturn.

The administration continues to give us piecemeal data on exchange enrollments, delays provisions of the law that they can't implement on time or simply wants to delay--a large serving of politics involved-- and is providing exclusive waivers and special deals to unions and others from the yoke of ObamaCare.

In fact, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service confirmed that the administration has missed half of the mandated deadlines of this law. Most recently, press reports have indicated the government may be paying incorrect subsidies to more than 1 million Americans for their health care plans in the new Federal insurance exchanges, and they have so far been unable to fix the errors. Obviously, this poses a lot of problems for a lot of people.

Unfortunately, the President and his allies in Congress continue to protect this law despite its toll on our economy, patients, and providers.

A new Health and Human Services Secretary has been nominated, Sylvia Mathews Burwell, as Senator Isakson referred to, but with ObamaCare, nothing will alter. We are headed for socialized medicine. ObamaCare is the President's legacy. The President will unilaterally change what suits him best.

The hard-working taxpayers who are paying for this law, in large part from the 21 tax increases contained in it, have a right to some answers. That is right, I said 21 tax increases. Just some of these taxes include the following: the individual mandate tax, where people have to pay the government for not having insurance, even if they can't afford it; the employer mandate tax, where an employer pays a tax because they may have chosen to forgo providing insurance to their employees instead of having to lay off workers; the health insurance tax, which will be passed along to individuals in the form of higher premiums; the medical device tax.

I could go on and on. Many of these taxes have bipartisan support to be repealed, but we can't even get a vote on those.

With a $1.8 trillion pricetag, this bill is so far-reaching it is difficult to find a Federal agency that doesn't have a hand in this pot; from your doctor's office to your wallet, to your privacy. That is why I am introducing today a bill to require a special inspector general for monitoring the Affordable Care Act. We call it the SIGMA Act. It is the Special Inspector General for Monitoring the Affordable Health Care Act.

While all of the Federal agencies charged with implementing the Affordable Care Act have Offices of the Inspector General--and they do, they are all investigating this law in their own silo--where have we heard that before with a lot of problems within the Federal Government--the Health and Human Services inspector general isn't talking to the Treasury IG or the Department of Labor IG or the Homeland Security IG or any one of those with each other.

This bill would give appropriate authority to investigate and to audit any programs or activities related to this law across the many Federal departments, State exchanges, and private contractors.

The legislation will require a report to be submitted to Congress and the American people 6 months after enactment and quarterly reports for the duration of time the Affordable Care Act is on the books. They have broad authority to review all aspects of the law. Things such as the following:

Changes in the health insurance marketplace, the amount of folks who have seen their premiums and out-of-pocket costs increased, shrinking physician and other provider networks. We have a right to know that.

The employer mandate, its effect on worker hours, employers' hiring, and the number of businesses subjected to the penalty. We have a right to know that.

The healthcare.gov Web site, its security, functionality, and verification systems. We have read a lot about that, but we have a right to know.

Duties of the Internal Revenue Service, plans for calculating subsidy overpayments and underpayments, how they will notify these individuals and what their plans are for recapturing these overpayments.

Medicare cuts via the IPAB, they will provide an analysis of the impact on medical outcomes for our seniors as a result of these cuts. We should know that.

All of these questions could and should be answered by a special inspector general. The bill would equip the special IG with the same investigative and law enforcement authority as standing inspectors general, including subpoena and audit powers to compel responses from the administration.

President Obama has claimed that his--his--is ``the most transparent administration in history'' and that his administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in government. Given these statements, I think the President should embrace the idea of a special inspector general for his health care law. After all, we need to know the outcomes of the 41 changes he has already made to the law.

It would provide increased transparency so the general public has a better understanding about this law. It would protect taxpayer dollars, and by providing an independent analysis of this law, it will allow the administration and Congress to make more informed decisions and work together on how we move forward with reforms to our health care system. I believe we need to do everything possible to repeal and replace this law with real health care reform--reforms that lower costs and restore the all-important relationship between a patient and a doctor.

However, as long as this law is on the books, we need a watchdog or a special inspector general to investigate the implementation of this law and ensure that our scarce taxpayer dollars are being spent in an appropriate manner. I encourage all of my colleagues to join me in support of this bill in calling for

increased oversight of the affordable--or unaffordable--health care law.

Let's ride out of the box canyon. Let's get on a better health care reform trail, and on the way we certainly don't have to sit on every cactus that comes along.

Mr. President, I first congratulate my colleague Senator Isakson for doing a good job of summarizing exactly where we are and the problems we are experiencing with the complexity of the Affordable Care Act and the hope that the new Secretary will be responsive, as the Senator so eloquently pointed out when he questioned her when she came before the committee. I thank the Senator for making an excellent speech and making excellent points, and I will endeavor to do the same, as we are talking about the same subject.

My remarks are once again on the Affordable Care Act. I know we have other issues, many important issues--the Veterans' Administration, the release of terrorists in an exchange--but it is equally important we continue to shed light on the many failings of this law.

During the very first debate on the Affordable Care Act, I distinctly remember comparing this rush to government health care as akin to riding hell-for-leather into a box canyon to find the only alternative would be to turn around, ride back out, and get on a more realistic, market-oriented health reform trail.

Then I put it another way. I said: There are a lot of cactuses out there. We didn't have to sit on every one of them.

We never even saw the bill before we voted on it. I think everybody understands that. I voted no and so did every Republican Senator and Member of Congress. This was not a bipartisan effort.

I regret to say to my colleagues that I told you so, and here we are in a box canyon. Until the administration provides us more details to the contrary, we have to assume that more Americans are losing the care they liked,

through cancellation notices, than they have enrolled in the exchanges. They are in a box canyon.

It is now estimated that ObamaCare will cost the Nation nearly $2 trillion and has created higher premiums, higher taxes, less choice, confusion, delays, and problem after problem. Unfortunately, the President and his allies in the Congress continue to protect this law, despite its toll on our economy, our patients, and our providers.

The President promised, as we all remember: We'll lower premiums for a typical family by $2,500 per year.

Valerie from Wichita, KS, wrote me a letter to share her story on this broken promise. She writes:

I wanted to let you know that I had to drop my company

health insurance due to the Affordable Care Act. My premium

before the Act was $250 a month and my employer paid $100 a

month toward the premium.

My insurance year expired April 1st and the new year is

under the ACA health insurance. The new plan is now much

higher at $565 a month and my employer can only afford to

pitch in $150 a month. I had to drop my plan due to

unaffordability. I could not pay the $415 a month.

The President also promised, highly publicized: ``If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period,'' and, ``If you like your doctor, you'll be able to keep your doctor.''

This law has significantly disrupted the individual health insurance market by imposing mandates and causing at least 5 million Americans to lose the insurance they had or have.

Doug, also from Wichita, wrote to share his personal story on this one. He said:

I am a small business owner who just got my family's health

insurance cancelled. I have talked it through with [the

insurance company] and at a minimum I will be paying 63% more

per month for coverage that has a deductible 3 times greater

than what I had and my doctor may or may not be in the

network.

Doug continues on to say:

The only topic that matters in Washington is stopping the

insanity of [ObamaCare].

Most important, the President promised, ``I will protect Medicare.'' This law cuts over $700 billion from Medicare to pay for ObamaCare. Part of those cuts come from the establishment, the establishment of an Independent Payment Advisory Board--what a wonderful acronym for this board--IPAB. This Board is supposed to be made up of 15 unelected bureaucrats who will decide which treatments in Medicare coverage should be taken away with regard to reimbursement. As I have stated on the Senate floor before, the IPAB has no accountability and their decisions are practically impossible to overturn.

The administration continues to give us piecemeal data on exchange enrollments, delays provisions of the law that they can't implement on time or simply wants to delay--a large serving of politics involved-- and is providing exclusive waivers and special deals to unions and others from the yoke of ObamaCare.

In fact, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service confirmed that the administration has missed half of the mandated deadlines of this law. Most recently, press reports have indicated the government may be paying incorrect subsidies to more than 1 million Americans for their health care plans in the new Federal insurance exchanges, and they have so far been unable to fix the errors. Obviously, this poses a lot of problems for a lot of people.

Unfortunately, the President and his allies in Congress continue to protect this law despite its toll on our economy, patients, and providers.

A new Health and Human Services Secretary has been nominated, Sylvia Mathews Burwell, as Senator Isakson referred to, but with ObamaCare, nothing will alter. We are headed for socialized medicine. ObamaCare is the President's legacy. The President will unilaterally change what suits him best.

The hard-working taxpayers who are paying for this law, in large part from the 21 tax increases contained in it, have a right to some answers. That is right, I said 21 tax increases. Just some of these taxes include the following: the individual mandate tax, where people have to pay the government for not having insurance, even if they can't afford it; the employer mandate tax, where an employer pays a tax because they may have chosen to forgo providing insurance to their employees instead of having to lay off workers; the health insurance tax, which will be passed along to individuals in the form of higher premiums; the medical device tax.

I could go on and on. Many of these taxes have bipartisan support to be repealed, but we can't even get a vote on those.

With a $1.8 trillion pricetag, this bill is so far-reaching it is difficult to find a Federal agency that doesn't have a hand in this pot; from your doctor's office to your wallet, to your privacy. That is why I am introducing today a bill to require a special inspector general for monitoring the Affordable Care Act. We call it the SIGMA Act. It is the Special Inspector General for Monitoring the Affordable Health Care Act.

While all of the Federal agencies charged with implementing the Affordable Care Act have Offices of the Inspector General--and they do, they are all investigating this law in their own silo--where have we heard that before with a lot of problems within the Federal Government--the Health and Human Services inspector general isn't talking to the Treasury IG or the Department of Labor IG or the Homeland Security IG or any one of those with each other.

This bill would give appropriate authority to investigate and to audit any programs or activities related to this law across the many Federal departments, State exchanges, and private contractors.

The legislation will require a report to be submitted to Congress and the American people 6 months after enactment and quarterly reports for the duration of time the Affordable Care Act is on the books. They have broad authority to review all aspects of the law. Things such as the following:

Changes in the health insurance marketplace, the amount of folks who have seen their premiums and out-of-pocket costs increased, shrinking physician and other provider networks. We have a right to know that.

The employer mandate, its effect on worker hours, employers' hiring, and the number of businesses subjected to the penalty. We have a right to know that.

The healthcare.gov Web site, its security, functionality, and verification systems. We have read a lot about that, but we have a right to know.

Duties of the Internal Revenue Service, plans for calculating subsidy overpayments and underpayments, how they will notify these individuals and what their plans are for recapturing these overpayments.

Medicare cuts via the IPAB, they will provide an analysis of the impact on medical outcomes for our seniors as a result of these cuts. We should know that.

All of these questions could and should be answered by a special inspector general. The bill would equip the special IG with the same investigative and law enforcement authority as standing inspectors general, including subpoena and audit powers to compel responses from the administration.

President Obama has claimed that his--his--is ``the most transparent administration in history'' and that his administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in government. Given these statements, I think the President should embrace the idea of a special inspector general for his health care law. After all, we need to know the outcomes of the 41 changes he has already made to the law.

It would provide increased transparency so the general public has a better understanding about this law. It would protect taxpayer dollars, and by providing an independent analysis of this law, it will allow the administration and Congress to make more informed decisions and work together on how we move forward with reforms to our health care system. I believe we need to do everything possible to repeal and replace this law with real health care reform--reforms that lower costs and restore the all-important relationship between a patient and a doctor.

However, as long as this law is on the books, we need a watchdog or a special inspector general to investigate the implementation of this law and ensure that our scarce taxpayer dollars are being spent in an appropriate manner. I encourage all of my colleagues to join me in support of this bill in calling for

increased oversight of the affordable--or unaffordable--health care law.

Let's ride out of the box canyon. Let's get on a better health care reform trail, and on the way we certainly don't have to sit on every cactus that comes along.

Madam President, as the ranking member of the Rules Committee, I take no pleasure in making these remarks, but the circumstances have given me absolutely no choice.

Our distinguished majority leader recently came to this floor and declared that his minority colleagues--that would be us on this side of the aisle, Republicans--were ``addicted to Koch.''

To those who regularly watch our proceedings, however, it is clear who is suffering from this addiction.

Practically every morning our leader starts our session by giving a speech personally attacking David and Charles Koch and their families. The only thing he seems to do more often than block Republican amendments is attack the Kochs.

As distasteful as that is, it is apparently no longer sufficient. The problem with addiction, of course, is that as a tolerance develops, more and more of the drug is needed to satisfy the craving.

So now we have learned that not only does the majority leader spend his mornings attacking the Kochs, but he spends his evenings doing so as well.

Last night, the majority leader attended an event in the Capitol Visitor Center--the CVC in the Capitol building--to promote a movie attacking the Kochs. Never mind that the regulations prohibit-- prohibit--the use of the CVC space for any ``campaign, commercial, promotional or profit-making purpose.''

As House Administration Committee Chairman Candice Miller said:

We cannot hold partisan political rallies or fundraisers on

the grounds of the Capitol, or within its walls. Our work in

this hallowed building must solely be in the interests of the

American people and not in the interest of any political

cause.

This event is just the latest demonstration of an apparent belief that the rules do not apply to the Democratic leadership. We now have another new precedent: a majority leader appearing in and then promoting a movie in the Capitol.

It also further demonstrates the hypocrisy of the majority's quest to stifle dissent. They celebrate and promote films that attack their opponents but want to outlaw films that criticize the majority Members and their agenda.

The irony of promoting a film to advance their campaign to restrict speech is apparently lost on the majority. So it is worth reminding them what the Citizens United case was really all about. It was about a movie--``Hillary: The Movie,'' to be precise. ``Hillary: The Movie'' was made in the wake of ``Fahrenheit 9/11.'' Anyone who saw ``Fahrenheit 9/11'' knows that the purpose of the film was to convince people that George W. Bush was not worthy of the Presidency and should not be given a second term.

Anyone who saw ``Hillary: The Movie'' knows the purpose was to convince people that Hillary Clinton should not be elected President of the United States. I suspect that many of the people who went to see the movie in the CVC last night thought that ``Fahrenheit 9/11'' was great and ``Hillary: The Movie'' was terrible.

The point of the Citizens United case was that it really doesn't matter. It doesn't matter which film a majority in Congress might prefer. The producers have the right to make and distribute either one, and they can raise the money necessary to do so as they see fit, not subject to any restrictions or limitations imposed by the Congress. They are guaranteed that right by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. This Congress cannot take that away.

Is that too difficult a concept to grasp? Isn't it obvious? Of course it is.

Yet the majority has spent the last 4 years misrepresenting it, and now it even wants to amend the Constitution to reverse it. That is just incredible.

In a press release announcing an upcoming hearing on the majority's amendment to the First Amendment, it was declared that it was necessary to ``build support for amending the Constitution to ensure that all Americans can exercise their First Amendment rights.''

It is not necessary to amend the First Amendment to ensure that all Americans can exercise their First Amendment rights. Those rights are already guaranteed by the First Amendment as written. The amendment the majority wants to impose would allow them to once again curtail those rights. Why can't we just be honest about this. Because of the Citizens United decision, people of all points of view now have the opportunity to make their views widely known. Even people who disagree with the majority in the Senate have that right, and we should all be very grateful.

I know the majority preferred a system where those who wished to criticize them were restrained in their ability to do so. They want to reimpose those restraints. I do not think they will succeed, but we should make clear what they want to do.

In their view, a corporation that happens to own a network, such as NBC or CNN, should be able to broadcast the movie they promoted last night as much as they want. If the networks wanted to show the movie every night of the week for 2 hours, that would be just fine with the majority.

But if somebody wanted to buy a 30-second ad during the airing of the movie to present an alternative point of view, that would be unacceptable. A 2-hour movie? No problem. A 30-second ad? Terrible. It can't be allowed.

That is simply absurd, but that was the reality before the Citizens United decision. Media corporations could do or say whatever they wanted. Other corporations, however, could not. Citizens United ended that ridiculous distinction and the majority has been trying to reinstate it ever since.

The majority claims they are concerned about wealthy donors. No, they are not. They are concerned about wealthy conservative donors.

According to the Los Angeles Times, the very film they promoted last night received financing from foundations and large individual donations. But those donations were OK, I suppose, because they went to promote a cause the majority supports--attacking the Koch family.

Likewise, billionaires who support the causes of the majority are not targeted. Billionaire former hedge fund manager Tom Steyer has indicated he intends to spend over $100 million to influence the midterm elections.

Does the majority have any problem with that? Of course not.

Spending huge amounts of money in politics only concerns them if it is spent against them or on behalf of their opponents, but if it is spent to promote the majority and their agenda--no problem.

The majority leader has convinced himself, however, and seeks to convince the rest of us, that the Kochs are somehow unique, that the Koch brothers present some kind of evil threat, if you will, that other billionaires with different points of view do not pose. He seems to think that for everything bad that happens the Kochs are to blame.

Recently he claimed that they were one of the main causes of climate change. He said: ``Not a cause, one of the main causes.''

What do we make of such a statement? Could anything be more absurd? There are over 7 billion people on Earth, but our majority leader believes two men, Charles and David Koch, are a main cause of climate change.

What is that all about?

Just yesterday, the majority leader blamed the Kochs for the wildfires in California. What is next? Maybe the Kochs are to blame for the planes lost in the Bermuda Triangle? How about the volcanic eruption at Pompeii years ago or even the futility of the Chicago Cubs? That has to be the Koch family.

The majority leader convinces himself that his Koch obsession is justified because he believes their political involvement is motivated only by their own financial interest.

It is inconceivable to him that people might exist who simply disagree with him and his agenda and want to see the country take a different path. The reality is that there are millions of Americans who want to see this country take a different path, and the Koch family proudly supports that goal and has made donations to help achieve just that.

You will never hear it from the majority leader, but it is time someone presented the rest of the story about the Koch family. This family has pledged or contributed more than $1 billion to cancer research, medical centers, education, the arts, and to assist public policy organizations--$1 billion. Is that the act of a family motivated solely by financial interests? I don't think so. Of course not.

Consider a few of these gifts: $100 million as a prime contributor for cancer research at MIT; $100 million to the New York-Presbyterian Hospital to build a new ambulatory care center, plus $28 million to other research causes; $20 million to Johns Hopkins University for a cancer research center; $30 million to the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York; $26 million to the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston; $26 million to the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York City for the Building on Success campaign and other causes; and $35 million to the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History to renovate what is called dinosaur hall, which will include one of the largest and most complete T. rex specimens in the world; $20 million to the Museum of Natural History; and $65 million to the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Likewise, the David H. Koch Charitable Foundation gave $100 million for the preservation and renovation of Lincoln Center, home to the New York City Ballet and the New York City Opera.

All these acts of extraordinary generosity are completely ignored by the majority leader. They are ignored because the Koch family has committed one unforgivable sin: They have opposed him and the Democratic majority and President Obama. They present a threat to the Democrats' hold on power. That is why they are being demonized. That is why they are being attacked. That is why they are being vilified. That is why they have become his obsession.

They have had the temerity to challenge the agenda of this majority and its leader, and the leader is not happy about it and he wants it to stop. And it looks as if he will do anything he can to make it stop, up to and including amending the Constitution of the United States. I think that is a disgrace. It has demeaned this institution. It should stop. The first amendment doesn't exist to protect those of us in this body. It exists to protect the people. It is there to prevent us from silencing our critics. And thank God for that.

I wish the majority would recognize that they do not have the power to silence their critics. The first amendment denies them that power. I wish the majority leader would stop engaging in character assassination against citizens who choose to exercise their first amendment rights. And I wish he would stop acting as though he is the only person on Earth who can say whatever he wants. He isn't. We all have the right to express ourselves--all of us--from Michael Moore to Citizens United, from Tom Steyer to the Koch family. All of us have that right. All of us. Let's stop trying to deny it. Let's stop trying to change it. It is beneath us. It demeans this body, and it is wrong.

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

I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of my friend from Vermont, who I know is in a hurry to leave the premises, as most Senators have already done. Perhaps he could relax and go out and have a Coke. Bad pun.

(The remarks of Mr. Roberts pertaining to the introduction of S. 2282 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this is a speech--these are some remarks--that I really should not have to make, but late this afternoon, I rise to discuss more amazing actions from our Nation's tax collector. This is, unfortunately, an agency that is fast becoming the gang that cannot shoot straight--the folks who brought us the partisan suppression of free speech, who piled onto that with proposed rules to shut down political action by groups with which they disagree or do not favor, and the same team that shares confidential taxpayer information with their allies outside of government. Obviously, I am talking about the Internal Revenue Service.

Here is a great deal: Break the law you are required to enforce and get a cash bonus and free time off.

What on Earth is this all about?

Well, last week, the Treasury Department's Inspector General for Tax Administration issued a report, which I have here, on the Internal Revenue Service bonuses that were awarded to

personnel who have violated the tax laws or who have been subject to serious infractions of employee policy.

This is a lot like hiring someone to work for you, and then they steel money from you or acted in ways that are very inappropriate. Would you give them a bonus? I do not think most businesspeople would do that. According to the inspector general, close to $3 million was awarded to staff with violations on their records, with about half of that amount going to people who had violated the Tax Code.

Other personnel at the IRS received cash bonuses or other awards despite being cited for--listen to this--drug use, making violent threats, fraudulently claiming unemployment benefits and misusing government credit cards. Still they got bonuses--up to $3 million.

In fact, the report indicates that close to 70 percent of IRS personnel receive some sort of performance award--70 percent of the IRS. That is rather remarkable when you think about the sorts of problems your average taxpayer has in getting help from that particular agency.

This is flatly outrageous--if not appalling or atrocious--and cannot be tolerated. It also makes me wonder what you have to do to be disqualified from an award.

More disturbing, these awards, even for people breaking the law, are perfectly acceptable under current IRS and government-wide guidelines. Let me repeat that. These awards, even for people breaking the law, are perfectly acceptable under current IRS and government-wide guidelines.

Indeed, the IG report makes it clear that under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement with the main union for IRS employees, these awards are appropriate and cannot be taken away because of such violations.

The distribution of these awards at a time when the IRS is under scrutiny for its actions concerning the political activity of conservative groups, when its performance of basic taxpayer service functions has drastically worsened, and when it is calling for additional funding, calls into question the agency's commitment to fair enforcement of our tax laws.

The IG report recognized that these awards--while not technically prohibited--appear to be in conflict with the IRS's charge of ``ensuring integrity of the system of tax administration.'' Well, no kidding. Thank goodness for the inspector general.

That is what we call an understatement--maybe the understatement of the year.

This is another fox in the henhouse story. Not only is the fox in the henhouse, but he is now being rewarded for eating the chickens.

These performance awards are just plain wrong and should not go to anyone who breaks the law, particularly the laws which the agency enforces.

These bonus awards weaken public confidence in the Nation's tax enforcement agency and are a sign that the agency has indeed run off the rails.

The inspector general report recommended that the IRS create a new policy to take disciplinary actions into account when awarding bonuses.

It seems to me we need to do more than set up a new policy or guideline. We need something more concrete and more immediate. That is why today I am joining with my friends--Senators Enzi, Cornyn, Rubio, Toomey, Thune, Johanns, Isakson, and Leader McConnell--to introduce the No Bonuses for Delinquent IRS Employees Act--a bill that really should be unnecessary. I thank my colleagues for joining me and, more especially, Senator Enzi, who has done a great deal of work on this and helped expose this from the first.

Our bill is pretty simple. It will prohibit the IRS from providing any performance award to any IRS employee who owes an outstanding Federal tax debt for failing to pay their taxes.

Nobody likes to be audited. Nobody likes to get that phone call from the IRS. Nobody likes to see the taxman at the door. And then if the taxman says: I am sorry, you owe X for a violation of Y, and you find out this individual got a performance bonus even though he or she fails to meet the tax obligations they face, that is rather incredible.

Given what we know about recent IRS actions--and the growing discontent with the agency I hear from Kansans every day--continuing to award personnel bonuses to employees who have outstanding tax liabilities or have violated the tax laws is beyond comprehension and outrageous and should be stopped.

This is not a partisan issue. It is just plain common sense. The IRS should not be in the business of awarding bonuses to its agents who are unable or unwilling to abide by the tax laws they are directed to uphold--simple as that.

So I call upon all my colleagues to support the No Bonuses for Delinquent IRS Employees Act and will ask for its immediate consideration.

In closing, I would like to point out this issue has been well- documented in a 26-page report by the inspector general. I thank the inspector general for the work he has done. Right on the first page it says: ``The Awards Program Complied With Federal Regulations, but Some Employees With Tax and Conduct Issues Received Awards.'' Most IRS employees complied with Federal regulations, but some employees with tax and conduct issues still received awards. That is an oxymoron.

Then, if you skip to the back, there are some recommendations. The recommendation is for corrective action. This is what it says:

The IRS Human Capital Officer--Daniel Riordan is the IRS

Human Capital Officer--will conduct a feasibility study. But

they do not have to take action right away. They just want to

discuss the feasibility of a study--by June 30 of this year--

just a couple months away--for the implementation of a policy

requiring management to consider a policy change.

It does not say just to do it; it says just consider whether conduct issues resulting in disciplinary actions should be made part of the performance evaluation, especially the nonpayment of taxes owed to the Federal government, prior to awarding performance and discretionary awards.

Daniel Riordan has received marching orders from the Inspector General to conduct a feasibility study by June 30, to determine whether the IRS should even consider whether disciplinary actions, including the nonpayment of taxes owed to the Federal Government, should be part of the evaluation as to whether an employee should be eligible for a performance award.

We really do not need this legislation. We have introduced it to force action. The inspector general says: Let's have action. On 26 pages, he says: Let's have action.

So to Daniel Riordan, I have the following advice--before we get 60 people on this and pass a bill, why don't you just go ahead and do it. Do not conduct a feasibility study. We have all the evidence right here. If you would just change the current policy, it would remove yet another problem, another unfortunate asterisk when we think of the IRS.

I want to thank my colleagues for cosponsoring this legislation and again ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, this is a speech--these are some remarks--that I really should not have to make, but late this afternoon, I rise to discuss more amazing actions from our Nation's tax collector. This is, unfortunately, an agency that is fast becoming the gang that cannot shoot straight--the folks who brought us the partisan suppression of free speech, who piled onto that with proposed rules to shut down political action by groups with which they disagree or do not favor, and the same team that shares confidential taxpayer information with their allies outside of government. Obviously, I am talking about the Internal Revenue Service.

Here is a great deal: Break the law you are required to enforce and get a cash bonus and free time off.

What on Earth is this all about?

Well, last week, the Treasury Department's Inspector General for Tax Administration issued a report, which I have here, on the Internal Revenue Service bonuses that were awarded to

personnel who have violated the tax laws or who have been subject to serious infractions of employee policy.

This is a lot like hiring someone to work for you, and then they steel money from you or acted in ways that are very inappropriate. Would you give them a bonus? I do not think most businesspeople would do that. According to the inspector general, close to $3 million was awarded to staff with violations on their records, with about half of that amount going to people who had violated the Tax Code.

Other personnel at the IRS received cash bonuses or other awards despite being cited for--listen to this--drug use, making violent threats, fraudulently claiming unemployment benefits and misusing government credit cards. Still they got bonuses--up to $3 million.

In fact, the report indicates that close to 70 percent of IRS personnel receive some sort of performance award--70 percent of the IRS. That is rather remarkable when you think about the sorts of problems your average taxpayer has in getting help from that particular agency.

This is flatly outrageous--if not appalling or atrocious--and cannot be tolerated. It also makes me wonder what you have to do to be disqualified from an award.

More disturbing, these awards, even for people breaking the law, are perfectly acceptable under current IRS and government-wide guidelines. Let me repeat that. These awards, even for people breaking the law, are perfectly acceptable under current IRS and government-wide guidelines.

Indeed, the IG report makes it clear that under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement with the main union for IRS employees, these awards are appropriate and cannot be taken away because of such violations.

The distribution of these awards at a time when the IRS is under scrutiny for its actions concerning the political activity of conservative groups, when its performance of basic taxpayer service functions has drastically worsened, and when it is calling for additional funding, calls into question the agency's commitment to fair enforcement of our tax laws.

The IG report recognized that these awards--while not technically prohibited--appear to be in conflict with the IRS's charge of ``ensuring integrity of the system of tax administration.'' Well, no kidding. Thank goodness for the inspector general.

That is what we call an understatement--maybe the understatement of the year.

This is another fox in the henhouse story. Not only is the fox in the henhouse, but he is now being rewarded for eating the chickens.

These performance awards are just plain wrong and should not go to anyone who breaks the law, particularly the laws which the agency enforces.

These bonus awards weaken public confidence in the Nation's tax enforcement agency and are a sign that the agency has indeed run off the rails.

The inspector general report recommended that the IRS create a new policy to take disciplinary actions into account when awarding bonuses.

It seems to me we need to do more than set up a new policy or guideline. We need something more concrete and more immediate. That is why today I am joining with my friends--Senators Enzi, Cornyn, Rubio, Toomey, Thune, Johanns, Isakson, and Leader McConnell--to introduce the No Bonuses for Delinquent IRS Employees Act--a bill that really should be unnecessary. I thank my colleagues for joining me and, more especially, Senator Enzi, who has done a great deal of work on this and helped expose this from the first.

Our bill is pretty simple. It will prohibit the IRS from providing any performance award to any IRS employee who owes an outstanding Federal tax debt for failing to pay their taxes.

Nobody likes to be audited. Nobody likes to get that phone call from the IRS. Nobody likes to see the taxman at the door. And then if the taxman says: I am sorry, you owe X for a violation of Y, and you find out this individual got a performance bonus even though he or she fails to meet the tax obligations they face, that is rather incredible.

Given what we know about recent IRS actions--and the growing discontent with the agency I hear from Kansans every day--continuing to award personnel bonuses to employees who have outstanding tax liabilities or have violated the tax laws is beyond comprehension and outrageous and should be stopped.

This is not a partisan issue. It is just plain common sense. The IRS should not be in the business of awarding bonuses to its agents who are unable or unwilling to abide by the tax laws they are directed to uphold--simple as that.

So I call upon all my colleagues to support the No Bonuses for Delinquent IRS Employees Act and will ask for its immediate consideration.

In closing, I would like to point out this issue has been well- documented in a 26-page report by the inspector general. I thank the inspector general for the work he has done. Right on the first page it says: ``The Awards Program Complied With Federal Regulations, but Some Employees With Tax and Conduct Issues Received Awards.'' Most IRS employees complied with Federal regulations, but some employees with tax and conduct issues still received awards. That is an oxymoron.

Then, if you skip to the back, there are some recommendations. The recommendation is for corrective action. This is what it says:

The IRS Human Capital Officer--Daniel Riordan is the IRS

Human Capital Officer--will conduct a feasibility study. But

they do not have to take action right away. They just want to

discuss the feasibility of a study--by June 30 of this year--

just a couple months away--for the implementation of a policy

requiring management to consider a policy change.

It does not say just to do it; it says just consider whether conduct issues resulting in disciplinary actions should be made part of the performance evaluation, especially the nonpayment of taxes owed to the Federal government, prior to awarding performance and discretionary awards.

Daniel Riordan has received marching orders from the Inspector General to conduct a feasibility study by June 30, to determine whether the IRS should even consider whether disciplinary actions, including the nonpayment of taxes owed to the Federal Government, should be part of the evaluation as to whether an employee should be eligible for a performance award.

We really do not need this legislation. We have introduced it to force action. The inspector general says: Let's have action. On 26 pages, he says: Let's have action.

So to Daniel Riordan, I have the following advice--before we get 60 people on this and pass a bill, why don't you just go ahead and do it. Do not conduct a feasibility study. We have all the evidence right here. If you would just change the current policy, it would remove yet another problem, another unfortunate asterisk when we think of the IRS.

I want to thank my colleagues for cosponsoring this legislation and again ask for its immediate consideration.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I would be more than happy to respond to my good friend and colleague.

Thank you for your leadership, thank you for your bill, and thank you for your statement. There is no question that this is in the national interest--absolutely none.

I rise today to join my fellow Republican colleagues and then to extend the arm of cooperation to our friends across the aisle.

I want to express my deep disappointment in this administration's repeated delay of the final approval of the Keystone Pipeline. I hope that what the Senator has indicated will come true, that if in fact it is the wish of the majority leader to at least bring up an energy bill--and I hope he would not limit it, I hope he would allow amendments to it--then with the support we have within the Congress we could get going on something that is truly a jobs act as well as providing for the national security.

The irony should not be lost on anyone that while those on the other side continue messaging and messaging and talking about supposed government solutions to our high national unemployment rate--including emergency unemployment insurance, income inequality, minimum wage--we have a project right before us waiting for approval that would create tens of thousands of jobs and all without using one dime of taxpayer money. If you want an actual solution to unemployment, here it is: Provide eager Americans with full-time jobs making well over the national minimum wage. That is a jobs package.

Regarding the pipeline's environmental soundness, the Senator has been absolutely correct. Just last June the President indicated he would not grant final approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline if it would exacerbate carbon emissions. The good news is this, Mr. President: The State Department has already indicated that the construction of the pipeline will have no measurable impact--none--on increasing global carbon emissions. So from an economic standpoint, it is a no-brainer, and from the scientific conclusions reached by this administration's own State Department regarding the environmental soundness of the project, it is a no-brainer.

At the end of the day, the Canadian oil sands are going to be developed. That is a fact. The real question is, Will that oil be shipped overseas? Will it be transported to the United States by rail or will it travel by pipeline? In fact, transporting oil via pipeline is the most environmentally sound way to do it.

Lastly--and this plays into the larger discussion we are having about the escalating issues with regard to the Middle East, Ukraine, and Russia reverting again to a growling bear--why not send a strong message to the rest of the world--most especially to Russia--that we are serious about energy security? At last, at last, energy security; that we will work with our friends in Canada to start challenging nationally run oil cartels as to who can supply our friends with needed energy.

While the larger energy discussion regarding situations unfolding around the world are focused mostly on LNG, Russia's influence goes well beyond natural gas. We should understand that. Just look at our own data produced by the Energy Information Administration, which shows that Russia is second only to Saudi Arabia in exports of oil.

So this is our opportunity from a national security standpoint to send an important message that the time of despotic governments wishing to wield power by controlling the flow of energy is coming to an end. Let's allow this project to be the first step in hopefully many more toward showing we are serious as a government about achieving North American energy security.

Again, this project has been reviewed, as has been noted by my distinguished friend, for over 5 years, with five environmental impact statements concluding it is safe. This project makes sense economically, environmentally, and from a national security perspective. What does not make sense is yet another treading-water non-decision, another delay beyond the fall elections. With regard to our national energy policy, it is long overdue for the United States to lead by leading.

Mr. President, approve the pipeline.

To the majority leader: Let us have an amendment--if, in fact, we do go on to consider energy legislation this work period--that will be in the best interest of every State in the Union, every American, for our national security, and our overall energy policy.

I thank my colleague again for his leadership. I really appreciate it.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak about ObamaCare and what I have long believed is a march to rationing of health care.

The ObamaCare bill and the accompanying regulations now tower over 7 feet--1 foot above where I stand--when stacked together, and they have provision after provision that will deny patients the care they want, the care they need to ensure they get the life-sustaining and lifesaving treatments that are best for them.

These rationing elements in ObamaCare have been documented by a recent report of the National Right to Life Committee's Powell Center for Medical Ethics. This study is entitled ``The Affordable Health Care Act and Health Care Access in the United States.''

Perhaps most egregious about ObamaCare is that it directly inserts the Federal Government into the personal lives of Americans, their families, and their doctors.

We all know about the individual mandate that coerces people into purchasing a product they may not want by threatening to tax them. And I have often spoken about my personal nemesis in the rationing board that I am going to bring up--the Independent Payment Advisory Board, IPAB. This is a board made up of 18--15 voting and 3 nonvoting--all unelected bureaucrats who will decide what gets to stay and what must go in Medicare coverage. They will decide which treatments and services will be covered and which will not. And there is no accountability whatsoever. It would, in fact, take a two-thirds majority of the U.S. Senate to undo any of their actions. As a result, this board diminishes our constitutional responsibility.

This President has already raided half a trillion dollars from Medicare to pay for ObamaCare, and then he gave himself the ability to go after even more Medicare dollars without any accountability. This, my friends, is frightening. It is irresponsible. But there is more.

It is conceivable that the Independent Payment Advisory Board won't just limit Medicare access; it will also propose ways for the Federal Government to limit what Americans of all ages are allowed to spend out of their own private money--not taxpayer funds--to save the lives and health of their families.

Shocking but true: ObamaCare tells bureaucrats on the board to make sure we are not even allowed to keep up with medical inflation. Further, it is conceivable that the board will suggest ways for the Federal Government to impose so-called quality and efficiency standards on doctors and hospitals with the purpose of limiting the health care we can get.

So here is the deal: If a doctor dares to give her patient treatment beyond what those standards allow, the doctor will be punished. That doctor will be excluded from all of the health insurance plans qualified under ObamaCare. Unbelievably, under ObamaCare, Washington bureaucrats can dictate one uniform standard of health care that is designed to limit what private citizens are allowed to spend out of their own money to save their own lives.

But the Independent Payment Advisory Board isn't the only rationing provision in the ObamaCare or Affordable Healthcare Act. If only. ObamaCare also has a Cadillac tax for having too much health care coverage. Patients all across America need to know there is a provision of ObamaCare that punishes them and their employer if they provide coverage that is above the arbitrary limits imposed by the Federal Government. This is an additional 40-percent tax on individuals who need more expensive treatments and coverage oftentimes essential to battle life-threatening illnesses. Even worse, these ObamaCare limits were drafted in a way they will never be able to keep up with medical inflation. This means insurance companies will have to cut back even more on patient treatments and services or people will be forced to pay an incredibly higher tax.

What about those individuals who are already suffering from life- threatening illnesses who really need the care? This is why we should pass the legislation I am offering.

Do Americans know that there is a provision in ObamaCare that lets the Federal Government--not them and not their employer--decide if coverage is ``excessive or unjustified''? This isn't government- subsidized coverage in the exchanges, nor is it the federally funded Medicare and Medicaid coverage. This is their own and their employees' private money--their money. The Federal Government is given the authority to decide if the way it is being spent is excessive or unjustified, and they are going to do it through the provision of ObamaCare that allows the Obama administration to review premiums by pressuring private insurance companies to stop offering coverage or face adverse government consequences.

So far we have talked about the private coverage, but there are also similar provisions for seniors' coverage. It wasn't bad enough that the President diverted one-half trillion dollars from Medicare to pay for ObamaCare to begin with, he also granted the Department of Health and Human Services the authority to deny private market-offered coverage for services and treatments that could save your life. Before ObamaCare these private market programs such as the prescription drug program and Medicare Advantage could allow seniors to add their own money to purchase coverage they want and need beyond what the government will pay. ObamaCare allows Washington bureaucrats to deny that choice.

Folks, this isn't how we should be treating our seniors. It isn't how we should be treating people who need access to life-saving treatment and services. This isn't how we should be treating anybody.

That is why today I come to the floor to introduce the Repeal Rationing in Support of Life Act of 2014. My legislation repeals these provisions that allow the Federal Government to intercede on very personal decisions. It repeals the provisions that authorize rationing boards to deny patients the ability to access the care that may save their lives.

This legislation is relatively simple and should be supported by all of my colleagues to address some of the egregious changes from the Affordable Care Act that patients should be aware of but that many don't even know exist. This is down the road. We are trying to stay ahead of the curve. That is why I am introducing this legislation.

This legislation builds upon my Restoring Access to Medication Act. This bill repeals the provision of ObamaCare limiting a patient's right to purchase over-the-counter products with their own money. It is also a continuation of my efforts that I discussed when introducing the Four Rationers Repeal Act many times on this floor. It repeals the Independent Payment Advisory Board. It repeals the euphemistically but misleadingly named Innovation Center. It repeals the changes made to the Preventive Services Task Force and makes sure any comparative effectiveness research is used by the doctor and the patient, not coverage providers or CMS, to determine the best care for patients, not simply try to lower costs.

I really believe that in order to protect this all-important doctor- patient relationship we need to repeal and most importantly to replace ObamaCare with the real reforms that work for Kansans and all Americans. However, until we can accomplish full repeal we at least need to ensure we are protecting the life-saving care and treatment that Americans need by attacking the elements of ObamaCare that ration care, and passing the Repeal Rationing and Support of Life Act of 2014. I urge my colleagues to support this proposal and take the steps necessary to protect the lives of their constituents.